http://news.yahoo.com/1-occupy-disarray-spirit-lives-161622760.html
QuoteOccupy Wall Street began to disintegrate in rapid fashion last winter, when the weekly meetings in New York City devolved into a spectacle of fistfights and vicious arguments.
Punches were thrown and objects were hurled at moderators' heads. Protesters accused each other of being patriarchal and racist and domineering. Nobody could agree on anything and nobody was in charge. The moderators went on strike and refused to show up, followed in quick succession by the people who kept meeting minutes. And then the meetings stopped altogether.
In the city where the movement was born, Occupy was falling apart.
"We weren't talking about real things at that point," says Pete Dutro, a tattoo artist who used to manage Occupy's finances but became disillusioned by the infighting and walked away months ago. "We were talking about each other."
The trouble with Occupy Wall Street, a year after it bloomed in a granite park in lower Manhattan and spread across the globe, is that nobody really knows what it is anymore. To say whether Occupy was a success or a failure depends on how you define it.
Occupy is a network. Occupy is a metaphor. Occupy is still alive. Occupy is dead. Occupy is the spirit of revolution, a lost cause, a dream deferred.
"I would say that Occupy today is a brand that represents movements for social and economic justice," says Jason Amadi, a 28-year-old protester who now lives in Philadelphia. "And that many people are using this brand for the quest of bettering this world."
On Monday, a couple hundred protesters converged near the New York Stock Exchange to celebrate Occupy's anniversary, marking the day they began camping out in Zuccotti Park.
A handful were arrested after sitting on the sidewalk, but there was no sign of a planned "people's wall" on the streets surrounding the stock exchange.
Instead, protesters held a small meeting where they talked about the ills of Wall Street and corporate greed.
Marches and rallies in more than 30 cities around the world will commemorate the day.
About 300 people observing the anniversary marched Saturday. At least a dozen were arrested, mostly on charges of disorderly conduct, police said.
But the movement is now a shadow of its mighty infancy, when a group of young people harnessed the power of a disillusioned nation and took to the streets chanting about corporate greed and inequality.
Back then it was a rallying cry, a force to be reckoned with. But as the encampments were broken up and protesters lost a gathering place, Occupy in turn lost its ability to organize.
The movement had grown too large too quickly. Without leaders or specific demands, what started as a protest against income inequality turned into an amorphous protest against everything wrong with the world.
"We were there to occupy Wall Street," Dutro says. "Not to talk about every social ill that we have."
The community that took shape in Zuccotti Park still exists, albeit in a far less cohesive form. Occupiers mostly keep in touch online through a smattering of websites and social networks. There are occasional conference calls and Occupy-affiliated newsletters. Meetings are generally only convened to organize around specific events, like the much-hyped May Day event that ultimately fizzled last spring.
The movement's remaining $85,000 in assets were frozen, though fundraising continues.
"The meetings kind of collapsed under their own weight," explains Marisa Holmes, a 26-year-old protester among the core organizers who helped Occupy rise up last fall. "They became overly concerned with financial decisions. They became bureaucratic."
In other words, they became a combustible microcosm of the society that Occupiers had decided to abandon — a new, equally flawed society with its own set of miniature hierarchies and toxic relationships. Even before the ouster at Zuccotti Park, the movement had been plagued with noise and sanitary problems, an inability to make decisions and a widening rift between the park's full-time residents and the movement's power players, most of whom no longer lived in the park.
"We've always said that we want a new society," Holmes says. "We're not asking anything of Wall Street. We don't expect anything in return."
Occupy organizers in other U.S. cities have also scattered to the winds in recent months. In Oakland, a metal fence surrounds the City Hall lawn that was the hub of protesters' infamous tear-gassed, riotous clashes with police. The encampment is gone, as are the thousands who ventured west to help repeatedly shut down one of the nation's largest ports.
"I don't think Occupy itself has an enormous future," says Dr. Mark Naison, a professor at Fordham University in New York City. "I think that movements energized by Occupy have an enormous future."
Across the nation, there have been protests organized in the name of ending foreclosure, racial inequality, stop and frisk, debt: You name it, Occupy has claimed it. Occupy the Bronx. Occupy the Department of Education. Occupy the Hood. Occupy the Hamptons.
Protesters opposing everything from liquor sales in Whiteclay, Neb., to illegal immigration in Birmingham, Ala., have used Occupy as a weapon to fight for their own causes. In Russia, opposition activists protesting President Vladimir Putin's re-election to a third term have held a series of Occupy-style protests. Young "indignados" in Spain are joining unions and public servants to rally against higher taxes and cuts to public education and health care.
"All around the world, that youthful spirit of revolt is alive and well," says Kalle Lasn, co-founder of Adbusters, the Canadian magazine that helped ignite the movement.
In New York, groups of friends who call themselves "affinity groups" still gather at each other's apartments for dinner to talk about the future of Occupy. A few weeks ago, about 50 Occupiers gathered in a basement near Union Square to plan the anniversary.
There were the usual flare-ups, with people speaking out of order and heckling the moderators. The group could not agree on whether to allow a journalist to take photographs. An older man hijacked the meeting for nearly 15 minutes with a long-winded rant about the NYPD's stop-and-frisk tactics.
A document called "The Community Agreement of Occupy Wall Street" was distributed that, among other outdated encampment-era rules, exhorted Occupiers not to touch each other's personal belongings and laid out rules about sleeping arrangements.
