What's the point of "Occupy Wall Street"?

SUP3RNOVA

SUP3RNOVA

Goober Gay
Mar 5, 2007
2,300
72
0
Is there one? What's the demand? "End corporate greed"? How does protesting in the street solve that? I've only started paying attention to this in the past day or so, and I don't get it.

Does anybody here on WF actually support the "movement"?

I tried asking a few of my friends and either they agreed with me (it's pointless), or they were hippies that argued "It's about gaining attention for a movement"...whatever that means.

Will anything tangible come of this?
 


There are varying interests that are being played here. The "movement" is so disorganized at the moment so it appears unlikely that anything will really come out of it.
 
I think its really just about one dude who made some money on rebills and now is the head honcho of the emo's.
 
Occupy Wall Street - Wickedfire



13 Jul 2011

...we shall incessantly repeat one simple demand in a plurality of voices.

...we demand that Barack Obama ordain a Presidential Commission tasked with ending the influence money has over our representatives in Washington.

...whether it be the dismantling of half the 1,000 military bases America has around the world to the reinstatement of the Glass-Steagall Act or a three strikes and you're out law for corporate criminals. Beginning from one simple demand – a presidential commission to separate money from politics – we start setting the agenda for a new America.


It started with that, but now lots of the people there just want free fleshlights and shit.
 
Yuckystuff said:
...all the way to bailouts for student loan debt.
Click to expand...

funny/unrelated anecdote about that student loan stuff:

Ppl at my old university used to complain ALOT about how it was society/the institution/the government's fault for them having over $100k worth of student debt. They hold regular events at the local government headquarters DEMANDING that their loans be forgiven in their entirety (which would have hilarious consequences imo).

Anyways, I just finished getting licenced up as a securities/wealth advisor, and they have a whole section on planning for student debt. It turns out that if your parents had given two-shits about you as little as 5 years before you went to uni/college, they could have secured as much as $40k in tax subsidies for your education. ($40k is enough in Canada to pay for ALL your tuition)

The morale of the story for Canadians is that you are not in debt because of a fucked-up greed-driven society....you're in debt because your parents don't love you. :)
 
The point, I think, is to push for a more democratic society in which people have a say regardless of their net worth. But more than just a say, to actually participate in the process, rather than allowing it to be "handled" between elections. This is done by creating occupations where people can have a forum to air their grievances and find ways to work together to fix those grievances. It's a bit of an experiment in community building because our society has become one characterized by "bowling alone." But also the occupations serve to draw attention to and create a national discourse around issues that aren't currently getting adequate time and focus in the media and the governmental bodies.

It's also about playing with "people power" and developing new forms of struggle that might transform our society. Think: Nashville sit-ins. "But isn't voting our people power?" I don't think so, this is about building power that is outside of the electoral cycle. Because there our choices are between corporately funded candidate one and corporately funded candidate two, who's loyalties are with the corporations. And corporations interests are not always congruent with those of people. That's not to say corporations are bad in themselves, but there are those, who we can broadly categorize as Wall Street, who's practices are certainly suspect.

I think one should be careful in saying they must have leaders, they must have one focus, they must be easily understandable because I don't think those demands are of a democratic, but totalitarian mindset. What is happening is a process. There are a lot of people upset with the way things are in our world and what the future outlook looks like if we extrapolate the tendencies that exist now. They are learning how to empower themselves to change society in their own image.

And you can poo poo that, but I mean, I like having dissenters. A secure society should welcome differing opinions and notions about that society. Only the insecure society freaks out over dissent and it's the insecure society that becomes fascist.

Or something like that.
 
droplister said:
Or something like that.
Click to expand...

A happy dream.

Ok, now what is the "movement" actually about? As in what real change do you see occurring as a result of the movement?

I care only about effect right now, not your (or anybody else's) thoughts.
 
I thought I was explaining what it is about. Changes that will result we'll need to wait until close to the election, but there are definitely going to be issues that politicians must address that they hadn't prior in their campaigns and platform.

Or it might give some Attorney Generals that want to prosecute and investigate a better chance at doing so.
 
droplister said:
Changes that will result we'll need to wait until close to the election
Click to expand...

Ah, meaning your prediction.

but there are definitely going to be issues that politicians must address that they hadn't prior in their campaigns and platform.
Click to expand...

Such as?

Or it might give some Attorney Generals that want to prosecute and investigate a better chance at doing so.
Click to expand...

Any examples of this happening? Rumors even?
 
i don't think there will be much effect. the protests in the 60's didn't really change much and they were much bigger and more violent. my dad was in the national guard at the time, assigned to race riots in the inner city which were basically a warzone apparently. these are nothing in comparison.
 
Foreclosure Talks Move Forward - WSJ.com

Justice Department should investigate Bank of America fee, Dems say - Seung Min Kim - POLITICO.com

Second article raises questions of antitrust laws. OWS could be channeled into pushing for reinstatement of Glass–Steagall Act, which BoA is against. And Obama outed them by name recently.

Politicians are having to address it and cannot ignore it.

Rep. Peter King said:
"[W]e have to be careful not to allow this to get any legitimacy," he warned. "I'm taking this seriously in that I'm old enough to remember what happened in the 1960s when the left-wing took to the streets and somehow the media glorified them and it ended up shaping policy," he said. "We can't allow that to happen."
Click to expand...

