Tweet
It is not logical to think people will continue to occupy anything indefinitely— not a park or a factory or a school or a Wall Street office or a politician’s office.
Movements for social and economic justice need clear demands aimed at solving specific problems intended to improve the lives and living conditions of people.
This is what unites and brings people into struggle.
All successful movements for social change have used this simple formula; it is the only one that achieves results:
Education + Organization + Unity in action = Victory for the people
In other words you start out helping people to connect all the dots relating to their problems.
We have many people saying the strength of the OWS movement is that it is “leaderless” and “without specific demands.”
This creates confusion which is good for who? Obama, the Black Box?
So far what we are getting out of the OWS movement is that people are “fed up.” This is good that people vent their anger.
But, are people “fed up” with government, Wall Street or capitalism— or all three?
People are “fed up” because they are experiencing problems— very specific problems.
Unless people clearly articulate what they are “fed up” with anyone and everyone can claim they speak for OWS without having to solve the very specific problems of everyday living people are experiencing.
It is not like it is difficult to find out why people are “fed up.” Anyone can walk through a grocery store talking to people. Start up a conversation at the gas station. Engage people where they work or go to school.
In talking to people one quickly finds what the specific problems are.
It is only logical that people who are “fed up” should articulate their specific problems if they want these problems solved.
The problems can be articulated in a way that leads to people arriving at the conclusion there are specific solutions to their problems.
The specific problems and their specific solutions must be clearly articulated or people who are “fed up” are going to become more frustrated. Eventually they will come to the conclusion there is nothing they can do about their problems if struggles do not lead towards solutions to their problems.
If people become disillusioned in thinking it does no good to organize and come together, the result, if this happens, is that Wall Street remains in power and the problems just get worse.
Isn’t it our goal and objective to solve the problems people are experiencing in a way that the people have a chance to successfully challenge Wall Street for power?
That specific, concrete demands providing solutions to problems aren’t being adequately articulated by the OWS movement is not the movement’s strength it is a severe weakness. All movements need leadership. The more collective the leadership the better; but leadership none-the-less. After all, someone eventually has to sign a union contract or in some collective way agree that problems have been solved.
I question just how “leaderless” the OWS movement really is. George Lakoff and his Rockwood Institute advising these do-nothing Democrats have for a very long time articulated the position that only “progressive policy directives” are required and specific solutions to problems should be avoided at all costs. (See “Don’t Think of an Elephant!: Know Your Values and Frame the Debate–The Essential Guide for Progressives” by George Lakoff)
It appears to me that OWS has a leader— the wrong one; either by chance or by intent, it doesn’t matter how this has happened. We need to turn this situation around.
Amy Dean “let the cat out of the bag” in her recent essay which tries to guide people towards the “leadership” of the Rockwood Institute.
Republicans have their “fed ups” with the Tea Party— another movement that is “leaderless” and without specific demands by design.
The Democrats now want their “fed ups” as long as people don’t come articulating specif problems they want solved.
83 Comments
My foreman is fed up. He blames Liberals. Yesterday I suggested to him that he should blame the 1%.
I’m guessing that about 80% of the 99% are still blaming each other for their problems. OWS is turning on the light. Being a lefty my way of putting it is they are raising class consciousness.
To whom should OWS address their demands? The government is illegitimate. A tool of the 1%. I think OWS is on the right course and is already enjoying great success.
It’s time to bring the tribes together. WOS is calling for a Loya jirga.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loya_jirga
OWS. The lack of an edit key is punishment for original sin.
How legitimate the government is really doesn’t make any difference. It is the only government we have and specific demands relating to solving specific problems should be placed before this government.
Most people in this country understand we have the best government Wall Street can buy.
One of the tweets I read from OWS went something like this..
“What do we want? This is a country of 300million. We won’t know what we want till everyone else gets down here!”
I think perhaps, our old ways of viewing protests and demonstrations are being revised as this unfolds, just as the view of who is protesting and why is being revised for the PTB. Slow lot, TPTB..
It should have been obvious more than 40 years ago that what we need is not demands, but a 3rd Party. Ever since the demonstrators were clubbed by the Daley machine outside the 1968 Democratic Convention, it’s been out there for all to see. We don’t need demands. We do need a party with a platform which gives Americans the ability to walk into the polls and vote for the platform.
However we sure do need leadership as well and I don’t know how you get that, but maybe if we build the party it will come. Maybe we should just take over the Green Party.
I can’t think of anything more likely to change the Democratic Party than seeing millions of Americans abandoning it for a 3rd choice.
Until we take away our votes, it’s impossible to have anything but the gridlock we have now. And Americans despise the gridlock. It could be surprising how many people are willing to vote against both parties. Give them permission.
The idea of leadership and demands comes up in almost every conversation I have about OWS. I’ve heard many responses and those that resonate the most with me – after participating nearly every day in Occupy Oakland – are similar to that posted by walkinboots above. We are still getting to know each other. We’re creating a new society in which we are able to meet each other’s demands on a small scale first. We’re feeding and clothing and taking care of each other, one at a time. And in the process we are gaining strength and knowledge. In my opinion, the movement will be an abject failure if this amazing energy ends up being channeled back into the existing system.
While i usually agree with Alan i don’t think he and many others really comprehend what is happening around the world, this is Social Revolution writ large.
People are becoming aware that, All Power To The People, means that they can either take that power or delegate it to others. They have decided to take it and stand up to those who would deny them that basic Human Right.
We The People, means something again and no matter what others on the sidelines say they should do they appear to be resolute in their determination to hold onto that power.
We should only listen to democracy, and what it demands. Anything short of that is dictation.
“The basis for Jirga is the Holy Quran which commands Muslims to Shura (consultation). Jirga is referred to an assembly where tribal leaders and influential bodies gather to decide on issues of special importance concerning the community’s vital national, regional and international interests.” http://jirga.gov.af/en
Loya jirga is not democracy, it is the tribal elders and the rich deciding what the people will do.
Bravo! Well-said.
I’ve read Lakoff, and his observations and analysis of how corporatists have framed the political debates in this country, and how so-called liberals have acquiesced to this frame is spot on. Hell, they’ve acquiesced so much that they are now part of the problem.
However, I disagree with your premise that OWS needs specific leaders and specific demands right now. Now, the expression of frustration with vast inequality of wealth and the ownership of our government by just a few thousand people is enough. The leaders and the specific demands will come, in time.
OWS is an organic movement. By that, I mean it is growing and evolving on its own, and the fact that it does NOT have specific leaders and demands is a great strength in that those leaders and demands cannot be countered by our current PTB because they don’t exist. Even if the OWS movement retires to winter quarters in some parts of the country, it will be back in the spring. Nothing wrong with that. Something important, something transformational, is happening in America, the Middle East, Europe, and across the world.
I also disagree with your formula for “victory for the people.” It’s just not necessarily true. The French Revolution was as chaotic as any, with no clear leadership, and yet the ancien’ regime fell in a matter of months.
Revolutions are messy. It is their nature. You can’t put them or their causes in neat little academic and analytical boxes. OWS, right now, is messy.
Good.
” It is the only government we have and specific demands relating to solving specific problems should be placed before this government.”