It is this sort of inward-facing thinking — the focus on Occupiers, not the world they're trying to remake — that saddens ex-protesters like Dutro, who wanted to stay focused on taking down Wall Street.
Hanging in the entryway to his Brooklyn apartment, like a relic of the past, is the first poster he ever brought down to Zuccotti Park. In black and gold lettering, painted on a piece of cardboard, the sign says: "Nobody got rich on their own. Wall St. thinks U-R-A-SUCKER."
He keeps it there as a reminder of what Occupy is really fighting for. Because despite his many frustrations, Dutro hasn't been able to stamp the Occupy anger out of his soul. Not yet.
On Sept. 17, he'll be down at Liberty Square again. And he'll be waiting, like the rest of the world, to see what happens next.
"We came into the park and had this really magical experience," he says. "It was a big conversation. It was where we all got to realize: 'I'm not alone.'"
Quote from: garbon on September 17, 2012, 07:46:47 AM
Wall St. thinks U-R-A-SUCKER."
Yeah, it does. And you can't beat it.
losers can't organize shit. Film at 11.
http://news.yahoo.com/occupy-wall-street-protesters-march-near-wall-st-141425982.html
QuoteOccupy Wall Street protesters have been marching in small groups around Manhattan's financial district to mark the anniversary of the grass-roots movement.
About a dozen were arrested Monday after sitting on the sidewalk.
Loud chanting and the sound of drums filled the air. The demonstrators clogged traffic. Dozens of police officers and vans lined the streets.
But the protests lacked the heft of last year's Occupy events. Last year there were thousands of protesters. On Monday morning, there were a few hundred at most.
Earlier, they gathered across from Zuccotti Park, the site of the movement's birth.
Events are planned in more than 30 cities worldwide.
In San Francisco, they include an afternoon march to the Financial District and an evening rally outside Bank of America.
So happy to not work downtown. :D
Big surprise, a group mostly made up of degenerates, spoiled college kids, and homeless panhandlers is in disarray. Also not surprising that the spirit of "whining and bitching without direction or aim" is still alive, as that's pretty much as old as humanity.
Dirtbags.
So much hate. Darth Cheney will be proud.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcache.thephoenix.com%2Fsecure%2FuploadedImages%2FThe_Phoenix%2FMovies%2FFeatures%2FWAR_DarthCheney.jpg&hash=d74eb6edd04418159601a703e7c57128b38745cb)
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 17, 2012, 12:25:24 PM
So much hate. Darth Cheney will be proud.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcache.thephoenix.com%2Fsecure%2FuploadedImages%2FThe_Phoenix%2FMovies%2FFeatures%2FWAR_DarthCheney.jpg&hash=d74eb6edd04418159601a703e7c57128b38745cb)
:yes:
Quote from: mongers on September 17, 2012, 12:27:52 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 17, 2012, 12:25:24 PM
So much hate. Darth Cheney will be proud.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcache.thephoenix.com%2Fsecure%2FuploadedImages%2FThe_Phoenix%2FMovies%2FFeatures%2FWAR_DarthCheney.jpg&hash=d74eb6edd04418159601a703e7c57128b38745cb)
:yes:
mongers, every once in a while, a poor person is poor not because of a global conspiracy to keep him down, but because he is lazy and/or untalented.
Quote from: Tamas on September 17, 2012, 01:31:14 PM
Quote from: mongers on September 17, 2012, 12:27:52 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 17, 2012, 12:25:24 PM
So much hate. Darth Cheney will be proud.
:yes:
mongers, every once in a while, a poor person is poor not because of a global conspiracy to keep him down, but because he is lazy and/or untalented.
Just add some clay, earth and water to that and you'll have enough for a fine cottage.
I just fail to see the merit of the occupy movement. It is a bunch of people being frustrated for a myriad of reasons, and I am not sure about two things:
-that the number of frustrated people in a society can be pushed below a minimum number regardless of system or efforts
-that the western world's number of frustrated people is significantly above that number
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.zenfs.com%2Fen%2Fblogs%2Fthelookout%2Foccupy-arrests-2012.jpg&hash=93633aea3d78a9b1436b677a1ac7dd7f9cc48479)
I like all the restraints on the ready (bottom right corner).
Nice sideburns.
Quote from: Tamas on September 17, 2012, 02:38:39 PM
I just fail to see the merit of the occupy movement. It is a bunch of people being frustrated for a myriad of reasons, and I am not sure about two things:
-that the number of frustrated people in a society can be pushed below a minimum number regardless of system or efforts
-that the western world's number of frustrated people is significantly above that number
Pretty much, yeah. The unfortunate thing is that with today's social media these scattered losers can find each other more easily.
The real problem with Occupy Wall Street is, while its early aims of populist anger against Wall Street to demand reform was quaint, it has no teeth.
A few hipsters camping out in the park for a few weeks doesn't send a message, and it doesn't encourage reform.
Detonations and assassinations, on the other hand, now those have teeth. When their boards of directors are getting replaced because the body bags are piling up, you'll start to see some reform.
"Wanting people to listen, you can't just tap them on the shoulder anymore. You have to hit them with a sledgehammer, and then you'll notice you've got their strict attention."
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.hotflick.net%2Fflicks%2F1995_Se7en%2F995SVN_Kevin_Spacey_009.jpg&hash=34887d1b22123c5d6e1e252ff4edcdc165197b8f)
Quote from: derspiess on September 17, 2012, 04:37:55 PM
Quote from: Tamas on September 17, 2012, 02:38:39 PM
I just fail to see the merit of the occupy movement. It is a bunch of people being frustrated for a myriad of reasons, and I am not sure about two things:
-that the number of frustrated people in a society can be pushed below a minimum number regardless of system or efforts
-that the western world's number of frustrated people is significantly above that number
Pretty much, yeah. The unfortunate thing is that with today's social media these scattered losers can find each other more easily.
