Occupy THIS, Commie!

I'm not sure if we're talking about the same things here anymore. IWSJ has already said he is on board with the idea that private companies manipulating the government is absolute bullshit, but the issue is that if I say "I support the OWS movement" what am I signing up for?

Some of them want to expand and increase welfare, some don't.
Some of them want straight up socialism, some don't.
Some want to eliminate student loan debt and put the burden on taxpayers that either didn't go to school because they didn't want debt or paid for it, some don't.
Some think the issue is giving bailouts in the first place, some think everyone should get bailouts.

Until they can at least have a cogent stance on issues it's hard to support them without possibly supporting ideas you don't believe in. I realize many other parties have their outliers, but not nearly to this degree. I know that some of you are saying it's about supporting the outrage over imbalance, and I get that, but I think even the outrage is ambiguous, are they angry that the government is basically a coke mule for private interests? I can get on board with that. Are they angry because private businesses have too much control over their own operations? No dice.

So you're saying we should support anything that that benefits us personally regardless of our perceived effects on society as a whole, because it makes MY life better? Hmmm, reminds me of a certain group that people are angry about... can't quite place my finger on it, but I'll think about it and get back to you.

Seriously, fuck this, I know I wouldn't get back to 5%, but I'm sure ING would give me 2.75-3% instead of the artificially low 0.85% they're giving me now.

 

This isn't just a question for Nett, but for anyone who has said something along these lines both in this thread and everywhere else, because I hear this all the time: what are the options? If you're not a politician or a lawyer, then what can you actually do about it yourself? The whole point of any kind of protest is to put pressure on the people who do have the power to change things to actually do something about it, or else they might not be in power anymore. I'm a bit skeptical of the power of protests - I know they're to thank for a lot of big social movements in the past, and I think this one will take some time if it ever results in actual tangible change - but what is everyone expecting them to do instead? The argument of saying to a bunch of protesters "Well if you don't like this gigantic incredibly broken system, then why don't you just change it?" is as ridiculous as saying to 8.6% of the population "Well, if you're unemployed, then why don't you just get a job?"


Let them eat cake.

 

Well........vote?

Ever notice how government rarely, if ever, legislates *against* the elderly?

They're death incarnate when they get behind the wheel of the car. Has an age limit been set for driver's licenses? Nope.

Social Security (as well as the fraud associated with it) runs the country billions of dollars every year. How often, if ever, do you hear about social security benefits seeing major cuts?

Ever notice how every presidential election, both candidates spend an awful lot of time campaigning in what is probably considered the old folks capital of the U.S.?

Old folks get additional tax deductions just for being aged 65 or over.

If young people consistently voted with the same strength as the old folks, how often do you think Congress would turn against them?

I'm not a fan of doing a lot work, especially if perceived benefits are little to nonexistent. I still haul my ass to a voting booth every election.

 

Whether you agree with them or not, a template already exists for the OWS'rs. The Tea Party has done it. They managed to organize, come up with a message, field canidates, get them elected, and have tried to get the change that they wanted.

 

Great point..., it works for many, though I think in actuality it's slightly more....well...I'm not sure what the word is. It's not that everyone thinks the Fair Shake idea still exists, people know everything is unfair, they are just pawns, etc... But if they were to try to change the system, they would put forward a concerted movement with practical goals, they would get powerful backing, they would develop political agendas, they would vote, they would run for office, etc, etc, etc., they wouldn't do what these OWS people are doing for two reasons, a) what OWS is doing doesn't work for x reason, and b) because if it did work then they would be wrong. What work means in these cases I leave up to you.

The illusion isn't that there is still a Fair Shake kind of system, the illusion is that you could change this system if you really wanted to, or you could even be one of those corporate thugs aka 'prime movers'. Being a pawn out of choice or comfort is much easier to stomach than being a pawn because...you are a pawn.

 

I don't mean anything dogmatic by this, but what if consumerism doesn't fuel corporate greed, what if corporate greed fuels consumerism? Noone is sitting around dreaming of a new smart phone that doesn't exist that they want, or a new computer, or new designer clothing. People create these new items, and then create a desire in consumers for them, and thennnnn you get consumerism of the rampant variety, and it becomes a cultural practice.

The way you propose to deal with the situation seems a bit abstract. How do we get rid of the rampant consumerism? By getting rid of it? Do you blame whales when they are over-hunted almost to the point of extinction? No, you limit either the ability or legality of hunting them.

And if after reading that you immediately revert to, "IDOJSFI They aren't even doing anything! OWS isn't even trying to legislate shit!," then you have always been OWS' true enemy.

 

Except whales have no say in the matter of getting poached. Whereas consumers have a little say.


Greed of this magnitude wouldnt have gotten this large without some complicity.

 

A lot of this has to do with the way the US attacks problems: scientifically or idealogically.