Again, I must disagree with you. This government is completely dominated by corporate interests. It does no good to put demands relating to solving specific problems before it, because it does not care about anything other than those corporate interests.
This government will not listen unless it is scared to death, and then it will react by attempting to use force to preserve its interests. This government no longer serves the interests of We The People, and it needs to be, how shall I put this?, either transformed into something that works for We The People, or flat out replaced.
I am sorry, but that is the way it is.
Hear! Hear! This isn’t an organized movement so much as a social upheaval. Let’s keep in mind that the 99% includes virtually ALL of the people we’ve ever personally known and just because someone is a part of the lower 99% of earners doesn’t make them good or even decent. Organizations and alliances create groups of like minded individuals, this is more of a unity than an alliance. There is a whole different level of magnitude going on here than some random marchers or atroturf funded groups. This phenomenon isn’t something that can be led or controlled or co-opted. Nor should it be.
Totally and absolutely agree. This comment recd’
How about A Six Nations Council.
Thank you! Well-said, Margaret.
The Occupy movement do have a specific demand, Alan, and it could not be more clearly expressed than in the statement “We are the 99%.” This is the overwhelmingly important demand that the government be restored to that 99% rather than as now be in the hands of the 1%.
That’s the demand.
It is certainly effective, as is being done at the various Occupy sites, to target areas in which that discrepancy is most blatant, for marches, for demonstrations in a peacefully creative manner. And we see government blenching a bit, doling out a cookie here and there hoping thereby to cause cavities and ultimately defang the beast. Or they try intimidation, infiltration, cooption. None of these things are going to work.
It may very well be that the movement will hibernate somewhat over the winter but it is not going away. It will be back in the spring, and then it is a long, long time till November, the Big One. Lots is going to be happening, because that fundamental demand can’t be achieved until then.
By whatever means present themselves at that time, we purpose to take our democracy back. It could be that there are entirely new parties challenging the old ones; it could be any number of things. I don’t have a crystal ball.
But I do believe that this movement is here now to stay. People are now beyond cookies. The dysfunction of legislation determined by the 1%; jurisdiction determined by the 1%; executive decisions being made by the 1% – these things are now blatantly corrupt and have to change! This government as we currently see it stagnating in operative effectiveness is doing so because it caters to the 1% and has been run by them. The proof is in the pudding – it doesn’t work!
The demand is: give us back our government! And a multitude of things, truly almost uncountable, stem from that basic demand which all of the Occupies have in common.
This IS democracy. This is what we were born into and thought this country was. Rule by the 1% is obviously NOT democracy, no matter how many cookies they sprinkle in our direction.
Give us back our government, because sure, there will be a lot of messy situations when you do and those ultrafancy gourmet restaurants might have to welcome in some folk who forget to wipe their feet (heaven forbid!) but we’ll be able to make a new start in common friendship and fix our planet – what’s not to like?
The OWS movement may well go down in history as an abject failure, but only if something else that is more successful appears in the next few years. OTOH, it may be recorded as the beginning of the Second American Revolution.
Personally, I think it’s the latter. But it won’t happen overnight. It will take months, maybe years. If OWS IS successful, it will evolve into more than it is now. It’s trying to do that, and will, if just left alone to grow in its own way.
I’m 53. I think those kids are doing just fine. They have my full support.
Nice. Except no one in power now is going to GIVE us back our government. We have to TAKE it back.
It’s not pretty. It’s not neat. It’s not even necessarily peaceful.
But there it is is. It’s as real as it gets.
I’m of the opinion that it is up to the various political parties and political movements to appeal to OWS and have the General Assemblies nation wide gradually come to decide to support movements when they have earned such support.
There is a big fear of OWS being co-opted or corrupted by political parties which is understandable.
I say as long as they are scaring the hell out of the establishment they are doing a great job, outside political parties can focus on supporting and educating the movement and appealing to the movement and that is good enough for now.
You’re seeing what I’m seeing.
If OWS is going to be successful, at some point it has to change how people live and how business and government work. That means SPECIFIC changes.
Example:
Complaint = income inequality.
Demand = Greater income equality.
Okay, now what? How do we get that greater income equality? At some point the movement is going to have to articulate SPECIFIC solutions.
Does OWS want higher taxes on the rich and an Alternative Minimum Tax on corporations? If yes, how much higher and what’s the floor for the C-AMT?
Does the movement want an end to tax credits for off-shoring jobs?
Does the movement want the TBTF banks broken up? Okay, what should be the new limiting factors that determine which banks get broken up and how small the resulting stand-along entities should be?
Does the movement want Glass-Steagall reimposed?
Does the movement want a law to prevent Congressional staffers from going to work for lobbying companies and corporations for “X” number of years? If so, how many years?
As was seen in the French Revolution, anger can bring down a regime, indeed an entire system of government, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that a new system of good government will be an immediate result.
I am always amused by the people who say “OWS Can’t succeed unless …” because they simply can’t acknowledge that OWS has ALREADY succeeded in a variety of ways.
And then the others who say “Well if OWS doesn’t make concrete demands, which should include…” are just mad that OWS isn’t doing what THEY want OWS to do.
That’s really those people’s problems who hold those opinions – not OWS’s as they’ve been wildly more successful in generating an actual people movement compared to any of their detractors.
If you were to form a new political party, you would, if elected, be expected to present a slate of candidates and a legislative agenda. I mean, if you’re planning to serve in the Congress, you will achieve the perfect Zen state of Nothingness if you fail to lead and offer no detailed platform.
Organic movements, however, are not, at least not initially, political parties. OWS, specifically, is about building numbers, mostly very, very small numbers, and growing among its participants a back-to-our-roots democracy. Immerse yourself in the spirit of true citizenship and worry not, at least not today, of the details of implementing a new society. Today, the message is very clear: each citizen should have an equal voice. Bond with that rather than alienating one group or another based on the details you might provide. For now, know only one objective: equally shared power.
The question is not whether there should be leaders and demands. At some point, undoubtedly, there should be and will be. For movements in their infancy, however, this is clearly not the time for OWS to prepare its laundry list. Before “the whats” are defined, “the hows” of real grassroots democracy must be lived by all who participate. At its core, the most critical value for all to learn is equally shared power and a genuine respect for the ideal that each and every voice has a right to be heard. Let each grow as a single blade among all the grassroots to truly know, truly internalize, the ultimate mission. You can’t do that with hierarchical structures and you can’t do that with laundry lists.
At this phase, the process is the ends. To ask, “what, exactly, will you do to fix the health care system or end the war or restructure debt or restructure the mass media or restructure the Federal Reserve or end militarism or empower workers or anything else fails to understand patience, timing and movement building.
Yes, specificity will one day be necessary. Yes, bringing the most articulate or the most powerful to the forefront to speak for the movement or lead the way will one day be useful. The short-term strategic goals, however, are very, very different than most of us have been conditioned to expect. The near-term targets are more “experiential” (internal) than solutions-based (external).
That’s the best I can explain it to those struggling with the current state of OWS.
