The original OWS was a spontaneous demonstration of resentment with real organization or leadership and no definite demands or goals. But now there’s a new actual organization called Take On Wall Street and it does have definite issues and goals:
So. Will this movement get anywhere? The traction the Sanders campaign got would seem to be a sign that it’s the right political moment for it.
No.
OWS took “the right time” and a tremendous amount of public support for reform and pissed it away in non-organization, hand signals and cooperative co-option. That conjunction of potentials won’t reoccur any time soon, and will have to find traction and acceptance under both the media-generated and real shadows of OWS.
No? Look at your own lede. 90% of the readers probably had their mind made up before finishing the first sentence. “It’s just like OWS only better…” is not a compelling hook.
I sympathize with those who yearn to be apart of something, but much like the “Black lives matter” movement, “Occupy Wallstreet” was a manufactured movement orchestrated by big money, driven by professionally paid “protesters”. Said professionals did nothing more than incite; destroying property and provoking violence.
These faux movements are the antithesis of spontaneity.
If Sanders were going to get the nomination, it might be.
The next President is going to be someone with close ties to Wall Street, one way or other. Hillary won’t do anything to threaten the gravy train. Trump might do anything, but let’s hope he at least understands the notion of how stock trading works.
Not that it matters. If this latest attempt at relevance is in any way associated with OWS, nothing will come of it anyway. Those guys couldn’t organize a closet, let alone a political movement.
Regards,
Shodan
I agree with the last sentence and we are often plagued with “movements” funded by kissing kin of the Koch brothers (or some other huge industry board playing at “grassroots” politics)… but even as one of the harshest critics of OWS I think your statements above are paranoid baloney.
While OWS allowed itself to be co-opted and marginalized within days, and there was no shortage of “contras” willing to pile on and make some hay from their absurd navel-gazing, I think most of the participants (of the first month or so, at least) and the original organization were exactly what they claimed to be, no corporate shilling or 30 pieces of silver involved.
If that’s your explanation of why OWS failed, then you’ve had yourself a pretty tall pitcher of the co-option Kool-Aid that was spun to finish the job of destruction started by the protesters themselves. That, or you believe that all those gosh-darned good-hearted, right-minded kids couldn’t have managed to shit all over themselves without help. Y’know… Help.
The “movement” failed because the puppet masters who funded said movement from its onset pulled the plug on the finances.
The ultimate irony–lost on those involved in the “movement”–is that they were financed by people who garnered much wealth via Wall Street. Also, celebs like Russell Simmons who worked in the credit card industry, helped support the “movement”.
Interesting that you did not mention the Tea Party Movement which fits the same description, while it would be interesting to see the actual evidence that Black Lives mMatter is organized and funded by specific sources.
OWS failed because a democrat was in office, PERIOD. None of the mainstream liberal organizations and certainly not the Democratic party would support it and without them they were doomed.
Now if it had occurred while Bush was still in office every democrat and liberal leader in the land would have been in it.
Among its biggest targets will be doing away with a law that allows private equity managers to pay lower taxes through something known as the “carried interest loophole.” These managers receive a share of profits for any gains they create for their clients, and this income is treated as long-term capital gains and taxed at a lower rate.
Best chance is that. The rest? Unlikely. Congress, as it exists now, is pretty much immune to pressure along those lines.
It’s really not particularly interesting that I didn’t mention the Tea Party. Occupy was the source of discussion, so I used a more recent “movement”, Black lives matter, as an example of recent faux group. The Tea Party has long been dead. Stop being so partisan.
If you choose to overlook the evidence that supports the financial backing of “BLM” that’s on you. It’s a dangerous and corrupt organization funded by big money. It is lead by professional antagonists.
A lot of what was said about the funding of OWS was not accurate, so I have to doubt a lot of the accusations of astroturfing.
Reality: OWS was funded by wealthy (oh, the irony) leftists set on manufacturing class warfare. The mindless hippies who “occupied Wall Street” couldn’t articulately express what exactly it was that they were protesting. Instead, like most leftist protests, they incited property damage and violence (see Bernie Sanders’ protests). There were even cases of women being sexually assaulted.
Your fantasy: OWS was a spontaneous and organic movement united in its opposition to corporate vultures and 1 percenters.
Don’t let me stop you guys from romanticizing about what OWS was.
Cite?
Basically, what evidence is there that there were EVER any “finances”? What I saw was a large group of people huddled in a tent city, rejecting every notion of “finances” except for the free pizza (t-shirts, bottle water, etc.) that kept getting sent over and distributed.
Choosing to believe in a forced narrative is quite powerful!
Your outrage is compelling and I wish to join in! I’m sure you will soon be coming up with the names of these nefarious wealthy leftists So I can focus this outrage. Also, you will undoubtedly describe what exactly they were funding and how they were funding it. With citations from credible sources, I’m sure.
For most people, “Capital Gains” is another way of saying, “Retirement Investments”. Taxing capital gains is sort of like taxing people living on minimum wage, every cent you take is just a cent you’re going to have to give back via a government service, and that’s just adding overhead on moving that cent around.
Capital Gains are, by their nature, a hard thing to tax logically.
Bernie needs something to pivot his supporters to. Take On Wall Street would be a compatible organizing principle. The organization has broad backing among the left: it could flip a couple of seats.
It’s a lose-lose proposition to name specifics. Leftists hate things like facts, science and math. I’m going to regret getting specific, because such facts are sure to be met with denials, as they already have been. You can cite and link the sources yourself. That’s the problem with people like you: you never wanna do the work.
Occupy Wallstreet was financed by the likes of Norman Lear, George Soros, Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield (Ben and Jerry’s), and celebrities like Russell Simmons and Michael Moore.
What did they use the MILLIONS to specifically finance?
• Professional Protesters (protesters don’t come cheap)
• Buses
• Posh Hotels (you don’t think that professional protesters actually sleep in tents?)
• Food
George Soros, the Billionaire leftist–who these morons neglect to understand is a part of Wallstreet–also financed the riots that took place in Ferguson. Again, PAID protesters.
I’m sure I’m going to regret providing you with the specifics you so desired. Take the baton and do some research yourself. Again, ignorance is the problem.
The Man must have a sale on straw men today, with nutpicking too on the side… 
Never had that fantasy, so swing and a miss.
I’m actually from the more realistic school that for a movement to succeed it has to get their giants to fight other giants. And yes, there are giants that are indeed aware that not doing the right thing will eventually lead to very unsavory groups to take over eventually if change is not accepted that will benefit the whole of society.
[full stop]
Well we can then dismiss what you claim as it was already shown that you are wrong here or exaggerating. In any case I do not think that there is anyone making denials, it is just that you need to be accurate so others can begin to think that you are talking seriously.
And about leftists hating things like facts, science and math… The Republicans and conservatives have chosen this ignorant fellow as the leader of the party,
So you are not even wrong.