What's the point of "Occupy Wall Street"?
- Thread starter SUP3RNOVA
- Start date
LOL @ Ben Cohen of Ben&Jerrys giving out free ice cream. He sold out 100% of his company and rights to his own name to an evil giant corporation. Is he protesting himself now?
Ben And Jerry's Gives Out Ice Cream To Occupy Wall Street Protesters!: Gothamist
Ben And Jerry's Gives Out Ice Cream To Occupy Wall Street Protesters!: Gothamist
Something I overlooked...
Quite precisely.
the "people who can" are the jobless, pissed off Americans. most I'd argue are too lazy to work hard enough to find or create a job. I would like to speak to a jobless person protesting in a city (I'm considering going to occupy niagara square in Buffalo and talking to the people there). I think they generally couldn't give a rat's ass about politics and care much much more about having a secure job and cash (reeking of entitlement). give any (maybe 99%) of the protesters an easy and secure job and they couldn't give two shits about how corrupt politicians are. humanism is generally a front, "help other people" ONLY because it helps them
Too many unproven factors in this statement for it to be valid:
1) are these "employed" ones working a full-time job in their target (desired) industry, working a full-time job in a less than desirable industry, or working a full-time job in a crappy minimum wage industry?
2) proof that 5-10x as many people show up on weekends (7.5 on average)
3) realize that many of the MILLIONS of people living in NYC can realize that OWS is a social, internet, liberal movement that -whether they like it or not- is becoming popular. i'd walk down the street on a saturday to check out what's going on, but i by no means support what they're doing
Quite precisely.
the "people who can" are the jobless, pissed off Americans. most I'd argue are too lazy to work hard enough to find or create a job. I would like to speak to a jobless person protesting in a city (I'm considering going to occupy niagara square in Buffalo and talking to the people there). I think they generally couldn't give a rat's ass about politics and care much much more about having a secure job and cash (reeking of entitlement). give any (maybe 99%) of the protesters an easy and secure job and they couldn't give two shits about how corrupt politicians are. humanism is generally a front, "help other people" ONLY because it helps them
Too many unproven factors in this statement for it to be valid:
1) are these "employed" ones working a full-time job in their target (desired) industry, working a full-time job in a less than desirable industry, or working a full-time job in a crappy minimum wage industry?
2) proof that 5-10x as many people show up on weekends (7.5 on average)
3) realize that many of the MILLIONS of people living in NYC can realize that OWS is a social, internet, liberal movement that -whether they like it or not- is becoming popular. i'd walk down the street on a saturday to check out what's going on, but i by no means support what they're doing
You're in luck! Because this is all first hand, not based on what's in newspapers.
Some are. Some aren't. It's a mix of people, not campaign demographics. I know of some retirees, a server admin, a journalist or two, a couple small business owners, someone that owns a laundromat, someone that works at a print shop. They're the mix of "employed" you would expect.
Official numbers are hard to come by. There's not exactly a gate at the entrance keeping count.
I know San Diego draws ~1000-1500 on a significant weekend march. And that it has 75-100 sleeping there. Before the tents were taken by the police there were 100 tents on the ground total.
Here is what partial turnout on the 15th was like. There's a lot more around the corner/behind the photo.
Compare that to the early tent city(tent city grew a bit after).
OWS inside of New York has a 67% approval rating(agreement) and 87% believe it's their right to camp out in the park.
I agree...I don't want to generalize everybody in the movement, but a lot of the people are people looking to get something for nothing. Sure, there are reforms that need to be made int he financial sector, but that's the least of our worries right now. The fat cat on Wall Street isn't the issue, the main issue is our government, not the private sector.
Also, a lot of people are out of work and don't want to search for jobs so they justify their laziness by going to the park!
WIth that said, I agree with many of their points, just think most of them are misguided
Le sigh. The primary push behind the protest is separating the corporations from our government, which does a lot to fix both the "government" and "corporation" side of the equation.
The idea is this: Regulation will not work and deregulation will not work as long as the process itself is poisoned. You will not be able to fix anything as long as politicians are owned by the largest businesses.
This is not a public thing or a private thing, it's about what happens when the two combine. When the two become as close as the banking industry, you get the (democratic) unaccountability of the private organization, combined with the use of the government's monopoly on force. Once they acquire that use of force(as the bailouts proved they have) they are more "government" than "corporation".
The end result is: You lose. The system becomes paralyzed and cannot be fixed without significant force coming from outside the politician/corporation dynamic. The force must come from a group that does not benefit from the current relationship between the 2. What you are witnessing is that push.
There isn't a plan of action on it yet. The nature of these things is pretty slow moving: the consensus system they use prevents a single group from influencing/co-opting the group(despite what you've heard on Fox, Soros/Democrats/whatever have not co-opted the protests), but it's sluggish.
There's other things that many advocate that could help that don't require an amendment. An example would be a "Revolving door" law that prevents regulators from going to work for the companies they regulated after they leave the regulatory agency; a big contributor to the ineffectiveness of groups like th SEC.
I myself prefer targeted deregulation to regulation, but worse than either of those scenarios is a situation where the regulators themselves are indebted to the groups they regulate. That's how you get situations like the FDA suing people on behalf of Pfizer.
All that said: If that amendment went through, I suspect you'd see OWS dry up almost overnight. It is the issue that binds everyone together.
I agree with some of the opinions I've heard from OWS protesters and advocates. But here is what I fear:
Most of them are looking to the state to make changes. They are imploring politicians - the very folks who have proven themselves to be untrustworthy, and have sold them out repeatedly - to suddenly police themselves and those to whom they cater.
The state caused the problems against which OWS is railing. They are not a benevolent entity, looking for opportunities to help the public. They are a force of aggression. Whether OWS seeks a constitutional convention to decouple money from the political process, unionize Walmart, or prevent productive entrepreneurs from reaping the benefits of their work and ingenuity, the nature of the state will not change.
OWS is missing the point. They want the state to neuter business when the state is the root of the problem.
On a related note, Stossel is pretty good on this:
Wall Street Protesters Half Right by John Stossel on Creators.com - A Syndicate Of Talent
EDIT: just ran across this...
How “Occupy Wall St.” Could Succeed - Daily Anarchist
Most of them are looking to the state to make changes. They are imploring politicians - the very folks who have proven themselves to be untrustworthy, and have sold them out repeatedly - to suddenly police themselves and those to whom they cater.
The state caused the problems against which OWS is railing. They are not a benevolent entity, looking for opportunities to help the public. They are a force of aggression. Whether OWS seeks a constitutional convention to decouple money from the political process, unionize Walmart, or prevent productive entrepreneurs from reaping the benefits of their work and ingenuity, the nature of the state will not change.
OWS is missing the point. They want the state to neuter business when the state is the root of the problem.
On a related note, Stossel is pretty good on this:
Wall Street Protesters Half Right by John Stossel on Creators.com - A Syndicate Of Talent
EDIT: just ran across this...
How “Occupy Wall St.” Could Succeed - Daily Anarchist
Kenster is balling off all teh monies he's made fucking over the retards on WaFo.
Kenster IS the 1%. How many of your customers are now 'rich' and part of the 1% Kenster, we're all interested to know. We're looking for a number.
:eek7: Are you following?
The banks don't want things to change. The banks have so much influence in the government that you can't influence the government to change things - even if you're trying to reign in the government.
Because of this, the pre-requisite for doing anything is getting the bankers money out of politics.
You can't "turn off the water first". The largest corporations(and banks) are on the some side as the government. They are -for all intents and purposes - part of the same entity.
This is not a "government" problem or a "corporation" problem, this is a "both of them" problem. You can't address either individually.
I don't mean to derail the current discussion, but thought a few of you might enjoy this quick piece at The Atlantic...
How Radical Is Occupy Wall Street? - Conor Friedersdorf - Politics - The Atlantic
Friedersdorf has been following OWS from the beginning, and has taken a thoughtful approach to trying to "figure out" the crowd.