Occupy Oakland’s General Assembly voted within the first few days not to support any political party and I think it will be a very cold day in hell before we are willing to be educated by or appealed to by any political party. We are wary of their support (whatever form that might take) and, as you mentioned, not interested in being co-opted by any outside groups. My personal feeling is that the governing authority we might respect or make demands of doesn’t even exist yet.
I am imagining the OWS movement will create, nurture, and grow the political system that works best with more and more people identifying, joining, and participating with it until the 1% remains alone and isolated behind the walls of its gated communities.
We cannot and should not return to what we had because it was selfish, short-sighted, and unsustainable. We need to embrace and practice the Golden Rule in our daily lives and live in peace and harmony with Gaia, our mother.
To get there from here requires teaching by example. It is long past time to move beyond nailing a list of whereases and wherefores on the community door.
Attract the 99% to join the revolution rather than taking the revolution to them.
Build it and they will come. Look and you will see that they already are.
If you look at the Occupy Oakland protests thousands of people turned out bringing with them their problems stated on the signs they were carrying.
People aren’t interested in shaping some new kind of democracy in isolation to their problems.
People want a say in the decision-making process so their problems get solved. People are fed up with politicians who won’t respond to their problems in a way that solves their problems.
If OWS continues to ignore the specific problems people are having people will get fed up with OWS, too.
We are beginning to see some discussions about occupying homes being foreclosed on and some discussions about occupying plants slated to close in order to try to save jobs. This is the general direction OWS will have to move in order to keep the movement growing.
We also saw how OWS made a list of demands an on that list was the demand to solve the health care mess— but, what did this demand for health care reform consist of? It called for a “financial means test” to determine eligibility for access to health care.
To suggest that it may take years for OWS to articulate demands relating to solving the problems people are experiencing smacks of the same kind of thing we hear from Obama and the Democrats so why not give Obama a chance to see what he can do with another 4 years?
If the main thing people were interested in is making friends and helping people one person at a time while a new kind of democracy is being talked about then the signs people were carrying in Oakland would have reflected this.
Lots of signs said people want jobs; many others conveyed the idea that people want real health care reform. Other signs took note of rising gas and food prices while other signs called for a moratorium on home foreclosures. Lots of signs called for defending public education from cuts. All kinds of signs called for peace, not wars.
What people are saying when they turn out in the thousands everyplace is that the majority wants peace and social justice and in a democracy this is what people should get.
I can guarantee that most of the 99% are not going to participate in long-winded discussions about “democracy” when they are without jobs, hungry and homeless.
Eradicating poverty is the most democratic demand of all.
It is the struggles of the people trying to solve their problems in the process of creating a better world to live in with improved living standards and a healthy and safe environment at work and in their communities that defends and expands democracy not the other way around.
I’ve no problem with the lack of leader and the lack of specific demands.
Leaders are corruptible and/or lackluster, with very few exceptions. Are we going to have leaders like Grayson, Kucinich, Dean, and Sanders, who talk a good talk, but end up supporting various forms of corporate welfare at the end of the day? Or perhaps a drab third party candidate that very few people seem to care about? (to clarify, I *always* vote third party and encourage others to do so, they just seem to be the type of people that very few people can get behind). Maybe someone like Julian Assange that the powers that be can find some reason to put in jail?
If there were a suitable leader, I think they would have already manifested themselves within the movement, and made sufficient “good noise” that a publication like FDL would take note of.
Next, the lack of specific demands.
I have two problems with this. First, people will inevitably disagree with the finer points, and this creates a lack of cohesion.
I think there are indeed a handful of unofficial demands, including campaign finance reform (as a big supporter of single payer healthcare, I think campaign finance reform would go a very long way to bring single payer to a real political forum in the USA, so I think a lot of “plenary” issues would be resolved through the unofficial demands). But I think it’s a better marketing strategy to use the 1% vs. the 99% line, among the other communications they utilize. Sure, the conservatives have asinine arguments against it, but the reality is that just about everyone can get behind this concept.
Second; let’s say we do make some very specific demands. Like the demand for a public health plan, for instance. Some politicians will likely get together, try to revive the public option, fail, but expand medicaid to 100,000 additional people. Then you have a bunch of paid and/or brainwashed shills parroting asinine talking point “like you got *something*, we didn’t get everything we want”, “don’t let perfect be the enemy of the good”, “half a loaf of bread is better than none”, “my (relative/loved one) finally has insurance for the first time in their life, talking against this expanded medicaid somehow means you’re against my (relative/loved one)’s well-being”, etc. etc. etc. etc. Astroturf campaigns like this seem overly simplistic and cliched, but they can go a long way to deflate a movement and reverse public favor. By having no specific demands, they’ve inoculated themselves against this potential big problem.
There are very likely ways to make OWS better. But for the reasons I mentioned above, I do not believe a leader or specific demands are the answer — UNLESS:
a) an outstanding leader manifests.
b) (unless) you count the unofficial demands like fair tax revenue from the rich, and campaign finance reform to be “demands”.
My personal viewpoint – and I think a lot of my comrades agree with me – is that the current system is simply never going to be willing or able to meet my demands, whether they are local and tangible like stopping foreclosures or whether they are global and philosophical like peace. I have no expectation that in the short term we will force the oligarchy to do much of anything at all other than continue to swat us as if we were flies. But what we can do is start commandeering the resources of our community in such numbers that they give up trying to stop us. Occupy Oakland rallied tens of thousands of people to come march on the port with less than a week’s notice. I bet many of those people would be willing to, for instance, stand in solidarity with a homeowner about to be foreclosed on and keep the sheriff at bay. Or assist the homeless with reclaiming abandoned and foreclosed buildings. Or continue to donate food in such numbers that we have to give it away to other organizations. I think the plan at the moment is for us to try to meet our own demands.
Sweet and right on, altho I HATE to give Maki any added comments. I did this only cuz I like your thots.
Maki not so much, he’s looking to be ‘important’ regardless of the issue at hand IMHO.
Yeah, word.
In general, Maki sucks and I don’t mind sayin so, on HIS thread.
Ya keep on makin sense and I keep on sayin so.
*G*
Thank you for your concern.
Some people will be blind and clueless as they want to be.For many years some of my associates were like the repubs”Act Dumb” was their favorite motto, and when ever they don’t want to answer or understand anything, the old phrase comes out again .Gee, I don’t understand,
I’m in agreement with a sentiment expressed here several days ago that a “leader” for OWS at this point would just be a target. He/she would be someone for the media to pick apart and discredit, someone for the right to assassinate. Let the movement stay formless and headless for now, give it time to coalesce into what it needs to be.
This movement may be the only thing between us and annihilation. Absent a major game change, we are careening blindly toward the war that could end us all. I would like OWS to be that game change, but we must not funnel it into an already-familiar form.
I never said anything about “a leader.” In fact I mention “collective leadership.”
Leadership involves much more than some specific person. Leadership implies having an ideology that understands that bringing forward specific demands aimed at solving the specific problems of the people through universal social programs is the way to go.
In fact, “leadership” is being provided to the OWS movement or we wouldn’t be hearing this talk about how the movement should remain “leaderless” without specific demands. This is leadership through ideological saturation; a “leadership” I believe is wrong-headed intended to serve the goals and objectives of Barack Obama and the Democrats.
