OK, I have a general understanding of what most of the Occupy protesters want. My question is, how is occupying some public place, closing businesses and ports, disrupting politicians speeches and so forth supposed to change anything? We’re told that politicians are all on the take so voting is useless, so change that way is out. People sleeping in the park will soon become as invisible as the homeless. Are the super rich going to give in because people are saying bad things about them?
What’s the mechanism for change?
It brought the topics of income disparity and the malfeasance of the investor class to the forefront. Prior to Occupy, mainstream news was mostly about the sacrifices we would have to make to balance the budget. No one talked very much about how the financial industry had caused the problem by systematically looting the economy. Now, whether you agree with that statement or not, Occupy’s position is being discussed and argued. And that’s the entire point.
By whom are we told that? It isn’t the impression I’ve gotten, and it seems like an important point.
Phase 1: Put up tents, sit in them, refuse to leave.
Phase 2: ???
Phase 3: Profit!
It’s a standard trope on the right. If you tell people often enough they don’t have the power to use government to make things better for themselves, eventually many of them will stop trying.
Don’t think change is about to happen because of OWS. Disagreeing with something is not the same as having a better alternative. And for change to happen you need a very good alternative.
It already has changed the conversation. The austerity programs that would harm the poor even more are not getting all the coverage now. Almost all politicians are discussing the income disparity. The occupiers are not talking to the rich and the bankers, they are talking to the people.
The Repubs are suppressing the vote on a new level now. They are doing everything they can to keep the poor, black and youth from voting. The rich know their power can be confronted at the ballot box.
Not to hijack the thread overmuch, but: are they staking out a position on behalf of 99% of folks in this country, or 99% of folks worldwide?
lol
This country, because the USA has monstrously high income inequality.
“99%” refers to the increasing concentration of wealth in the top 1% of the American population, which I’m sure you’ve heard about already. They’re staking out a position on behalf of the people in whom the wealth is not concentrated. I suppose that means the answer to your question is neither, since I think most people involved in the protests would claim common ground with billions of people internationally, but the specific reference is to the American distribution of economic power.
Gotcha. I’d heard the opposite on a recent BBC broadcast.
The point, I think, is just to get attention for the OWSers’ issues-of-concern from the OWSers’ POV, which – those issues from that POV being rather outside the hitherto-acceptable range of public discourse – is impressive and important enough by itself if it succeeds; and of course nothing more can happen without it.
Not smart.
Are you making a point of some kind here? And if so, could you explain it to us ordinary folks?
SS
You really need that explained to you? They are doing one thing, expecting some end result somewhere, but missing a crucial middle step.
So, the goal is to raise consciousness and educate, achieving results by electing enlightened politicians who will make big changes?
The question was;
The answer was;
The inference is (I guess) that the OWS crowd hopes to turn a profit by sitting in tents. Apparently you read more into it than I did.
Yes, I’m aware that it was probably an attempt at disparagement. It didn’t work very well. But thanks for the attempt at explaining.
SS
Wait, really? I feel like that point had been repeated ad infinitum up and down the media I pay attention to. And I still haven’t seen any sort of actionable suggestions on this topic.
The only change in the conversation I’ve really seen is a lot more attention to income inequality.
You guess wrong. “Profit” is a euphemism.