Rep. Peter King Calls Occupy Wall Street Protesters 'Ragtag Mob,' 'Anarchists'

President Obama on Thursday called the "Occupy Wall Street" protests a reflection of a "broad-based frustration about how our financial system works."
Click to expand...

Obama: "Occupy Wall Street" reflects "broad-based frustration" - Political Hotsheet - CBS News

And if there is indeed broad-based frustration then it will have to be addressed in an election setting.

But in terms of what will happen, I dunno. There is talk of a constitutional amendment to state that corporations arent people or another that makes congresspeople less like lobbyists.

Unions are involving themselves and they throw hundreds of millions around during elections. They are sort of on their last leg in terms of union density, so they might push politicians hard against financial institutions.

There seems to be a call for government intervention that doesn't amount to giving trillions to banks. And that's a demand from people of all political views, so jobs will be a focus, but also now retribution in some sense against banks to placate frustration with the disparity of income and stagnant wages.

Can that all be attributed to OWS? Doubtful, but it is something that can symbolize the call to address all these underlying problems. And can be used as short hand in political rhetoric. But if they start throwing the people cookies, that's going to change some things profoundly in the way people approach their grievances with our economy and our government and their relationship.
 
This is a movement supported by anarchists that really want to eliminate the free market capitalist way of life.

If you aren't worried about this movement you should be...
 
at first i was hating on the movement because of some of the idiots posting their sob stories on paper and taking pics of themselves.

but after just seeing it take hold of the world i am a supporter. my interpretation is that the world is fucked up right now, and so is the gov't and this is the first step to enact change.
 
The American People Have Had Enough!

The movement is simply the American people letting the government know that they are PISSED with all of the b/s that's been happening in this country.

That's why the corporate media can't get a hold on it to spin it negatively.

For instance, corporate media was able to spin off the Tea Party Movement as a bunch of white, redneck racists upset about being under an African-american president.

The Occupy Wall Street movement is a lot harder for them to handle. Why?

It's people from ALL walks of life. Black, White, Asians, Jews, young and old!

What's the message? Like I stated above, the government hasn't been doing sh!t for the American people. The people understand that the only segment that has seen 'Hope & Change' have been the private banking institutions (Federal Reserve).

So we(people) are letting the goverment know that WE ARE PISSED!

About what? About EVERYTHING! The banks, the poor education system, the poor health care system, unemployment, etc., etc.

The media is trying it's best to grab something about this new movement and spin it like they did the Tea Party movment, but this is a new beast the world's seeing right now.

There's no leader and no individual message. Other than everyone saying 'The BullSh!t Has to Stop Now!"

We ALL should be supporting and standing with the 'Occupy Wall Street' movement!

When future generations ask..."What Were You Doing When The American People Decide to Stand Up Against the Government and Bankers?" What will YOU tell them?
 
The fuck are you babbling about? They aren't standing up against the government, they want more government and bigger government. The only people they are standing up against are non-losers who actually make money.


Protestant said:
The movement is simply the American people letting the government know that they are PISSED with all of the b/s that's been happening in this country.

That's why the corporate media can't get a hold on it to spin it negatively.

For instance, corporate media was able to spin off the Tea Party Movement as a bunch of white, redneck racists upset about being under an African-american president.

The Occupy Wall Street movement is a lot harder for them to handle. Why?

It's people from ALL walks of life. Black, White, Asians, Jews, young and old!

What's the message? Like I stated above, the government hasn't been doing sh!t for the American people. The people understand that the only segment that has seen 'Hope & Change' have been the private banking institutions (Federal Reserve).

So we(people) are letting the goverment know that WE ARE PISSED!

About what? About EVERYTHING! The banks, the poor education system, the poor health care system, unemployment, etc., etc.

The media is trying it's best to grab something about this new movement and spin it like they did the Tea Party movment, but this is a new beast the world's seeing right now.

There's no leader and no individual message. Other than everyone saying 'The BullSh!t Has to Stop Now!"

We ALL should be supporting and standing with the 'Occupy Wall Street' movement!

When future generations ask..."What Were You Doing When The American People Decide to Stand Up Against the Government and Bankers?" What will YOU tell them?
Click to expand...
 
At Protestant:

Your post here is little more than rhetoric. So, let's get into the details. Present a specific position, and back it up with logic and an understanding of economics. Do so in a way that does not require enslaving others to your demands.*

Here is an example from Conor Friedersdorf at The Atlantic:

...it's wrong to create a mortgage-backed security filled with loans you know are going to fail so that you can sell it to a client who isn't aware that you sabotaged it by intentionally picking the misleadingly rated loans most likely to be defaulted upon...
Click to expand...
Friedersdorf has not proven his assertion to be correct. But he has at least presented a specific position. And that is a start.

Can you do the same?


EDIT: this is pretty good...

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0cp_DyfiRU"]"CptnMidnite Responds To Glenn Beck" End the Fed / Occupy Wall Street - YouTube[/ame]


h/t to Lew Rockwell.

* The right to a free education is nothing more than pointing the barrel of a gun at your neighbor's head, and demanding that he pay for your education. That is, those who demand this right are merely thugs, regardless of how they dress it up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom