Care to back that up with actual evidence? I'd like to see real evidence that even a plurality of Occupiers were libertarians, nevermind the overwhelming majority you imply with that statement. Feel free to show us all how a group of people who popularized the problem of income inequality and corporate dominance of the economy somehow believed the ultimate solution was surrender (as libertarians do).

statement, and a revealing one btw.

OWS represents what Dems claim to be all about. When you see a comment like the one you responded to, it is best to ignore it. Most people here do at this point.

Bravo to OWS for all they have done and are still doing. They awakened the country to the corruption of Wall St and succeeded far, far beyond their original goals.

One of the most successful and noble Social Justice Movements in recent times and still going strong.

I didn't expect a response. I just think bullshit artists of all stripes deserve to be called out. It's more fun when they cooperate, but I'll take a win by default too.

Really, they represent the same problem, republican, corporate dems, that there is a difference is just a ruse.

A few here cannot stand the fact that OWS was a global success as you can clearly see.

...................................................


you just broke my brain.



Rebooting.....................

Ouch! broken brains are very painful. I'm in a lot of pain lately.

Occupy is a "we are the 99%" movement.

Occupy the debt/rolling jubilee collected money to buy medical debt and forgive it
Occupy Sandy cleaned out houses and provided food for people in NY/NJ
Occupy Wall Street wants a bail-out for the people and consequences for Wall Street bandits.

Sure, there may have been some libertarians there but it's hardly a libertarian movement.

one of the most ridiculous comments I have yet to see on DU and that is saying something.

Please show the comparison between the Corporate Created Tea Party Phonies, and the Anti Corporate Takeover of this country, Citizen United etc, Movement known as and still going strong all over the world OWS??

I am seriously interested in a break down of the comparisons. Just for fun if nothing else.

I had doubts about whether to rec this OP or not as it wasn't totally clear to me what the intent was, but just for that first comment, I am going to rec the OP.

MADem just plain hates the left. Sucks for him, I suppose.

MADem does more to get Democrats elected than any of the OWS whiners, who dissed Warren and said they wouldn't vote for her. I provided a link to back that up, too.

But hey, demonize me, as you are wont to do. It is far easier than doing anything to actually help Democrats get elected, I suppose, and it just might make you feel tough, too.

I'm sure you work to get Democrats elected, MADem - after all, someone has to be voting for the Blue Dog bunch.

It's ridiculous how often I hear this from Du's anti-left contingent.

Tell me how many Blue Dogs come outta Massachusetts, now....I did a lot of work for Liz Warren, I got close to a hundred voters to the polling booth for her--she's a real "Blue Dog" there, isn't she? Not pure enough for ya? Hmmmm?

Every Dem who has run lately--and we've had seven Senators in the past few years--I've been there for 'em. In practical fashion. Not finger wagging, getting out the vote. You should try it sometime.



The real "anti left" contingent on DU is the Puritan Pouters that relentlessly mock people who actually do the work to get Democrats elected. If you're not working to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans, you're not contributing.

I hear you, all the time, like a broken record, complaining about how no one is "left" enough to suit YOU, and "everyone else" is a DINO or a Blue Dog or some other sillyass label you try to plaster on people to hurt their feelings (Big Fail There, Buckaroo--you are just too transparent for your own good) but I never, ever hear of you actually getting out there and pounding the pavement or doing the basic GOTV to put a candidate on the Hill. Never. Not once. You're real good at putting others down, though, with "Blue Dog" and "anti-left" drivel--it's your strong suit--your only one, it would seem, as you, once again, demonstrate.

Funny, that.

We know them by their works.

Instead, I'm mocking you for your asinine "+1" response to some fool claiming that OWS is a libertarian movement, paired with some of your masturbatory ranting on the subject.

See, funny thing about the internet. You can pretty much claim whatever bullshit you want, and true or not, nobody knows. That being the case, people get judged on the visible content they produce, not the amazing feats of awesomeness they claim to do (barring, of course, provision of evidence for those claims.)

So when so much of your content is bitching and moaning about the left...

And maybe you never will.

You're right about one thing--people do get judged on the visible content they produce.

I've seen what you've produced, and I have yet to see you post ANYTHING that has a goal towards electing more Democrats and fewer Republicans to public office...ever. All you seem to be able to do is criticize Democrats who DO have that as a goal.