They are just the left wing version of the Tea Party movement. They just chose the Big Bidness as their bugbear instead of the Gubmint.
I think the lower classes in the US are getting restless. Their avenues of raising themselves in ways that do not involve academic brilliance or shrewd entrepreneurship are getting narrower. Finding the right people to blame for their problems is challenging in today's complex modern world.
They should just blame foreigners. Maybe Canadians.
Anti-Capitalist Seedy isn't as fun.
Quote from: Valmy on September 17, 2012, 04:57:34 PM
They are just the left wing version of the Tea Party movement. They just chose the Big Bidness as their bugbear instead of the Gubmint.
I think the lower classes in the US are getting restless. Their avenues of raising themselves in ways that do not involve academic brilliance or shrewd entrepreneurship are getting narrower. Finding the right people to blame for their problems is challenging in today's complex modern world.
They should just blame foreigners. Maybe Canadians.
But a lot of the Occupy people weren't the lower classes. After all, if you're living paycheck to paycheck, you don't really have a lot of time to camp out and play drums in a concrete park.
Quote from: garbon on September 17, 2012, 05:07:45 PM
But a lot of the Occupy people weren't the lower classes. After all, if you're living paycheck to paycheck, you don't really have a lot of time to camp out and play drums in a concrete park.
If everybody was living paycheck to paycheck, as in getting paychecks, there would not be these movements happening because...well...just as you say.
Quote from: Valmy on September 17, 2012, 05:12:29 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 17, 2012, 05:07:45 PM
But a lot of the Occupy people weren't the lower classes. After all, if you're living paycheck to paycheck, you don't really have a lot of time to camp out and play drums in a concrete park.
If everybody was living paycheck to paycheck, as in getting paychecks, there would not be these movements happening because...well...just as you say.
I'm unconvinced that most of the Occupy Wall Streeters were unemployed. Those photos sure don't look like the unemployed - they often look like Williamsburg.
Any good-looking OWS females this week?
Quote from: Phillip V on September 17, 2012, 05:16:21 PM
Any good-looking OWS females this week?
I saw a decent brunette.
Oh, here she is: all serious and whatnot. Probably fucks you in a beret.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmsnbcmedia1.msn.com%2Fj%2FMSNBC%2FComponents%2FPhoto%2F_new%2Fg-cvr-120917-occupy-anniversary-kb-1230p.grid-6x2.jpg&hash=674d8335fd140c8e678859d8facc16c337607fc3)
Pass.
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 17, 2012, 05:21:26 PM
Pass.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.bleacherreport.net%2Fimages_root%2Fslides%2Fphotos%2F000%2F446%2F330%2Fohio_crop_650x440.jpg%3F1287180649&hash=aa39478c5556346cae2a485fc9fbf2d3b775a77e)
:)
Seedy is good people.
Quote from: garbon on September 17, 2012, 05:16:13 PM
I'm unconvinced that most of the Occupy Wall Streeters were unemployed. Those photos sure don't look like the unemployed - they often look like Williamsburg.
Yeah ok there were no Occupy Wall Street or similar movements going on before 2007.
And what the hell does Williamsburg mean? Were they dressed up like Colonial Virginians?
Quote from: Valmy on September 17, 2012, 05:25:36 PM
And what the hell does Williamsburg mean? Were they dressed up like Colonial Virginians?
:lol: Wrong zip code, man.
He means neighborhood of Brooklyn.
The trouble with Occupy was that it was disorganized and had no focus other than camping out and making silly chants about 1 per cent milk or whatever it was. I'm with CDM on this, they needed some good old fashioned violence. Get the cops out with dogs and tear gas. Do what they did in Egypt. Camping out in city parks just doesn't cut it as far as revolutions go.
It did seem an OK idea at first, got them and their message, whatever it was, on the news. But after a week or so it needed to mobilize and try a different tactic to keep it going. Instead they got silly with all those hand gestures instead of shouting and hippy dippy stuff.
A year later, I'm still not sure what they were up to.
The big problem with OWS was they didn't have a single person in their slogan production department who had even the dimmest understanding of cause and effect.
Quote from: Josephus on September 17, 2012, 05:33:20 PM
The trouble with Occupy was that it was disorganized and had no focus other than camping out and making silly chants about 1 per cent milk or whatever it was. I'm with CDM on this, they needed some good old fashioned violence. Get the cops out with dogs and tear gas. Do what they did in Egypt. Camping out in city parks just doesn't cut it as far as revolutions go.
It did seem an OK idea at first, got them and their message, whatever it was, on the news. But after a week or so it needed to mobilize and try a different tactic to keep it going. Instead they got silly with all those hand gestures instead of shouting and hippy dippy stuff.
A year later, I'm still not sure what they were up to.
In large part I agree with this.
I shall be meeting a gathering of the UK ones at the weekend and to some extent that will be my viewpoint/presentation.
Oh and it appears I was in at the 'death' of the occupy movement in the UK.
I visited the last uk occupation, in Bournemouth, in the final week of August and there were exactly three occupiers left, all employed full time, but homeless *
Their problem besides personality conflicts, which I won't go into, was that they'd run out of support from people willing to stay at their site, none of the couple of hundred online 'members' of that branch were willing to camp out anymore/if at all. So they were on the verge of giving up and closing the site down the coming weekend.
