I didn’t insult you. I criticized your post.
If that offended you, I’ll apologize because no insult was intended.
It’s quite possible for reasonable smart people to believe foolish things .
I apologize I mistakenly thought this was GD.
People can feel free to ridicule me because I shouldn’t have made the mistake.
That’s what I said and no one with a soul would couldn’t be outraged by many of the actions taken by the police.
I’m not black. Beyond that I said no such thing. Bdgr was the one who first made the comparison.
No, I did not.
ANother poster said
to which I said:
That’s it, then you started in with things like:
And you wonder why I would find that insulting? I don’t find it insulting because you disagreed with my post. I find it irritating that you mischaracterize what I said, even after I clarify it, and that you imply that I’m a moron or a racist.
Here’s the thing. A consensus model and open participation will always lead to the professional crazies running everything. You can’t kick out the crazies, and everyone has to be listened to, and everyone has to agree. That means the crazies and assholes and professional troublemakers will win every time.
This happens in local government to, just to not such an extent. Anyone willing to sit at the meeting and refuse to budge until they get their way will lead to regular people leaving, because they can’t win against the assholes given the structure of the organization.
Also, I find complaints about the unsympathetic cops and entrenched power structure naïve in the extreme. What exactly did you all think would happen? Who do you think the cops work for?
You don’t get to start your movement from scratch. You have to start your movement in the context of the existing society, with cops and courts and jails and bosses and media and broken people and assholes and so on.
Old-school social movements would have sergeants-at-arms during demonstrations who would enforce the movement’s goals. Someone has the wrong sign? They take your sign away and rip it up. You start causing trouble? They grab you and sit you the fuck down. You can’t be part of the movement unless you are part of the movement, show that you’re not and you get shut down and kicked out.
To add to what people are saying about how it ultimately failed because they didn’t know how to present themselves to anyone who wasn’t already 100% in agreement with them and how badly and deliberately disorganized they were, I’d add the question.
What would “victory” have looked like to them?
We know what victory looked like to the Civil Rights, Abolitionist, and suffragist movement.
What about them.
I actually asked several members of the Occupy Providence movement and all had different answers some of which were utterly childish. I.E. Free internet and free cellphones for everyone.
I see irony in several of the above posts - especially the ones related to the misunderstandings between who said and meant what regarding police action in the 1960’s.
Perhaps if everyone involved just got together on this forum and expressed their personal opinions on the subject we could build some sort of a consensus to move forward with.
I think that’s the point that a lot of us were trying to make- what was the goal of the movement? What was “victory”? Without that, to a lot of people it looked like just a bunch of hippies and dumb-asses whining about how unfair the world is, obstructing shit in the park and getting in the way of people with jobs and lives.
Well, first, everyone would have to say what gender, ethnicity, age and sexual orientation they are so we know who gets to post first.
But come on. In the 1960s we had people straight-up murdering civil rights activists, while the cops turned a blind eye, or sometimes cheered them on.
Anything like that happen with OWS? Of course, The Powers That Be didn’t consider OWS anywhere near threatening enough to consider murdering them. The civil rights activists had the white supremacists so scared and angry that violence was their only recourse. It’s flat-out laughable to imagine a plutocrat so scared of an OWS drum circle that he has some of them murdered.
OWS was largely an ineffectual leftist response to the 2008 financial crisis, the perception that Wall Street investment banks and financial institutions were largely responsible for the crisis itself, rising income inequality and a general sense that the “system” is unfair. IOW, against the “1%” who owns the majority of the wealth in this country.
From personal anecdotal observation (working in that area at the time), the movement mostly consisted of young people (mostly, but not all white), college students, hippy types and other people who are able to hang around Lower Manhattan all day with iPads while everyone else is at work. Which would sort of imply that they aren’t starving.
As it happens, I had also did some consulting for AIG shortly after the OWS movement died out. AIG, as you know, being at the center of much of the financial crisis, was a bit of a lightning rod for OWS anger. Anyhow, it was interesting hearing the perspective of AIG employees who were there at the time and for the most part, are pretty much just normal workaday corporate types.
OWS failed for two reasons:
- Executives and traders at wealthy Wall Street investment banks don’t give a shit about how many people bang drums outside their offices.
- Lacking any cohesion or direction as a movement, they failed to do anything that would actually affect change - elect candidates to office, pressure politicians to enact legislation, stuff like that.
That’s a canard.
Snip Huh… So you view OWS as a failure because in your opinion they had no affect on elections and proposed financial legislation?
That’s at odds with what I remember. Some of the things we brought into the national discussion were-
- Issues with corporate personhood ( Romney stepped in the doo when he tried to affirm after that corporations were, indeed, people)
- Ending tax breaks for the wealthy ( Yep, off-shoring money didn’t look too patriotic once people became aware of the implications)
- The need to restructure campaign finance to get big money out of politics.
- Ending the war on drugs ( Why hello Colorado and California)
- Reforming the mortgage industry and the prosecution of predatory practices (Hey, remember Elizabeth Warren?)
These were some of the issues we felt society needed to address, and I’d like to think OWS attention helped get the ball rolling on a lot of the activity going on right now to address these and other social inequities.
I know that there were some Tea Party candidates elected to office. Were there any OWS candidates? (Note that this is not an endorsement of the Tea Party)
I’m not sure that any of these issues were addressed or resolved in a meaningful way because of OWS. Romney basically did more harm to Romney than any OWS protest. What people saw with Romney was basically an entitled, elitist, disconnected douche.
Maybe it was a media-generated issue, but all I ever saw or read about was young people who’d gone to expensive private universities and got liberal arts degrees complaining that they were saddled with crushing debt and an inability to find a good job where they want to live, despite their degrees.
How many people were there with business or engineering degrees from state universities? How many jobs have there ever been in liberal arts fields outside of academia?
Note: Just because many liberal arts grads were able to find jobs outside of their fields in the past doesn’t at all mean that it’s an indication of anything other than very good economic times. Unless you plan to teach, or go to some sort of professional school, getting a liberal arts undergrad degree is not a good way to ensure your employment.
Ah … By chance did you see my post upthread about our finances? Usually in the couple thousand range, hit a max of 5k at one point.
How much do you think most political campaigns need to not just get off the ground but be competitive? I myself have no idea, but I’m thinking it’s probably more than a couple thousand.
I’d have to disagree with your assertion that people were looking past a candidates financial success before OWS to ascertain if their past wheelings and dealings met a moral “smell” test. Prior to OWS, I really don’t think the majority of voters were that sophisticated. If it didn’t involve blatant illegalities, it didn’t matter.
I’m sorry Ms Smith. On re-reading my post, I got to thinking your opinion’s probably closer to reality than mine. I’ll be the first to admit to an in-ordinate share of political naivete.
I enjoyed my time in OWS, and believed in the concepts I shilled for. I’d like to think OWS being in the news helped introduce/popularize some of them to people who wouldn’t have been otherwise exposed.
My impression of the Occupy Movement was that they wanted the system to change because they wanted it to change, not that they were planned to work within the existing system to change it.
That thing was called ‘Occupy Wall Street’, yet there hadn’t been a single act of violence towards traders, hedge fund managers and Gekko-like people ?
Well that’s why it accomplished nothing. They were just here shaking their little fists in the air, ‘We’re, like, so angry and stuff, we gotta change like, things and shit’. Kids throwing tantrum. A comparison which is actually insulting to actual kids, who might have a future.
Acts of violence were not really on most OWS encampments agenda.
I’m sure if it had been embraced, there most definitely would have been something accomplished, but an “accomplishment” of hard prison time probably wasn’t a goal of most participants.