Funny, that.

In the beginning it was pretty broad, but very early on libertarians were driven from the movement when they realized their Ron Paul bullshit wasn't cutting any cake with Occupiers in general. At least, that's how it was in Zucotti park.

Are you confusing anarchists with libertarians?

There were some libertarians, but it was mostly old-fashioned liberals who felt rejected by a society and the Democratic Party to which they had always belonged and in which they had grown up.

Brian Doherty|Dec. 13, 2012 2:47 pm

http://reason.com/blog/2012/12/13/occupy-ron-paul-the-libertarian-roots-of

Please explain how Occupy is the Libertarian fringe.

Plus, while the Tea Party attracts the fringe, it does not represent the fringe. It is backed by corporate greed. The Koch brothers funded them and while OWS was true grass roots in action - the voice of the people - the TP is astro turf all the way.

And I take it that crazy emoticon is you, since there was nothing crazy about Occupy. Or are you in favor of the 1%? I mean really, to say OWS, which stood for the 99% is fringe is crazy. Look how OWS changed the conversation.

Do the world a favor and begin everything you post with "Sorry..." Think of the time you will save everyone.

... maybe the "Librarian" fringe.

... trying to get people to educate themselves

Some anarchists? Yes. Communists, socialists and hippies? Definitely. But not a single "Libertarian".

what part of Libertarian is that, exactly?

Forget it. Just give me the whole bottle.

no?

Should'a just cooped Warren.

between a Political Party and a Social Justice Movement?

They do however, support Progressive Democrats who support the People over Corporations and since most of them vote, that is who they vote for.

That is a very odd thing to say about a Movement that made clear from the beginning what they were about.

specific political tactics are even less well defined.

apparent. Do you know the history of and the reasons for the very successful tactic of being a leaderless movement? Because anyone who does, applauded this brilliant tactic employed by OWS months before they emerged during the intense planning stages.

The ONLY ones who moaned and whined about the leaderless nature of the movement, were the Wall St. Robo Cops and their handlers.

They were so FOILED in their repeated attempts to identify a HEAD of what they viewed as the 'snake' so they could do what they always do, chop it off, but there was no way to find the 'head' and they COULD NOT DO IT.

I laughed every time I saw their Corporate Propaganda Machine, the MSM, Fox especially, over and over again try to get 'names' from OWS protestors, thinking they were being clever and could then turn them over to the Corporate Robo Cops for extinction and thereby end the movement.

Because if they could have identified a leader, that person would have been persecuted smeared, accused of rape, murder, etc and jailed. The usual tactics, all known to those who studied the history of these movements before launching OWS.

Watching their frustration with this brilliant tactic demonstrated how important it was.

And the Movement continues. A Movement that was ONLY meant to last, at the most, TWO WEEKS in just ONE location.

Leaderless? It was BRILLIANT. No Targets to smear a whole movement with, no 'head' to cut off. And it continues.

All the 'Right' people were were furious about the 'lack of a leader'!

When you get all the 'Right' people angry you KNOW have done it right!

A leaderless group can certainly affect change, bring issues to the forefront, and even help people get elected, but they're not going to be all that successful in the sort of confrontations you just saw. Why? Because they can't make "deals".

John Lewis isn't in Congress because he sat around whittling, after all....

And in addition to sit-ins, he organized and participated in boycotts, marches, and various other forms of public protest and civil disobedience - 10 or 20 years before he ran for office.

He was a Freedom Rider who got the shit kicked out of him by a crew of bigots. He was the chair of SNCC--a leadership position. He went into the south and registered black voters. He got beaten by cops and had his skull fractured in Selma. He was one of the key organizers of the March on Washington.

He didn't hang around a park passing the talking stick and voting on where the porta potties should go (of course, the Occupy bozos didn't want to hear from him when he was willing to speak to them--their loss).

He led. He organized. He worked for the Carter administration, and then he pursued elective office.

He most definitely did not ever "sit around."

I was making a play on words that alluded to his activism.

Occupy refuses to develop any leaders, and that grossly limits the organization's utility and effectiveness. You won't see political leaders come out of organizations that pride themselves on not having any leaders.

do think that the leaders of it would have been really made to suffer by the press and the government had they identified themselves.

The Tea Party had corporate backing from the beginning -- the Koch brothers, for example.

Occupy did not. That made them fair game.