Even at that late date, though not a member, I was suggesting to the 'leader' that he try something different, as in effect he and his partner were the remaining custodians of 'Occupy UK' .
As it turns out he decided to just close it down;
Quote
Occupy Bournemouth protest group disbands
A protest group which formed almost a year ago in Dorset has disbanded, according to a statement posted on the group's Facebook page.
Activists from Occupy Bournemouth said it was "with sadness" the group's most recent encampment, off Priory Road, in the town was "packing up".
The group sited a "lack of on-the-ground support" for its closure.
The council said evicting Occupy from various sites, including the town hall, had cost taxpayers almost £10,000.
This figure includes court fees, counsel's fees, warrants and bailiff costs.
.....
rest of article here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-dorset-19462539 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-dorset-19462539)
Pity really as I was hoping someone within Occupy UK would move onto something beyond protest for protest sake.
* the Bournemouth/Poole conurbation has a big problem with people on modest wages, not being able to afford increasing rents, to the extent that some when their wages no longer cover the basic bills, resort to sleeping rough in the area, whilst trying to maintain employment.
QuoteThe struggle of conscience at the heart of the financial crisis
Creating wealth is a noble calling but many businessmen feel pressurised to adopt different moral values at work and home.
by Most Rev Vincent Nichols, Archbishop of Westminster
While the front pages of our newspapers have been dominated the Olympics and Paralympics, the business pages continue to reflect the human and economic costs of a business ethos that culminated in the financial crisis and subsequent loss of trust in banking and business. Four years or more after the crisis broke, we are still talking of the lessons to be learnt – but not much nearer identifying what exactly they are, let alone applying them.
I was encouraged by several prominent business leaders to explore whether the Church was able to provide a forum for further reflection on this situation, so we could together move on. It is not such a strange thing for the Catholic Church to do. The Church as an institution stands outside the market; it is not in the business of business, though of course many of its members are; and it stands outside government too. And it is international, not tied to any one national culture. It exists in that crucial third space, sometimes called civil society.
We have no political agenda. We have instead a moral tradition that has accumulated wisdom down the centuries, drawing on the twin sources of revelation and reason. It has given us an outline of a paradigm of good business practice that is contained in Catholic Social Teaching. This talks of solidarity and subsidiarity and their relation to common good, of the unique human dignity of every person specially those who are poor, vulnerable or disadvantaged, and it also talks about the nature of work and human creativity. And it is intensely conscious of the content and influence of culture, the shared values of any society that can do so much good - and if they go wrong, much harm.
I am joining prominent leaders of business and industry at a conference in London today in discussion of what it would take to bring about a renewal of the business culture in Britain. We have sub-titled it "Uniting corporate purpose and personal values to serve society", because we have detected a tendency for business people to feel they need to adopt a different set of values in business than those which they apply in the rest of their lives. That intriguing insight clearly needs further investigation.
This initiative is not a one-off. Many others are engaged in similar efforts, because they see a similar need. I have received strong messages of support from the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams who wrote to me to say: "I know these are live questions for very many in the world of contemporary business and there is currently a heartening willingness to look hard at such matters." The Chief Rabbi, Lord Sacks, in a message to the conference, declared: "The way to build better business is to build a lasting economy that places ethics and morals at its heart and visibly demonstrates their importance. Ethics and business are not adversaries. In the long run they need each other."
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 17, 2012, 07:18:43 PM
QuoteThe struggle of conscience at the heart of the financial crisis
Creating wealth is a noble calling but many businessmen feel pressurised to adopt different moral values at work and home.
by Most Rev Vincent Nichols, Archbishop of Westminster
While the front pages of our newspapers have been dominated the Olympics and Paralympics, the business pages continue to reflect the human and economic costs of a business ethos that culminated in the financial crisis and subsequent loss of trust in banking and business. Four years or more after the crisis broke, we are still talking of the lessons to be learnt – but not much nearer identifying what exactly they are, let alone applying them.
I was encouraged by several prominent business leaders to explore whether the Church was able to provide a forum for further reflection on this situation, so we could together move on. It is not such a strange thing for the Catholic Church to do. The Church as an institution stands outside the market; it is not in the business of business, though of course many of its members are; and it stands outside government too. And it is international, not tied to any one national culture. It exists in that crucial third space, sometimes called civil society.
We have no political agenda. We have instead a moral tradition that has accumulated wisdom down the centuries, drawing on the twin sources of revelation and reason. It has given us an outline of a paradigm of good business practice that is contained in Catholic Social Teaching. This talks of solidarity and subsidiarity and their relation to common good, of the unique human dignity of every person specially those who are poor, vulnerable or disadvantaged, and it also talks about the nature of work and human creativity. And it is intensely conscious of the content and influence of culture, the shared values of any society that can do so much good - and if they go wrong, much harm.
I am joining prominent leaders of business and industry at a conference in London today in discussion of what it would take to bring about a renewal of the business culture in Britain. We have sub-titled it "Uniting corporate purpose and personal values to serve society", because we have detected a tendency for business people to feel they need to adopt a different set of values in business than those which they apply in the rest of their lives. That intriguing insight clearly needs further investigation.
This initiative is not a one-off. Many others are engaged in similar efforts, because they see a similar need. I have received strong messages of support from the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams who wrote to me to say: "I know these are live questions for very many in the world of contemporary business and there is currently a heartening willingness to look hard at such matters." The Chief Rabbi, Lord Sacks, in a message to the conference, declared: "The way to build better business is to build a lasting economy that places ethics and morals at its heart and visibly demonstrates their importance. Ethics and business are not adversaries. In the long run they need each other."