How Radical Is Occupy Wall Street? - Conor Friedersdorf - Politics - The Atlantic
Friedersdorf has been following OWS from the beginning, and has taken a thoughtful approach to trying to "figure out" the crowd.
That's the most lucid description I have read or heard anywhere, it makes sense.
Ah, I misunderstood you. My bad.
I think we will eventually see that amendment come into play. Right now though? It would never pass. How we get from here to a situation where it could work? I have no idea.
xmcp123 and MSTeacher got it.
LOL @ SUP3RNOVA and other retards who feel so superior because they managed to regurgitate what the media tells them.
LOL @ SUP3RNOVA and other retards who feel so superior because they managed to regurgitate what the media tells them.
Thanks.
I suppose I'll come out and say it: I've been on the ground for one of these since day 1(actually, day -4). I'm obviously not there all the time, but the image that's depicted in the media is so far away from what actually happens on the ground that it's downright bizarre.
I don't agree with everything that's said. I'm obviously more capitalist than many. But the shit that comes out of the media about this movement(especially on the right) is completely disconnected from reality.
harrdarr. I don't know what the fuck the media says about the movement because I don't watch ANY news channel. It would make sense that they slander it though, as they're run by the corrupt corporations that OWS is protesting. Is the left wing media reacting negatively? I'd assume the right wing HAS to be.
I support many things the OWS movement is fighting for (political corruption mainly, NOT increasing taxes/being anti-capitalistic). Personally I'm not a fan of standing in the street with a sign because I think you can do many things that are much more proactive. An organized lobby with clear goals and leadership is much different than thousands of hipsters standing in the streets screaming that corporations are evil. It's not my fault that they build a stereotype for themselves.
I'm going to head to Occupy Niagara Square in Buffalo this weekend and get a taste for the crowd myself and talk to some of these people.
One thing I'll admit is that I misrepresented what the movement in it's entirety is. There are parts of OWS that are more concise and directed, and sometimes you do need a crony crowd to stand in the street and get attention for the cause. I'm still not optimistic about it and I think the people in the streets should be a) finding a job, b) creating a job, c) getting involved in local politics, or d) all of the above.
And then after being called out:
Ok, you got me; please forgive me. You are not regurgitating what the media told you. You are regurgitating what your friends regurgitated from what they received from the media. You can't say you were regurgitating propaganda from somewhere, as you wouldn't have had your original 'concept' if not for it.
You didn't do any research or engage in any level of critical thinking. You simply took what is 'common' understanding and accepted it at face value.
When you were called out for being a pawn; you backtracked.
Yeah. But Wall Street is literally evil. Like bona fide real mccoy suck the devils cock get the fuck away from me evil. They make the state's 'force of aggression' look like a couple kids slapboxing.
'The nature of the state' is way too big a can of worms to open. I'll just say that it may not change its nature but it would certainly change its means of expression and thus the ends to which the state's will is served. Is that not the purported purpose of government - and activism - after all?
OK fine I'll also say that the nature of the modern state is at least in theory a dynamic reflection of populist will, not simply and wholly a static and immobile force of unbending agression. I assure you that I do understand that the current state of world affairs does not lend this theory much in the way of support, at least not at first glance. But to that point I personally believe that books cataloging human history in the absence of modern states for the last xxx years would make the current historical ledger look like a teletubbie marathon.
Which is why I wish all the world's ancaps would just hold a big convention somewhere and pool all their monies together, buy a continent and get busy doing whatever it is they cannot do at the moment and stop doing whatever it is they are currently compelled to so we can all change our minds and get rid of states if that's really the answer cuz the modern state isn't doing so good right now. I'll believe it when I see it, it's hard to fathom given the overwhelming amount of evidence that points to subversion from outside the state as the genesis of the modern state's problems...
As you've said to me, we agree on a lot of things. And disagree on a few things too.
Good for you man. OWS doesn't detract from supporting capitalism. If I wasn't lazy which I am I'd lay out an argument that it's in the interests of even the hardest anti state supercapitalists to support OWS as means to their own ends.