The criticism of Obama is that he hasn’t acted to solve the problems of the people in a timely manner. Obama and the Democrats demagogically claim they need more time.
Now we are hearing the exact same thing from the “leaderless?” OWS movement that it will take, perhaps years!, to develop specific goals and objectives which include bringing forward solutions to our common problems as we (the 99%) are all pushed into poverty.
It isn’t rocket science to determine what our common problems are and their solutions. Go into any supermarket in a working class community and most anyone can itemize the problems and provide a shopping list of the solutions.
Here it is. This isn’t something I thought up in a dream. This comes from years of discussing with people what kind of problems they have and what they think the solutions are. Anyone can print off this program and take it to church, to work, to school, shopping to ask people what they think about it. Here is an idea… maybe listen to the people for the “leadership” the OWS movement requires… what a novel idea when it comes to considering how democracy is supposed to work!
A program for real change…
* Peace— end the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya and shutdown the 800 U.S. military bases on foreign soil.
* A National Public Health Care System – ten million new jobs.
* A National Public Child Care System – three to five million new jobs.
* Works Progress Administration – three million new jobs.
* Civilian Conservation Corps – two million new jobs.
* Tax the hell out of the rich and cut the military budget by ending the wars to pay for it all which will create full employment.
* Enforce Affirmative Action; end discrimination.
* Raise the minimum wage to a real living wage
* What tax-payers subsidize in the way of businesses, tax-payers should own and reap the profits from.
* Moratorium on home foreclosures and evictions.
* Defend democracy by defending workers’ rights including the right to collective bargaining for improving the lives and livelihoods of working people.
* Roll-back and freeze the price of food, electricity, gas and heating fuels; not wages, benefits or pensions.
* Defend and expand Social Security.
* Wall Street is our enemy
How is Barack Obama’s Wall Street war economy working for you?
Let’s talk about the politics and economics of livelihood for a real change.
Larue, that is inappropriate. I don’t agree with Maki, but he/she has a right to express an opinion and point of view and not be attacked by you or anyone else. If you don’t agree with the POV, then disagree without at hominem attacks on the poster.
We’ve butted our virtual heads in the past, Kelly, but I completely agree with you on this one. Well-said, dude.
Ah, the list. In response I refer you to Kelly Canfield’s comment above.
Little Doggie, that was brilliant.
And I still say you’re looking at it all wrong and indeed you sound like you’re selling something. We don’t need yet another “organization” that soon devolves into existing purely for fund raising purposes. We don’t need another fucking HRC or NARAL, both of which started out with noble, lofty goals but now only exist to service themselves. I don’t want to have to move fund raising emails from #OWS into my spam folder.
What you’re advocating isn’t even possible since this is a social movement. The 99% of lower income earners include virtually everybody you’ve ever known, including every office jerk you couldn’t get away from, every nosy neighbor, every drunk relative, every bible thumping, home schooling fundie, every crappy boss, every obnoxious road rage filled driver…..etc that’s ever touched your life. When you “organize” 99% of the population, we have words for that: “Society” and the leadership would be called “government”. This is a diverse, social movement, not some group of like minded people that you can shepherd.
Also see Welsh Terrier’s reply above, Alan. It’s spot on and better explains my view than I can myself.
Look, you’ve obviously been politically active for a long time. You see all of these specifics that need to be done. You feel them in your gut. I feel ya, man; I’m the same way. I do understand where you are coming from.
But most of these people at OWS are not like you or me, or Welsh Terrier and Kelly Canfield, for that matter. This process of experiencing that all of them together actually have a bit of real power, that all of them can equally participate in this process, is new to them.
They will eventually feel the need for specific changes at a deep spiritual and emotional level, in their gut, as I crudely put it. But they have to get there on their own. People like you and I need to encourage and support them, but any attempt to lead them, right now, would just channel all that energy into the existing system, as Hotflashcarol said above.
And that would be disastrous. Let them grow and evolve on their own. You’re Native American, nest ce pas? You certainly should understand the strength of patience.
yeah Jirga is nothing more than the Politburo of Lenin/Stalin/ObamaNationInc(think SuperCmmt)
Alan is right on the money! Its the Economy ~ Duh. Exactly what Alan is addressing.
* Peace— end the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya and shutdown the 800 U.S. military bases on foreign soil.
* A National Public Health Care System – ten million new jobs.
* A National Public Child Care System – three to five million new jobs.
* Works Progress Administration – three million new jobs.
* Civilian Conservation Corps – two million new jobs.
* Tax the hell out of the rich and cut the military budget by ending the wars to pay for it all which will create full employment.
* Enforce Affirmative Action; end discrimination.
* Raise the minimum wage to a real living wage
* What tax-payers subsidize in the way of businesses, tax-payers should own and reap the profits from.
* Moratorium on home foreclosures and evictions.
* Defend democracy by defending workers’ rights including the right to collective bargaining for improving the lives and livelihoods of working people.
* Roll-back and freeze the price of food, electricity, gas and heating fuels; not wages, benefits or pensions.
* Defend and expand Social Security.
* Wall Street is our enemy
here is Alan’s list of specifics that i too endorse.
Good points, hotflashcarol. The OWS movement is not “making demands” on the current system, which is not working for the majority of Americans (well, of inhabitants of the planet – and the planet herself).
The OWS Occupiers are becoming a new system. Inclusive, sustainable, revolutionary, non-violent.
Think of us Occupiers as taking over where the historical Jesus left off.
Yo Beach, good list and net demands; let me add Alan Maki’s which i posted above but pertinent here as well… somehow they did’t make the article.
* Peace— end the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya and shutdown the 800 U.S. military bases on foreign soil.
* A National Public Health Care System – ten million new jobs.
* A National Public Child Care System – three to five million new jobs.
* Works Progress Administration – three million new jobs.
* Civilian Conservation Corps – two million new jobs.
* Tax the hell out of the rich and cut the military budget by ending the wars to pay for it all which will create full employment.
* Enforce Affirmative Action; end discrimination.
* Raise the minimum wage to a real living wage
* What tax-payers subsidize in the way of businesses, tax-payers should own and reap the profits from.
* Moratorium on home foreclosures and evictions.
* Defend democracy by defending workers’ rights including the right to collective bargaining for improving the lives and livelihoods of working people.
* Roll-back and freeze the price of food, electricity, gas and heating fuels; not wages, benefits or pensions.
* Defend and expand Social Security.
* Wall Street is our enemy
your list plus this list are good starting points for where to go from here.
Yes, msmolly. Maki’s post has generated a most interesting discussion.
I second OhioGringo.
Agree 99%–no, make that 100%. I’m an oldster, and perhaps don’t understand what they are doing . . . but it appears to be working better than anything we ever did. VietNam and Civil Rights movements were, at the time, single issues. Today we have multiple issues–corporate/government greed and corruption, housing foreclosure, MERS/robosigning, bankruptcy, lack of jobs, outsourcing, uninsured healthcare issues, declining (teaching only to the test) education, unequal justice, student loan debacle, lack of accountability (think BP and its captured regulators) . . . and on and on and on. Which–and/or how many issues need to be addressed? ALL OF THEM!
First of all I am not Native American; I don’t know where that comes from nor do I know what race or nationality has to do with this except perhaps we should be discussing why most of the OWS activists appear to be white when those of the 99% suffering the worst from this economic crisis are people of color— check out the disparities in unemployment rates.
Does anyone see me suggesting the formation of another foundation-funded outfit stuffing envelopes seeking financial contributions as major activity? If I said anything like this please point it out.
What is being ignored here in favor of creating “strawmen” that are easy to knock down is that Barack Obama and the Democrats advised by George Lakoff and his foundation-funded Rockwood Institute along with all of these “progressives for Obama” push THE EXACT SAME LINE that it “takes time to solve problems” as their excuse not to solve the problems working people are experiencing.
I don’t buy the argument that the leaders (oh, I forgot there are no leaders) of the Occupy Wall Street movement don’t understand or comprehend the very difficult problems of everyday living most working people are experiencing.
In fact, the New York Occupy movement did articulate some specific demands but there are serious problems with most of these demands beginning with their call for a health care reform that requires a “financial means test” to obtain health care. Not only is this not progressive it is downright reactionary mimicking what the Democrats are pushing and further dividing the struggle for real health care reform be it single-payer or some kind of national public health care.
I noticed a young mother with two small children beside her carrying a sign that said “child care not warfare” at the Occupy Oakland march and rally. Believe me; ask any young family about the need for a public child care system and you will get an earful— and the Occupy Wall Street movement can’t hear this call for a very needed reform?
I understand completely that the 99% entails more than the working class. But, does this mean that the working class majority suffering the most shouldn’t be heard from? Where is there any semblance of “democracy” in trying to mute the voices of the working class?
While conveniently claiming the OWS movement has no ideology, the movement does have an ideology, a world view, that is being expressed here. And it is an ideology trying to push away, and silence, other ideologies. Trying to silence others while establishing the hegemony of one’s ideology is not very democratic in my opinion.
We are living in very troubled and turbulent times. And it is during times like these when everything should be placed on the table for dialog, discussion and debate.
I welcome the discussion taking place here including the criticism of the revolutionary working class Marxist views, which I call the politics and economics of livelihood, I am bringing forward.
But, please, don’t put ideas in my mouth that I never said. Other than that, fire away.
And, I should add, Gandhi and ML King. And what do these leaders have in common (besides advocating non-violence)?
Third.
“We don’t need yet another “organization” that soon devolves into existing purely for fund raising purposes.”
AMEN! writ large!
Maki, just respectfully pointing out that you state you have a problem with OWS not making specific demands, goals, whatever, then, you bring up the list of demands articulated by the New York OWS, and start picking them apart.
Disagreeing with demands and goals is not a problem, but with a movement that is, what , 7 weeks old, we can all use up ridiculous amounts of energy arguing over fine points.
What OWS is engaged in now (and I speak for only my own take on the movement) is a takeover of the narrative which, to this point, has been driven by the 1% and its minions.
The “meme” to now: public service employees are overpaid and underworked;
“entitlements” are the cause of the nation’s and the states’ budget problems; poor people are lazy and shiftless; the unemployed could find jobs if they just got off their butts; government is the cause of all our problems; investment banking is a noble calling; employee unions are evil.
Commenters could add to this list.
OWS, in 7 weeks has been wildly successful in redirecting the meme. To get bogged down now is niggling squabbles over the fine points of policy is counterproductive. Maybe later, down the road. Who knows.
Very well stated, Margaret.
Glad that you welcome the discussion, Mr. Maki, because it has raised some valid objections to your thesis. Also with respect I must say that the phrase “revolutionary working class Marxist views” (and I have respectfully read Marx also) does sound a tad oldfashioned.
We discussed on other threads the problems of leadership for a movement such as this, having in mind charismatic Marxist leaders of the past and the fates which befell them and those who followed them. One of the OWS philosopher speakers (sorry, I forget his name) gave a convincing argument on his opinion that a leadership driven Marxist style revolution such as the Russian one leads inevitably to a Stalin regime – as inevitably as fascism leads to Mussolini and Hitler, (though he thought the latter was an easier condition to correct.)
So, leadership in the terms you frame could be a huge problem for a movement which so far has successfully attracted all those people with signs you wrongly consider to be ignored by the group at large.
There is, however, a kind of leadership already in operation, and that is the leadership of the original OWS in setting the parameters of a successful operation. And those leaders being the primary movers are all the people who have been in New York doing what they do. And then, in each of the other Occupies, those too, becoming leaders.
They are all leaders.
Well said. This post reminds me of the msnbc piece I read yesterday regarding move your money day. The author stated that the people moving their money were “unlikely to experience a larger return for their money, (than they would have experienced had they left their money in the big banks), and an embedded snap poll asked people if they were moving their money “to protest higher bank fees”. The author of the msnbc piece and the poll showed how out of touch and clueless the traditional media are about what’s going on here. The OWS has already shown a spotlight on the PTB driven narrative that’s been passing for conversation in this country. It’s already succeeded in taking the conversation back.
OWS does have those drums beating hour after hour – it is about time ALL the tribes heard them.
I totally agree that taking back the narrative is the very most important thing the movement is doing now. The 99% message is much more valuable than the Occupy message. I worry that the tactics of occupying can put the larger message at risk. This has been a problem for most movements on the left, i.e., focusing too much on process and too little on delivering an undertandable ideological message. I hope the movement will learn to disguard tactics when they have served their purpose while figuring out new ways to deliver the message. If you can sell a broad message that resonates with Americans, the agenda will flow from the message.
Financial Transactions tax – the EU wants one, Obama wanted one – but Larry Summers screamed, and brave Obama ran away and hid, and the EU can’t do it alone.
That would be a major fix to the current system if in two parts, on posting a buy or sell, and then again on executing a buy or sell – and would produced that $4 trillion over 10 years.
Agree. Doing things the establishment way is what got us into this mess.
When it comes to specific demands there should something like a supermajority requirement so that any demands that don’t enjoy overwhelming support from the people on the ground aren’t added regardless how worthy they might be. This will keep the list short and to the point and keep any list arrived at by that consensus process from becoming a wedge to splinter the group cohesion. A few things we can more or less all agree on should be enough for now.
Demandless, we stand, write out a list you can choke us with, we fall.
It’s playing out right here on this thread, Alan. That’s why platform specificity is devolutionary and harmful.
It’s not about demands or political platforms. It’s pointing out us, versus them– just exactly who the American people’s true adversaries are. Cui bono, eh? That’s all.
Well, both worked to destroy, not reform, the systems that oppressed their peoples, and they both succeeded.
They also both succeeded because of the threat of force if their opponents did not yield peacefully. While neither Gandhi nor King ever espoused any kind of violence, the threat was always there, just behind them. In Gandhi’s case, violent insurrection. In King’s the fact that LBJ was willing to send in the Army.
Many people forget those inconvenient truths. Yet they were really there.
Guess your posts on reservation casinos gave me the wrong impression. Sorry, though my Micimac gene says there’s nothing to be sorry for.