Cool, but where are ethics and morals currently being taught and evaluated for children and teenagers.
Quote from: Phillip V on September 17, 2012, 08:14:45 PM
Cool, but where are ethics and morals currently being taught and evaluated for children and teenagers.
Catholic schools.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 17, 2012, 08:15:56 PM
Quote from: Phillip V on September 17, 2012, 08:14:45 PM
Cool, but where are ethics and morals currently being taught and evaluated for children and teenagers.
Catholic schools.
Catholic schools are dying.
(closures and decreased enrollment over the past decades)
This movement started out with some good messages, but sadly fractured into too many wilder issues and lost its way, as the anarchists, more extreme types and those just protesting for a party, took over and the movement died down.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 17, 2012, 05:19:00 PM
I saw a decent brunette.
Oh, here she is: all serious and whatnot. Probably fucks you in a beret.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmsnbcmedia1.msn.com%2Fj%2FMSNBC%2FComponents%2FPhoto%2F_new%2Fg-cvr-120917-occupy-anniversary-kb-1230p.grid-6x2.jpg&hash=674d8335fd140c8e678859d8facc16c337607fc3)
Not much point using the word brunette to describe a non-white as dark hair is pretty much a given.
She looks like an Eye-Talian American.
Looks Indian to me. Check out the nose.
My money is still on wop.
Course, as Dennis Hopper pointed out, Sicilians aren't white anyway.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 17, 2012, 10:46:36 PM
My money is still on wop.
I was thinking Jewish, but you could be right. She is a looker.
A. I'd fuck the Occupy chick pictured above.
B. Those who feel that Occupy had no message were willfully deaf to it. Just like they're willfully deaf to the contempt much of the upper class of the United States and their spokesperson has for all of us.
Quote from: Ideologue on September 18, 2012, 03:41:11 AM
A. I'd fuck the Occupy chick pictured above.
B. Those who feel that Occupy had no message were willfully deaf to it. Just like they're willfully deaf to the contempt much of the upper class of the United States and their spokesperson has for all of us.
you have a contempt for the upper class so I guess you guys are even. :P
I think you're confusing contempt with bitter envy. :contract:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 18, 2012, 04:17:30 AM
I think you're confusing contempt with bitter envy. :contract:
yeah good point :D
Quote from: Ideologue on September 18, 2012, 03:41:11 AM
Those who feel that Occupy had no message were willfully deaf to it.
Does anyone think that? They had a surplus of messages.
What they lacked entirely was policy. So the pointlessness of the movement was exposed from the very first.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 18, 2012, 07:10:47 AM
Does anyone think that? They had a surplus of messages.
What they lacked entirely was policy. So the pointlessness of the movement was exposed from the very first.
Is it a protest's movements responsibility to form policy? That is a pretty absurd and ridiculous demand, not even the most brilliant minds in the world can come up with decent policies to solve our current problems.
Quote from: Valmy on September 18, 2012, 07:44:55 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 18, 2012, 07:10:47 AM
Does anyone think that? They had a surplus of messages.
What they lacked entirely was policy. So the pointlessness of the movement was exposed from the very first.
Is it a protest's movements responsibility to form policy? That is a pretty absurd and ridiculous demand, not even the most brilliant minds in the world can come up with decent policies to solve our current problems.
Fair though it seems that a good protest movement would whittle its aims down to a few. Hard to be effective otherwise as everyone's energies will be dissipated in different directions.
Quote from: Valmy on September 18, 2012, 07:44:55 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 18, 2012, 07:10:47 AM
Does anyone think that? They had a surplus of messages.
What they lacked entirely was policy. So the pointlessness of the movement was exposed from the very first.
Is it a protest's movements responsibility to form policy? That is a pretty absurd and ridiculous demand, not even the most brilliant minds in the world can come up with decent policies to solve our current problems.
I disagree. Most protest movements have had simple, clear policies aimed at dealing with the issue they wanted dealing with - unilateral nuclear disarmament, boycott of apartheid South Africa, end slavery, allow black people in the South/women in country X to vote, ban fur coats/vivisection, end the war in Iraq, end hunting wild animals with dogs, stop the ban on hunting wild animals with dogs
I'm actually struggling to think of a protest movement of any significance or importance which doesn't have defined policies. Occupy just had slogans.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 17, 2012, 10:42:30 PM
Looks Indian to me. Check out the nose.
Yeah, Indian, Iranian, that sort of thing.
Quote from: Valmy on September 18, 2012, 07:44:55 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 18, 2012, 07:10:47 AM
Does anyone think that? They had a surplus of messages.
What they lacked entirely was policy. So the pointlessness of the movement was exposed from the very first.
Is it a protest's movements responsibility to form policy? That is a pretty absurd and ridiculous demand, not even the most brilliant minds in the world can come up with decent policies to solve our current problems.
I think policy isn't really the word, but some sort of coherant list of what the movement wants is kind of a must. Something that makes sense. "Forgive student loan and credit card debt" isn't sensical. Nor is it coherent when grouped up with 36 other demands.
Quote from: Gups on September 18, 2012, 08:18:08 AM
I'm actually struggling to think of a protest movement of any significance or importance which doesn't have defined policies. Occupy just had slogans.