The Occupiers attacked the oligarchy; the Tea Party defends the oligarchy.

Of course, the media and the government which serve the oligarchy have been far kinder to the Tea Party than to Occupy.

If people aren't willing to stand up, speak up, and lead, they're going to be dismissed.

They wasted everyone's time.

They didn't even get anywhere NEAR "Wall Street." They were too busy mic-checking and crying about kitchen sinks and porta-potties.

They took a good idea and turned it into an urban camping trip, a senseless joke. They should have gotten political, of course, that would have brought out all the Black Bloc nastiness that was percolating in the background, further poisoning the well.

But I'm not convinced the leaderless idea is wrong or has been a serious detriment. Honestly, I see Occupy as incredibly successful - it was just a few activists in a park in NYC but people responded nationwide. I was anticipating a fairly short-lived action at a single location, so it wildly exceeded MY expectations. It's not easy taking on concentrated wealth and the political power it brings, it's tough to organize people, it always provokes a severe response and progress is rarely made quickly. This episode, even if nothing else comes of it, was pretty big.

They wasted everyone's time.

Too much twinkle-twinkle, mic-check silliness, fighting with cops about where to poop, and not enough occupying of "Wall Street."

The only power-protest they had in NYC was UNION organized. Those awful unions, with their, ya know...LEADERSHIP and...ORGANIZATION...and stuff like that. Oh, and their willingness to do things like get permits and provide police with parade routes so people don't get killed.

Massive waste of good intentions. Next time up, they should try trusting the smartest ones in the bunch to do a little leading.

How would you define success, and what do you think is a reasonable timetable?

Keep in mind that all previous grassroots movements that represented a challenge to entrenched power took years, if not decades, to effect any change in public policy or social norms, and experienced severe setbacks along the way.

It's also worth mentioning that activists in earlier movements for social justice had their characters smeared, their organization questioned, and their tactics criticized and labeled ineffective or counterproductive.

Of course the work is not yet done and there is no certainty that our goals will ever be achieved.

As I mentioned upthread, Occupy went from a few dozen activists in lower Manhattan to a nationwide phenomenon with thousands of participants within a few weeks. That's a smashing success.

Also, there are now more - and better organized and better networked - left leaning activists involved and committed to advancing issues related to economic justice than there were prior to the fall of 2011, and this has come together under the Occupy banner. This also represents a success.

They lost focus. They couldn't even keep their eye on the prize, with the whole world watching them.

It was kindergarten class without a teacher.

The "Summer of Love" was a "smashing success" too. Then the neighborhood became a shithole, and stayed that way for years until the real estate boom gentrified it. What came of that? The greedy eighties--the same people who were wearing flowers in their hair decided that "Greed is Good" and they helped create the mess that is Wall Street.

Successful movements are "better organized and better networked." OWS had all the momentum and desire of a hundred social justice causes, and they squandered it with stupid "rules" about consensus, a lot of blathering about tangential crap that did not matter, an absurd insistence upon urban camping in bad weather, and no leadership.

And all this whining about "If we have leaders, waaah, they'll SMEAR them" doesn't cut it with me. If MLK was afraid of being "smeared," he would have died in his bed in Birmingham, a very old man, and not a martyr on the balcony of a motel by a murderer's bullet.

I won't even go into the demographic issues in any great detail, but there was a real shortage of people of color at those OWS shindigs, too--I couldn't help but notice that the vast majority of the twinkle-fingered earnest reiterators that told John Lewis they didn't want to hear from him were rather pale. They just didn't represent all of "We, the People." They represented a small faction of "Them, the White Hipsters" with a smattering of homeless people--from the old guys with mental health issues to the drug addicted-- from where I sat.

They doomed themselves to failure, and they did it by their own hand. I don't see any of those "banksters" being called to answer, and the only person who seems to be working that issue is Elizabeth Warren, who got NO help from (and was almost tanked by) OWS when she referred to herself as the "intellectual godmother" of the movement. She quickly distanced herself from them, saying they needed to obey the law and pointing out to the OWS people that the cops who were patrolling their encampments were part of the 99 percent. That went over like a lead balloon. The OWS people who gave interviews were proud of the fact that they weren't "political" and didn't want to vote for her or anyone else. A poll of the people in Zucotti Park came up with less than a third of the group identifying as Democrats...in New York City, at a protest with social justice at its supposed core. That pretty much tells you that OWS was not ever a faction of the Democratic Party. It was something else entirely. Whatever it was, it didn't work. Way too much energy expended (to say nothing of taxpayer dollars policing and cleaning up that mess) and to what end?