As for revolutionary working class views, dude, I’m a socialist. I agree with you!
It’s just I think this new social movement must evolve on its own in order to be successful. If it does, I think the OWS folks will realize, on their own, that the entire system must be radically transformed at least and completely replaced at most. When they start asking “Transformed into what?” or “Replaced by what?” then people like you and me can go talk to them and actually get a receptive audience.
But they’re not there yet. They may not get there until the current regime actually collapses. For most of them, all they know is that they have played by the rules that promised them success if they did so, and now have no hope for obtaining that success. They also know that the inequality of wealth promulgated by Wall Street has something to do with that, and see that the government is controlled by those same interests.
This is an awakening. Logic and specific positions are not enough. You must have faith that the universe will unfold in the way that it was intended.
Yeah, I know. That’s from Star Trek. So what? I think Spock had it right.
If only this were true, greenbell:
“If you can sell a broad message that resonates with Americans, the agenda will flow from the message.”
I think Obama has proven this false.
Juliana; you might want to research a little further to see who the actual “leaders” are.
As for my Marxist outlook being “old fashioned” I would disagree since Marxism still provides the best critique of capitalism.
As to the many other comments insinuating and outrightly stating that I don’t recognize or appreciate— or even resent— the success of the OWS movement; again this is putting words in my mouth which I never said.
I recognize and appreciate what this movement has accomplished. But, that doesn’t mean I’m going to withhold my opinions.
It is about solving the problems working people are experiencing, letsbegin.
And it is not so clear everyone sees this in terms of “us vs them.”
Part of any movement are the ideological struggles over direction.
It can’t be claimed there is a majority position if everything hasn’t been placed on the table for everyone to consider.
We saw the disaster of the “New Left” in the 1960′s and 1970′s when we heard similar statements about leave these kids alone and they will find their own way; a pitch that included never-ending attacks on the “Old Left” which led the struggles bringing us the New Deal, led the struggle for unionization, led the fight against fascism and fought toe-to-toe with Joe McCarthy and while battered and bruised was heavily involved in the Civil Rights movement and initiated the struggle to end the war in Vietnam. Then helped mobilize to fight Ronald Reagan.
I don’t think any movement is going to “choke” on the list I presented. Like I stated previously; anyone can look at the signs being carried by those thousands who marched in Oakland and see the exact same demands. The OWS movement can reject such working class demands at its own peril.
We see where all the leaders of the “New Left” are today— standing with Obama.
I notice no one commented on what I wrote about “taking time” plays into Obama’s hands.
I just don’t believe people who are suffering a crisis of everyday living or just squeaking by paycheck to paycheck will buy into this line that their problems are going to have to wait until the leaders of OWS decide what kind of solutions to their problems are going to be brought forward.
And quite frankly, I think these people will be pushing OWS to come up with the kind of list some of you are worried about “choking on.”
Let’s not fudge here about the Old Left. You are referencing the Communist Party USA. This the party that was embedded in the trade union leadership, attacked the radical stance of the New Left, and while playing an honorable role in peace and “ban the bomb” activities, was actually a johnny-come-lately to the opposition to the War in Vietnam because they had to wait for the union leadership — which was gung-ho for that war — in the late 60′s.
And it was this Old Left that led the stampede into the Democratic Party after 1970. You say “We see where all the leaders of the ‘New Left’ are today— standing with Obama.” And the most devout among the Obamacrats are the surviving relics of the Old Left which long ago abandoned the heroic tradition you so movingly reference.
As for:
Remember last year, when extending tax breaks for the rich was rammed down people’s throats because it was packaged along with unemployment extensions? Oh, the poor need help right now! Well, it turns out that those expedient extensions cut federal revenue so that the current phony fiscal crisis would be so much more extreme, bringing on cuts much more drastic than anything we faced last year.
Every liberal sellout knows how to couch their sellout in the language of compassion for the poor and needy. I would think it perhaps a sleazy argument for me to point out one point of agreement you have with the Obamacrats to tar your feathers. But when you say something like:
I find it hard to resist.
Jeff Roby.
Obviously you don’t know much about history when it comes to the struggles to end the war in Vietnam.
Let me give you a brief history lesson.
First of all, anyone who wants to check historical facts can easily find that the Communist Party U.S.A. was fully and completely involved in the struggle to end imperialist aggression against Vietnam long before U.S. “advisers” and troops entered the war— including support for the Vietnanmese who heroically defeated the French.
It was the CPUSA together with groups like the American Friends Service Committee and a few other peace organizations who began pickets and vigils as U.S. advisers” were sent into Vietnam.
The Fort Hood Three, all Communist Party USA members, were among the very first to refuse to fight in Vietnam.
When I was drafted General Hershey and the United States Attorney General said that I would be the first American to be charged with “treason” when I took the step forward and stated, “Give me a gun; I will shoot at the generals from one direction while my Vietnamese friends shoot at them from the other direction.”
When it comes to the struggles for peace, I would never suggest anyone or any organization as a “Johnny come lately” because this demonstrates complete disrespect for the victims of these dirty imperialist wars and the American people who pay for these wars in so many dreadful ways.
You may find making your comments “hard to resist.” I did resist when it counted and so did the CPUSA. Too bad you weren’t around as Gus Hall was speaking before thousands of people demonstrating in Washington D.C.to impeach Richard Nixon as the police and National Guard launched an assault firing tear gas canisters and clubbing people as they tried to listen to what Gus Hall had to say about peace and re-ordering this country’s priorities.
You don’t understand history and you definitely don’t understand that liberals our are good friends, not our enemies.
From what you write it is apparent you don’t know the difference between a “liberal” and a “neo-liberal.”
The “Old Left” never “led any stampede into the Democratic Party.” Again a complete falsehood on your part.
Our position towards the Democratic Party has been long-standing— in spite of some present problems— that we support the Democrats when they do what is right, we oppose them when they are wrong and we work inside the Democratic Party in order to try to push forward solutions to people’s problems as we work towards breaking free from the two-party trap by re-establishing a third party working class alternative along the lines of the very successful old socialist Minnesota Farmer-Labor Party whose success was the result of building the People’s Front.
Mr. Roby; you might want to find out why the Communist Party U.S.A. has been the primary target of the most vicious governmental repression before your fingers hit the keyboard again on this topic of which you have proven you know absolutely nothing. Have you never heard of Hubert Humphrey’s “Communist Control Act” nor read the many United States Supreme Court decisions relating to Communists who had to defend their beliefs while working as teachers and professors, auto workers and miners, activists in the NAACP and the Civil Rights Movement. Do you really have no understanding of “why” the entire United States government working in league with Wall Street and the corporate bosses mounted the most massive anti-communist campaign to destroy the Communist Party U.S.A. and the toll this took on the lives of living, breathing human beings?
Yes, we are very weak in numbers, Mr. Roby, after the massive campaign of governmental/Wall Street repression but I can assure you that in just about every single OWS movement across the country you will find Communists fully involved just like we were with the movement to end the war in Vietnam.
By the way, you might want to check out who has been so immersed in organizing the great industrial unions, too, while you are studying history.