I think the complexity of the phenomenon they were protesting was a big part of that. And there have been hundreds of protest movements against social forces that had no coherent program because they didn't have one. They were just expressing a general frustration and rage.
But naturally those sorts of protests lack the coherence of having a singular issue or demand. Which is why the ones you listed were generally successful ones, or at least lasted longer than the sort of ones that Occupy resembles.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on September 18, 2012, 08:21:28 AM
I think policy isn't really the word, but some sort of coherant list of what the movement wants is kind of a must. Something that makes sense. "Forgive student loan and credit card debt" isn't sensical. Nor is it coherent when grouped up with 36 other demands.
That is fair. But again it is hard to get sensical demands these days. You end up with Tea Party people wanting the Government to get their hands of Medicare or whatever. There is a sense that the people who are supposed to be representing us are no longer acting in our best interests but why and what the should be doing is something people cannot seem to agree on yet.
If I was leading a protest movement I would at least demand they balance the budget. 'Austerity now!' is a really rabble rousing slogan don't you think?
The anti-abortion movement in the early '80s had nothing but slogans, too. Until doctors started getting whacked and clinics started getting blown up. Imma jus sayin'.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 18, 2012, 08:45:53 AM
The anti-abortion movement in the early '80s had nothing but slogans, too. Until doctors started getting whacked and clinics started getting blown up. Imma jus sayin'.
You're saying that you think it'd be a good idea if we descended into violence?
Quote from: garbon on September 18, 2012, 09:18:16 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 18, 2012, 08:45:53 AM
The anti-abortion movement in the early '80s had nothing but slogans, too. Until doctors started getting whacked and clinics started getting blown up. Imma jus sayin'.
You're saying that you think it'd be a good idea if we descended into violence?
I'm not saying that. Because that would be wrong.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 18, 2012, 09:21:54 AM
Quote from: garbon on September 18, 2012, 09:18:16 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 18, 2012, 08:45:53 AM
The anti-abortion movement in the early '80s had nothing but slogans, too. Until doctors started getting whacked and clinics started getting blown up. Imma jus sayin'.
You're saying that you think it'd be a good idea if we descended into violence?
I'm not saying that. Because that would be wrong.
It'd actually just be incredibly stupid. Yay things are bad, let's make them worse! :w00t:
Quote from: garbon on September 18, 2012, 09:22:45 AM
It'd actually just be incredibly stupid. Yay things are bad, let's make them worse! :w00t:
That's a bit subjective, now isn't it?
Quote from: Valmy on September 18, 2012, 07:44:55 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 18, 2012, 07:10:47 AM
Does anyone think that? They had a surplus of messages.
What they lacked entirely was policy. So the pointlessness of the movement was exposed from the very first.
Is it a protest's movements responsibility to form policy? That is a pretty absurd and ridiculous demand, not even the most brilliant minds in the world can come up with decent policies to solve our current problems.
Sure it is. Now usually that policy is pretty simple and basic - "No Poll Tax", "Mubarak Must Resign", "We want elections". But there needs to be some kind of basic policy you are trying to implement.
QuoteSure it is. Now usually that policy is pretty simple and basic - "No Poll Tax", "Mubarak Must Resign", "We want elections". But there needs to be some kind of basic policy you are trying to implement.
I couldn't disagree more. Sometimes you need to make those in power know the natives are restless. I mean obviously if there is something obvious to be done sure that really helps but all that is required to protest is a grievence. That grievance can be perfectly justified without necessarily having a program of reform. Especially in this case because nobody really has any idea how to fix the problems. I mean we are demanding something of the hoi polloi we are not getting from elites.
Quote from: Valmy on September 18, 2012, 09:38:27 AM
I couldn't disagree more. Sometimes you need to make those in power know the natives are restless. I mean obviously if there is something obvious to be done sure that really helps but all that is required to protest is a grievence. That grievance can be perfectly justified without necessarily having a program of reform. Especially in this case because nobody really has any idea how to fix the problems. I mean we are demanding something of the hoi polloi we are not getting from elites.
So the natives are restless, big fucking deal. Guess what? The elites don't care. Why? Because there's nothing to be afraid of. Certainly not from the government, so why should a handful of fucking hipsters matter?
Quote from: garbon on September 18, 2012, 09:22:45 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 18, 2012, 09:21:54 AM
Quote from: garbon on September 18, 2012, 09:18:16 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 18, 2012, 08:45:53 AM
The anti-abortion movement in the early '80s had nothing but slogans, too. Until doctors started getting whacked and clinics started getting blown up. Imma jus sayin'.
You're saying that you think it'd be a good idea if we descended into violence?
I'm not saying that. Because that would be wrong.
It'd actually just be incredibly stupid. Yay things are bad, let's make them worse! :w00t:
Complacency is worse. You saying things became worse for the french peasant because of the violent revolution?
Quote from: Josephus on September 18, 2012, 09:59:25 AM
Complacency is worse. You saying things became worse for the french peasant because of the violent revolution?
I think in general, yes, things in France became way worse before they became better.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 18, 2012, 09:51:23 AM
why should a handful of fucking hipsters matter?
That's a general question though really should just be rhetorical.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 18, 2012, 09:23:52 AM
Quote from: garbon on September 18, 2012, 09:22:45 AM
It'd actually just be incredibly stupid. Yay things are bad, let's make them worse! :w00t:
That's a bit subjective, now isn't it?
No not really. I think for everyone an increase in violence is a net negative - at least for the short term.