Scientifically, things are as bad for the average person as they have been since the 1920's.
Ideologically, it's all over the place and it's mostly about blame or exclusion. I don't think this is a diversionary tactic used by some manipulative billionaires, like many conspiracy theorists would suggest. I think it's a collossal lack of faith in scientific reporting, analisis and a widespread unwillingness to think critically and logically. There are dozens of reasons for this, not the least of which is the fact that the news, the labels and the advertisements have been allowed to flat-out lie for decades now.

The key to American exceptionalism is the fact that the US adheres to a dogma, even when it is pointless, detrimental and dangerous to continue to do so.

The US has this tendency to go on crusades with NO factual or scientific reasoning behind it: War on Terror, War on Drugs, War on Poverty, War on Communism. Instead of thinking rationally about a perceived threat to our way of life or business, the US acts to squash it in the most barbaric, thoughtless, ill-advised way possible. Why? Because we respond in a way that the mob can understand and approve.

So the OWS movement is like a shotgun spread from 50 yards away: a group of outliers, instead of a cohesive pattern. Why? Because the majority of the US won't look beyond a headline or two, the problems are complex and the solutions to solve them would mean a drastic change in the US economic, military, diplomatic and domestic policies. Which, at the moment, NO ONE KNOWS HOW TO DO, much less has the clout, willpower and ability.

I think this in part is the result of 10 year's worth of Internet transparency boiling over. Basically, the ideology has to lose in the current environment: the scientic side is overwhelming, because of the Internet; there are simply too many examples of things gone awry and not enough heads are rolling.

 

Heh. Read this laying flat in my bed with my macbook propped on my stomach and pepsi max in hand. Complicity indeed.

Anyways, just wanted to say that the federal government does not get enough credit for the social welfare programs they run that are actually effective in administering aid. I can only speak for Illinois but Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) is an awesome welfare program that provides supplemental food stamps and health care referrals for pregnant women and their children up to age five. Every six months the recipient's child is given a physical and weighed. The amount of food you can receive either increases or decreases if the child is under/overweight. Food stamps provided are very specific to the items recipients may buy and slowly expand as the child gets older. For instance, recipients are only allowed to buy juices that are 100% pure, can only purchase whole grain bread, etc. Program benefits are entirely geared towards helping parents provide healthy nutritional options. The program is so well run it was kind of shocking at first. WIC is a nice example of how some of your tax dollars are going towards an awesome, concrete service.
Linkage: http://www.fns.usda.gov/wic/

In contrast, some of our major social insurance programs are so fundamentally broken it is difficult to even know where to begin. The combined costs of Medicare and Medicaid are expected to triple by 2050, partially because as the baby boomer generation retires America will have roughly 2x as many 65+ peoples on Medicare, who will be using services that far exceed the amount of money they contributed through FICA payroll taxes.

Politicians do have the ability to implement programs that are locally administered, transparent spending, and effectively aid target groups. But supporting any programs other than giant, bloated federal ones that subsidize health insurance for old white people gets you labelled a socialist and unelectable.

 

This is the problem. I think it's hard to disagree with these two things:

1. There are issues in America that need fixing.
2. Occupy Wall Street is being less than effective in doing what it set out to do.

Think about it from the perspective of a non-American. Net isn't a typical Canadian, but most of them Canucks are getting their news about this from the media. What is the media saying about these protests?

"They're still camping/ things got broken/ people got kicked out from camping/ police started pepper spraying/ etc." The issues are glossed over, and the whole raison d'être is ignored. What it set out to be and what it has become to the Average Joe are completely different things, and I can't say that's only the news media's fault. The actions of the protesters just haven't been effective.

I know it's a huge debate on whether or not having a specific set of goals, rather than the more general "everything is wrong" goals that suapyg outlined, is more effective. I'm in the "they need to pick something" camp. Why? Well, get in your time machine and ask MLK Jr, Gandhi, Nelson Mandela, Susan B. Anthony, or any other historic activist what they were being disobedient towards. Each one could have told you specifically why they were doing something, and the people following them would, having been asked, would respond the same. Here, we have a mishmash of everything.

Would everything that's wrong being fixed be great? Obviously. Can this movement do that with the "everything at once" approach? I don't think so. But more public support is needed, and to do that they need to do everything they can do to get the media to cover the issues, rather than the bullshit surrounding them. A news report about police pepper spraying protesters is not helpful, it just feeds the extremely black and white views that OWS keeps spawning. A report about OWS tackling and solving a single, specific issue, while avoiding the bullshit, will bring people around. One issue after the other, not everything at once.