And, you might want to check out the history of who led the People’s Front that pushed Franklin Roosevelt to sign the new deal legislation including Social Security.
I hear a lot of people calling for “General Strikes;” you might want to check out who led the General Strikes of the past in places like Oakland and Minneapolis. Does CPUSA ring a bell? Ever heard of Harry Bridges? Wyndham Mortimer? Phil Raymond? Nadia Barkan? How about Frank Marshall Davis? Or James W. Ford? Or William Z. Foster. Or Elizabeth Gurley Flynn?
The entire “leadership” of what was the “New Left” is now backing Barack Obama— yes, with the involvement, unfortunately, of a very few Communists who have lost their way… kind of like you.
I made this as a comment on another FDL post made about a conference Al Gore spoke at and I thought I would post it as part of this discussion, too. I have slightly edited it here.
I agree; Al Gore should run to Primary Obama. Gore’s biggest mistake was not fighting for his right, that he legitimately won, to be president.
But, this should not be held against him since the leadership of the Democratic Party was never solidly behind him— nor were the American people sufficiently prepared to fight to put him in the office he won which Bush stole out from under him.
I think if Gore were to run again the American people, learning from the past and the Bush disaster, would be prepared to take the appropriate action to make sure he would be seated.
I would participate in a movement to draft Al Gore to run in the Democratic Party Primary challenging Obama. But, would Gore be able to muster more fight than he had before when it was needed and would the American people be willing to fight to get rid of Obama?
In the meantime, we have a good solid progressive candidate in Jill Stein to get behind. She might not be as popular and well-known as Al Gore; but, if the Occupy Wall Street movement were to get behind her this particular “short-coming” of “name recognition” would change over-nite.
The problem with this is, are people willing to push this particular discussion into the public square and have the debate?
Or, will people be bullied into silence by the “leaders” of this “leaderless” OWS movement who insist that OWS wants no part of electoral politics because “this is working with-in the system” which is a real cop-out at such a crucial period in our history?
Is the call for no participation by OWS under the guise of not wanting any part of the system really working to benefit Wall Street’s interest?
Liberals like Al Gore and Bill Moyers should be welcomed, not scorned by people seeking change.
Shouldn’t we be looking at “occupying” the presidency with a president worthy of the support of the American people?
And shouldn’t we be looking to “occupy” the United States Congress with real people’s politicians who will stand up and fight for an end to these dirty imperialist wars; which would, in terms Wall Street can understand, provide the American people with a huge “peace dividend” that could be “invested” in solving our many problems through the creation of universal social programs like a National Public Health Care System and a National Public Child Care System which combined would create some 15-million new jobs?
So you jump from your CPUSA doing some anti-war work in the early days of the war, to Gus Hall wanting to impeach Nixon, and leave out the CP’s broad dislike and frequent denunciations of the New Left in between. And I was there.
What I couldn’t resist was pointing out your exploiting the poor to push your party line (“Leon Trotsky was a Nazi, yes I know it for a fact,” and no I’m not and never was a Trot), just like liberals, neo-liberals, pseudo-liberals and quasi-liberals have done, while making the statement:
As dishonest a piece of rhetoric as I’ve seen in a while. What with your glossing over how the CP has been a loyal adjunct of the Democrats.
p.s. William Z. Foster has long been a hero of mine. So you’re still a CP member? Wow! And I’m not red-baiting, I’m liberal-baiting.
jeffroby; you are both liberal-baiting and red-baiting. I have glossed over nothing.
Your definition of “denunciation” leaves much to be desired. We worked side-by-side with the New Left in many organizations, including SDS, which I received a paycheck from, while stating our differences of opinion in a very open and honest manner as what is expected from democratic movements.
As usual, you like to distract from the initial post.
As far as “like” or “dislike” of the New Left this has nothing to do with anything other than you are pointing out that while there are movements developing there is going to be some sharp ideological struggle— as is the case with OWS; so it was with the movements against the Vietnam war.
Have you checked out the list of those supporting the “Progressives for Obama/Progressives Rising (still supporting Obama in spite of the name change);” the list reads like a Who’s Who of the New Left and as if the old New Left wasn’t bad enough they are now projecting a concept of building a “new New Left.”
As for the Trotskyites; it is sufficient to point out that during the period you apparently are referencing, most of the Trotskyite sects joined with Norman Thomas in seeking an alliance with the America Firsters; and, yes, this bunch of fascists including those like Charles Lindbergh, supported Hitler.
It’s a great convenience to be able to red-bait and liberal-bait in the same breath.
And …
I was referencing the CP’s long history of dogmatism, especially following it’s capitulation to Roosevelt. Sufficient? Not even remotely relevant!
How about drafting Adlai Stevenson?
I was content to merely be a lurker on this discussion as I felt that your insistence that OWS make specific demands had been clearly answered by other commenters.
However, your latest reply, calling upon OWS to enlist Al Gore for President is a step too far and I need to respond.
I’m not going to argue with you about the 2000 President having been “stole from under him” by Bush. On that point we agree. However, to attempt to portray Al Gore as the great progressive hope of our nation is to willfully ignore his actual politics and positions.
I could make this brief and simply answer using only four words: “Vice President Joe Liberman.” But let’s look at Gore’s positions in greater detail by examining his own words.
“…there is no doubt in my mind that Saddam Hussein still seeks to amass weapons of mass destruction. You know as well as I do that as long as Saddam Hussein stays in power there can be no comprehensive peace for the people of Israel or the people of the Middle East. We have made it clear that it is our policy to see Saddam Hussein gone.”
That was candidate Al Gore in a speech to AIPAC on May 23, 2000. How does that mesh with your call for “Peace — end the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya and shutdown the 800 U.S. military bases on foreign soil.”
Here’s candidate Gore on the subject of Iran from the same speech:
“Iran is not only a conventional threat to our national interests, the security of Israel, and the stability of the region; it also stands at the crossroads where the classic and new security agendas meet, for it is still a major sponsor of terrorism and seeker of weapons of mass destruction. That is a deadly and unacceptable combination.”
This saber rattling against Iraq and Iran, that Gore was proudly selling to AIPAC in 2000, has led to the state of endless wars that the U.S. has embraced since 9/11/01. Can you honestly argue that Gore will put an end to the GWOT and shut down our military bases?
Then there’s Gore history as Vice President under Clinton – the administration that ushered in NAFTA and kicked millions off the welfare rolls. Candidate Gore did indeed support raising the minimum wage – by $1.00 an hour! Is that your definition of a “living wage”?
But, you’ll surely argue, Al Gore is an environmental hero – the intellectual and scientist who introduced the world to the serious problem of global warming. Well, I would argue that Rachel Carson was warning us about serious environmental issues in her 1962 book “The Silent Spring” well before Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” won an Academy Award. But that’s beside the point. Until recently, Gore was a passionate advocate for nuclear power and even now he considers their costs the most pressing issue against their expansion. There is also considerable controversy over his push for “carbon credits” and their potential to make the rich even richer by selling the very real problem of global warming as a commodity. “Wall Street is our enemy” you say, do you believe that Gore would take that position when he has traded in on his respected voice in the global warming debate as a means to sell a new form of stock in the form of carbon trading?