Quote from: Valmy on September 18, 2012, 09:38:27 AM
QuoteSure it is. Now usually that policy is pretty simple and basic - "No Poll Tax", "Mubarak Must Resign", "We want elections". But there needs to be some kind of basic policy you are trying to implement.
I couldn't disagree more. Sometimes you need to make those in power know the natives are restless. I mean obviously if there is something obvious to be done sure that really helps but all that is required to protest is a grievence. That grievance can be perfectly justified without necessarily having a program of reform. Especially in this case because nobody really has any idea how to fix the problems. I mean we are demanding something of the hoi polloi we are not getting from elites.
Really? Then what you get is a movement that dies out without changing much.
Quote from: Barrister on September 18, 2012, 09:33:41 AM
Quote from: Valmy on September 18, 2012, 07:44:55 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 18, 2012, 07:10:47 AM
Does anyone think that? They had a surplus of messages.
What they lacked entirely was policy. So the pointlessness of the movement was exposed from the very first.
Is it a protest's movements responsibility to form policy? That is a pretty absurd and ridiculous demand, not even the most brilliant minds in the world can come up with decent policies to solve our current problems.
Sure it is. Now usually that policy is pretty simple and basic - "No Poll Tax", "Mubarak Must Resign", "We want elections". But there needs to be some kind of basic policy you are trying to implement.
Wouldn't the basic policy here be "reduce income inequality"?
The problem is that there is no easy way to achieve that.
Quote from: garbon on September 18, 2012, 10:09:22 AM
Really? Then what you get is a movement that dies out without changing much.
Which is exactly what it did. And generally does. Even when a movement like that has success it historically tends to have problems, like alot of peasant movements. But I thought we were talking about its legitimacy not its effectiveness. I never said the Occupy movement was a successful movement only that it was in reaction to legitimate problems and did reflect popular anger. It was not just hipsters out being cool by fightin' the man or whatever.
Quote from: Valmy on September 18, 2012, 11:05:37 AM
Quote from: garbon on September 18, 2012, 10:09:22 AM
Really? Then what you get is a movement that dies out without changing much.
Which is exactly what it did. And generally does. Even when a movement like that has success it historically tends to have problems, like alot of peasant movements. But I thought we were talking about its legitimacy not its effectiveness. I never said the Occupy movement was a successful movement only that it was in reaction to legitimate problems and did reflect popular anger. It was not just hipsters out being cool by fightin' the man or whatever.
I don't think so. Yours is the first post to mention legitimacy. Most recent discussion stemmed off of Yi responding to Ide's comments about people not listening who say OWS didn't have a message.
Quote from: garbon on September 18, 2012, 11:26:02 AM
I don't think so. Yours is the first post to mention legitimacy. Most recent discussion stemmed off of Yi responding to Ide's comments about people not listening who say OWS didn't have a message.
They did have a message which is what I meant by legitimacy...just no solutions. Which I do not judge them too much for because nobody really does.
Their message is that the elites have let us down and it is the people, not them, who are suffering for their mistakes.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.c3iopscenter.com%2Fcurrentops%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F09%2F16Sept1920-DayHistory.jpg&hash=6e3cde2f1d38e168eb7c06e1eb5f063d8e8f6e01)
The Tent Offensive:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9Caqb9DIhM (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9Caqb9DIhM)
Quote from: Valmy on September 18, 2012, 11:34:54 AM
Quote from: garbon on September 18, 2012, 11:26:02 AM
I don't think so. Yours is the first post to mention legitimacy. Most recent discussion stemmed off of Yi responding to Ide's comments about people not listening who say OWS didn't have a message.
They did have a message which is what I meant by legitimacy...just no solutions. Which I do not judge them too much for because nobody really does.
Their message is that the elites have let us down and it is the people, not them, who are suffering for their mistakes.
I don't see how any of that counters Yi's point that it was...pointless.
Quote from: Valmy on September 18, 2012, 11:34:54 AM
Quote from: garbon on September 18, 2012, 11:26:02 AM
I don't think so. Yours is the first post to mention legitimacy. Most recent discussion stemmed off of Yi responding to Ide's comments about people not listening who say OWS didn't have a message.
They did have a message which is what I meant by legitimacy...just no solutions. Which I do not judge them too much for because nobody really does.
Their message is that the elites have let us down and it is the people, not them, who are suffering for their mistakes.
Indeed, and we're not out of the woods yet.
I'd regard them as a symptom, one of many. They didn't come up with any solutions, but then.......they are young and therefore a bit naive and useless ;)
When I was a youngster the turnout for UK General Elections was over 80% and 95% of those voted for the two major parties. Each party had about 2m members. The turnout in the most recent General election was only 65% and the two largest parties got only 64% of those votes. The two major parties each have memberships of only 200k or so, or only 300 people per parliamentary constituency. Where the government used to get a mandate of close to 50% of those entitled to vote it now is lucky to get 25%. Meanwhile they draw from an increasingly limited pool of chancers and political hacks for their town and county councillors and members of parliament, the proportion of "real" people with a hinterland outside politics engaging in politics declines remorselessly.
I really think we are entering a post-democratic age. Of course, at least in the UK, not many people seem to care about that :hmm:
Shall I post what I said on another website about the 'pointlessness of occupy and protest. This in response to saying both the world is collapsing about us, there needs to be a completely new system not based on capital and that protest never achieved anything.
QuoteStatements don't become indisputable facts just because you capitalise the word.
What human endeavour isn't in some sense conducted in vain ?
However, I think protest does work if those participating feel it is of benefit to themselves and others, whether it's an efficient use of their our own time, is something to be considered by the individuals involved.