 

It's a small, miniscule, baby step in the grand scheme of things; but challenges facing OWS are monumental in scale.
No more corporate personhood in LA, Unanimous

Not a result of OWS, but it is something that I'm sure many of them will claim as a 'win' and a turning of the tide when it comes to responsibility and accountability for corruption.
Blagojevich Sentenced to 14 Years in Prison

 

Just to be clear about my own stance, I'm not suggesting that anything gets solved by attacking everything at once. I'm suggesting that expressing the depth of the pile of problems can touch a sedated and apathetic public enough to at least a little, "me too!" -ism, which with even a little bit of luck can embolden the few with that magic combo platter of ideas, education, access, the oft-underestimated-but-oh-so-crucial charisma, etc., to the idea that they might just be able to say a few things before they get shot in the back of the head.

This began with a mob. Mobs don't create ideas and find direction. Individuals do that, mobs follow them. "MLK Jr, Gandhi, Nelson Mandela, Susan B. Anthony, or any other historic activist?" They stood up for an ideal, spoke of a way to achieve it, and the mob followed. What this mob needs is an opportunist with the right message - when that happens, watch them follow. But that opportunist hasn't shown up thus far, and what just might make him or her show up, is volume. And that's why I advocate not belittling and dismissing it, but adding my voice to the din.

 

This is very insightful. People don't care if the system is tilted towards the 1%, because they believe that they have the power to become the 1%. And what do you suppose the 1% say? "Sure, go for it, pull yourself up by your bootstraps! You can do it!" Just taking a look at this thread, the message seems to have gotten through to a lot of people.

Yeah, I guess that too. Good posts.

 

Dude, your post is the problem. Everyone that sits at home thinking your exact two points the exact way that you worded them is the problem. "Things are bad in America, but OWS (the people who are actually giving something, even if its just effort, to try to change what you know is a bad system), are bad too." Thus, you convince yourself into thinking you have a better outlook on everything and don't have to risk a damn thing in the process. And nothing gets changed. It's the perfect example of narcissistic complacency.

Camping has become the message because the government, the media, the corporations, ergo everyone, wanted it that way. It's not class warfare, it's ideological warfare, and the current ideology is winning. All the things that manifest that you want OWS to take a stand on aren't the problem, they are symptoms of the problem. What you're talking about, this one issue at a time bullshit, is essentially irrelevant to the problem, and is in fact the problem itself putting forth it's own solutions within its own ideology (i.e. us millionaires want to pay higher taxes, imprison Blagoyehowsiwhatsy, greater transparency!, no corporate personhooh!, etc..). Judging from this thread, I don't think OWS has even made a dent in that armor, and if anything is going to change, that is what needs to first.

 

...what? Where did I say OWS was "bad"?

And no shit camping is now the message because higherups want it that way to protect the status quo. I'm saying OWS has to realize that not all the press they get is good press for their cause, and has to do something to combat that to get the average American on their side.

 

Things are going to have to get worse for this to happen. Another major, prolonged recession, etc.

Another thing is that it took a long, long time for things to get this bad, and it's going to take a long time for them to get better as well.

 

Maybe I spoke too strongly on the "bad," but I can't help but think all the back seat criticisms of the occupy stuff are sort of like what suapyg mentioned earlier in the "distancing," from the issue. I wasn't trying to say that the higher ups want the statis quo, I was trying to say, and maybe it didn't come across so well, that everyone wants the status quo, even when they know that it's messed up, because it's comforting, and you end up as The Last Man. It's not even TLP's "the problem isn't the system, the problem is you;" the problem we should be facing is that the system is you. I think some people are looking for some light outside of that manipulation, but when you say that OWS has bad media portrayals, and they should work to get better ones to get more people on their side, you're backing away right back into the frame that the media has given you to discuss the problem. I don't know if looking at the occupy thing as a movement is the right way. I guess I tend to think of it as a fenced in little area where every adult puts his or her anger, and rage, to make it easier to get through our lives. I doubt very much that anyone in America really wants anything to change at all, but I think we all derive a pleasure out of people sitting around saying that the 1% is a bunch of dickwads, and we let them be mad for us.

 

I recognize that working within the frame the media has given us is a huge problem, but at this point in the discussion it's the frame we have to work with. It's nearly impossible to be subversive AND bring large numbers of people onto your side in a population as large and diverse as the United States.

What they can do though is force the media to cover only the issues they are trying to solve, by not giving them anything else to put on TV. The media will always find bullshit to put up about pepper spraying and whatever, but what if all the protesters refused to give in when they were brought on for interviews? Instead of "Yes, the pepper spray was ouchy and made me feel sad," they stripped the sensationalism and only spoke of what they were trying to fix? It wouldn't work right away, but if it was kept up the news would essentatially be forced to cover it. This is too big now to sweep under the rug and put on a story about something completely different.

Unfortunately, the solidarity of OWS would be nearly impossible without some sort of figurehead, a voice for the movement to rally around and listen to, a person or group that would create a plan of attack. And for someone to come forth like that would be OWS abandoning what brought it together in the first place, so I can see why we might not be seeing that anytime in the near future.