No Mr. Maki, I don’t embrace Al Gore to become the face of the Occupy Wall Street movement. That you do is telling. And what it tells me is that you seek to compromise the radical nature of the Occupy movement and turn it into just another liberal think tank that exists to bring out the vote for whatever neo-liberal candidate you deem our Great Hope of the moment. The same way Barack Obama was sold back in 2008 – and we all know how that turned out.
Again, a gross distortion of what I wrote. No place in what I wrote did I call on OWS movement to support Gore; I said that I would support Gore to Primary Obama. The word “Primary” is not the same as the General Election.
You conveniently miss my point about supporting Jill Stein; yes, I do think the OWS movement should get behind a progressive candidate like Jill Stein and that is what I wrote.
I never said anything about supporting any of those things you wrote about Al Gore; I would doubt Gore defends most of those positions, today. People do have a right to change their positions and when they do they should be welcomed as partners into our movements. I have never been part of any movement where anyone was excluded because they didn’t agree on everything.
People have always been welcomed into movements for change organized around this or that issue not what their stand is on any other issues.
As to all those issues you mention, miserychick, you can check out my blog and you will find I was never silent on any of those issues.
As for Gore running with Lieberman, that is something for you to take up with Gore.
I can’t see any point beating up on Al Gore for his positions as Vice-president or as a presidential candidate when he seems to have veered far from his previous neo-liberal positions on a great many issues. Private citizen Al Gore seems to have joined the ranks of the liberals. Just as Jimmy Carter has come a long way as private citizen from when he was president. I don’t get it; is there no room to accept people when they change their positions for the better on issues? If not, why do we even talk of the need to educate people on the issues is we aren’t going to welcome them into our movements when they change for the better.
Franklin Roosevelt dumped Henry Wallace as his Vice-president and saddled us with the Wall Street imperialist warmonger Harry Truman who was pretty much like Lieberman.
Miserychick; I’m glad you joined the discussion rather than just “lurking.”
Here is a great speech by the liberal Bill Moyers, maybe we can find some common agreement over what Moyers has to say: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uOIQ5-W1Epw
Anyways, I haven’t heard from any of my OWS friends that they had a problem receiving a good dose of support from these two great liberals, Al Gore and Bill Moyers, so I don’t know why you are getting all bent out of shape concerning what I wrote?
I even like hearing from Jeff Roby and Larue. For all I care, Jeff Roby, you can draft Snoopy or Charlie Brown to run against Obama and I would vote for either one. I would even vote for Hillary Clinton to Primary Obama. As I have stated repeatedly it doesn’t make any difference to me who Primaries Obama just get the creep out; one term of Obama is more than enough.
At last we find common ground! Aldous C. Tyler is running in the Democratic primaries against Obama. See: http://actoday.drupalgardens.com/
He has taken a lot of flak for not being a big name, and while one might argue that both Snoopy and Charlie Brown are bigger names, as far as I know, they have not entered the Dem primaries against Obama. Nor has Hillary. Nor has Gore.
I actually agree that there would be merit for Gore to enter the primaries. It would open up the dialogue, at the least. The reason I am so negative towards actually PUSHING for Gore is that there is no chance of his entering the race. If one is going to offer hypotheticals, one could do better.
Tyler is not a hypothetical.
Naomi Klein: Occupy Wall Street cannot be Co-opted
Occupy Wall Street can be co-opted and there are many forces at work trying to do just that. Keeping the Occupy Wall Street movement “leaderless” and without a list of demands reflecting the array of specific problems people are experiencing together with specific solutions is in fact part of the the process of co-opting OWS.
I think what you mean is that, relative to OWS adopting your preferred agenda, this constitutes “being coopted”. However, that’s not really relevant. What’s relevant is whether or not OWS can be coopted relative to how it defines itself.
Why don’t you for us how you coopt a leaderless movement by starting with these 2 participants, and getting it on video?
OWS can be disrupted, and what potential exists for political action can be degraded, but that’s not the definition of coopted.
Since their consensus process requires 90% approval, the only theoretically viable route to cooptation is flooding all the OccupyX’s with 9x as many confederates. If that was done, though, having “concrete demands” wouldn’t make a fig of difference, since the confederate-controlled OWS wouldn’t seriously pursue those demands. In this scenario, OWS would firmly be in a sort of veal pen.
First of all metamars; this is not “my” preferred agenda. Feel free to walk among the people turning out for the large OWS marches, rallies and demonstrations and you will see people carrying signs reflecting the list of problems and solutions I have posted.
Are there problems listed which you think are a figment of my imagination? If so, which ones?
Are there solutions to these problems listed which you don’t see people across this country bringing forward? If so, which ones?
The “90% percent approval” is sheer stupidity designed by middle class intellectuals to control and manipulate this movement to their ends. If you know anyplace in the world, and group other group or organization requiring 90% support let’s have you bring them forward. This is one reason why you see so few people of color involved in the General Assemblies across the country.
In Oakland the working class spoke by there sheer numbers without any concern for what a small handful of OWS participants in the General Assembly had to say.
Again, check out the signs people brought with them obviously signs which they had made at home or perhaps in union halls, senior centers, church basements, dorm rooms or sitting with friends in a park.
50,000 people marched in Oakland. Have you ever seen 50,000 people participate in any one General Assembly anyplace in this country or around the world?
Perhaps you would like to consider Greece, often recognized as the birthplace of democracy. There you see millions of workers marching through the streets preparing to take power led by P.L.A.M.E. and the KKE (the Communist Party of Greece). Do not the demands of these millions of workers count for anything because they haven’t participated in voting in a General Assembly? Simple majorities have been good enough to produce action aimed at winning specific demands aimed at solving specific problems.
As was pointed out above, the 99% includes a whole heck of a lot of people. What wasn’t noted is that the majority of this 99% is the working class yet the working class isn’t supposed to bring forward solutions to its problems because the 90% thresh-hold can’t be met? This is nor democracy. This is more hypocrisy designed, once again, to deny working people a voice in the decision-making process. Proceeding in this manner is dishonest. The “Founding Fathers” used such manipulations in crafting the United States Constitution and they came up against the people who insisted on including “The Bill of Rights.”
Your criticism smacks of arrogance intended to try to exclude working people.
Take a hint from what you saw in Oakland; working people want inclusion in the OWS movement and that inclusion means that their grievances be taken up by OWS. Shun this approach and OWS will fade into obscurity and a new form of struggle will be developed by working people who are “fed up.”
A lesson should be learned from the struggles of the 1960′s and 1970′s. The New Left, once again being glorified, mocked and ridiculed the problems of the working class only to re-emerge forty years later supporting Barack Obama. Without the support from the “New Left,” Barack Obama would not be president today— something you might want to consider.
It is the demands of the multi-racial, multi-national working class— women and men, young and old— struggling for social and economic justice trying to attain an improved standard of living that brings democracy to any movement for social change and creating better government, or a new form of government, not some “90%” figure that is pulled out of thin air for purposes of manipulation and control which in and of itself is part of the co-option taking place.
I am sure most people having problems making ends meet living a crisis of everyday living understand what I am saying.