Personally I'm not keen on "protest for protest's sake", but at the very least it does exercise and help maintain one of our basic democratic rights.
And so long as it doesn't intentionally set out to curtail the rights of others, I think it should be applauded.
Of course there's an argument to me made that there has to be a second and third stage of activity that builds upon the initial protest, but since I don't see many people, anywhere, building their own 'New Jerusalems' then it's a bit rich to just sit around and criticise others efforts without demonstrating how you yourself are building a better future/world.
My own opinion is, for the moment a well focused protest, that's internally coherent, is a good first stage.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on September 18, 2012, 03:01:49 PM
I'd regard them as a symptom, one of many. They didn't come up with any solutions, but then.......they are young and therefore a bit naive and useless ;)
When I was a youngster the turnout for UK General Elections was over 80% and 95% of those voted for the two major parties. Each party had about 2m members. The turnout in the most recent General election was only 65% and the two largest parties got only 64% of those votes. The two major parties each have memberships of only 200k or so, or only 300 people per parliamentary constituency. Where the government used to get a mandate of close to 50% of those entitled to vote it now is lucky to get 25%. Meanwhile they draw from an increasingly limited pool of chancers and political hacks for their town and county councillors and members of parliament, the proportion of "real" people with a hinterland outside politics engaging in politics declines remorselessly.
I really think we are entering a post-democratic age. Of course, at least in the UK, not many people seem to care about that :hmm:
Some sound points there, Tricky. :cheers:
Just noted a telling slip in my post mongers, I said "their town and county councillors and members of parliament"..........of course it should be "our etc" :(
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on September 18, 2012, 03:11:23 PM
Just noted a telling slip in my post mongers, I said "their town and county councillors and members of parliament"..........of course it should be "our etc" :(
Yes as you say, I guess it underlines a sub-conscious assumption that one has to be a bit odd to want to stand in these elections.
Personally I'd think I was somewhat odd, if I decided to stand in a local election on a major party ticket. :bowler:
Quote from: garbon on September 18, 2012, 01:46:26 PM
I don't see how any of that counters Yi's point that it was...pointless.
Ok then we go back to my original opinion that just because they had no solutions does not mean it was pointless. I think it had a very important point, one that is symptomatic of the challenges we face. Hence we are arguing in circles. You mind explaining then what makes it pointless besides just insisting it was and making me guess why?
Quote from: Valmy on September 18, 2012, 03:23:46 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 18, 2012, 01:46:26 PM
I don't see how any of that counters Yi's point that it was...pointless.
Ok then we go back to my original opinion that just because they had no solutions does not mean it was pointless. I think it had a very important point, one that is symptomatic of the challenges we face. Hence we are arguing in circles. You mind explaining then what makes it pointless besides just insisting it was and making me guess why?
Why was it pointless? I don't think it accomplished much of anything. I guess it briefly sent a message but ultimately it wasn't one that anyone cared to pay attention to (elite or non-elites). I don't really understand the point of movement if you can't cause some sort of change or at least be a step towards change. I don't see any steps forwards stemming from OWS.
Even in articles that purport to say that OWS was important, I can't help taking away that it is important because it was important.
http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2012/09/18/the-importance-of-occupy/
Quote from: Valmy on September 18, 2012, 03:23:46 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 18, 2012, 01:46:26 PM
I don't see how any of that counters Yi's point that it was...pointless.
Ok then we go back to my original opinion that just because they had no solutions does not mean it was pointless. I think it had a very important point, one that is symptomatic of the challenges we face. Hence we are arguing in circles. You mind explaining then what makes it pointless besides just insisting it was and making me guess why?
Well, you said earlier that it was a left-wing version of the Tea Party movement, and I agree with that for the most part--both started out a expressions of general discontent with the way things were going; the Tea Party movement took a couple months or so to assume a rightist character, while the Occupy movement took on a leftist tone much more quickly (probably because the Tea Party movement had already drawn in those who were discontented but essentially conservative). To me, though, the real difference between the 2 isn't the distinction between left-wing and right-wing, but that the Tea Party movement began to basically run slates of candidate in (mostly) Republican primaries, while the Occupy movement
(to my knowledge) never endorsed any political candidates to any significant degree.
It seems to me that, while I suspect that he is largely trolling, CdM has a point--if you want to bring about change, you either have attempt to overthrow the system (which is going to entail violence at some point), or work to change the system from within (which in a democratic society entails contesting elections). The Tea Party movement went with the latter; the Occupy movement didn't really embrace either, and therefore didn't accomplish much.
Quote from: Valmy on September 18, 2012, 09:38:27 AM
I couldn't disagree more. Sometimes you need to make those in power know the natives are restless. I mean obviously if there is something obvious to be done sure that really helps but all that is required to protest is a grievence. That grievance can be perfectly justified without necessarily having a program of reform. Especially in this case because nobody really has any idea how to fix the problems. I mean we are demanding something of the hoi polloi we are not getting from elites.
All that is required to protest is a pulse. In order for the protest to be taken seriously you need a program, as Guppy and Beeb have pointed out. Otherwise it's just an infant throwing a temper tantrum. "I don't like bankers. Wah!"
http://www.spreecast.com/events/occupy-movement-one-year-later (http://www.spreecast.com/events/occupy-movement-one-year-later)
One of my droogs asked me to see if I knew anybody interested in a spreecast discussion on the Occupy movement. It has some talk show hosts and such discussing it at 5pm EST today.