They do serve as a textbook lesson on how NOT to harness the dissatisfaction of the masses, though. The OW in OWS should stand for OPPORTUNITY WASTED, IMO.

Nor addressed my points. Why is that?

Success is the opposite of failure. If you want a working example of failure, look to OWS. They eagerly snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. You want success? Don't do what they did.

A "reasonable timetable" is one where goals are achieved before the movement visibly and viscerally disintegrates before our very eyes, as OWS has done.

I didn't specifically answer your questions because I regarded them as rhetorical. OWS was, as I said, a hodge podge mess surrounding one good idea. It failed because no one stood up and was accountable.

Don't try to take "OWS credit" for Elizabeth Warren--someone who HAS stood up, and led, on issues of Wall Street accountability, and will continue to so do. She was a name, and a player, well BEFORE OWS, and she'll be one long after anyone realizes that "OWS" used to stand for anything other than that which young kids say when their older brother punches them in the arm.

Let's take them one at a time.

The dictionary definition of success is "the accomplishment of an aim or purpose." What do you think the aim or purpose was, or if you rather, what do you think it should be?

There's no reason not to answer that. Keep your non-sequiturs to yourself. (e.g. Elizabeth Warren) Let's have an actual conversation grounded in facts.

We can move on to the next question after you reply to this.

the desired effect.

If their goal was to create a lot of "buzz," and then flame out like a briefly-lit fart, well, then, they accomplished their aim or purpose.

If their goal was to make a difference WRT Wall Street, they may have well stayed home and let Elizabeth Warren continue to do all the heavy lifting.

You don't get to decide how I answer--if that's your goal, then talk to yourself.

But everyone reading can see you are avoiding discussing substantial points.

You can't get away with making declarations that are patently false, either.

My POV I've backed up wth documentation.

All I'm getting from you is "feelings."

All OWS does is talk to itself. It makes no difference to those of us out here in the big, wide world.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/09/17/why-occupy-fizzed-a-year-later-how-movement-got-bogged-down.html

You're projecting. If we're going to try to evaluate and assess something, we should have some metrics, but you won't go there. What's the problem?

I'm telling it like it is, and you don't like what I'm saying.

That's what's going down here.

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/one-year-later-the-failure-of-occupy-wall-street-is-apparent/

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/occupy-nearly-as-unpopular-as-tea-party/

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/public-opinion-souring-on-occupy-wall-street/

And I'm clear on those. But you can't tell me what it is you this Occupy should have accomplished by now. And without that, everything else you're telling me amounts to "I don't like this or that about them or how they went about things."

I've come clean about my basis for judgement. In my opinion it was reasonable to hope, prior to September of 2011, that the action might draw attention to issues of economic injustice and rally some people to the cause. Well, there was massive publicity and a lot of recruits. I am also putting this in the context of an historical understanding that movements like this take years, decades, and are characterized by both setbacks and reinvention. My assessment is: short term goals, exceeded spectacularly; long term goals, uncertain. You are obviously using some other criteria, but I don't know what they are.

It was entirely reasonable to hope that OWS would accomplish something, anything. They didn't, though--their cultlike behavior, their refusal to work within the system (you can't bargain if you're not participating in the process) and the descent into violent, flat-out dumbshit protest actions in Oakland and elsewhere (to say nothing of the stinky, noxious camping) doomed them.

They ended up, per the polls, being about as popular as Congress.

OWS isn't a movement that is growing. It is a movement that grew like a pimple and burst like one too.

It's over. Most people realize this, only a few don't.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andy-ostroy/the-failure-of-occupy-wal_b_1558787.html

They're opinions, and you've been offering them up as thought that has something to do with results. What opportunity was squandered? What should have happened but didn't?

OWS is about as popular as wet toilet paper.

The opportunity to be part of the process is what was squandered. By refusing to get political, they wasted everyone's time. The Tea Party is able to make trouble and push their own agenda because they got a shitload of people ELECTED to Congress. OWS people proudly refused to vote, and most of them didn't identify with the Democratic Party. They were no help to progressives at all.

And those aren't opinions, those are facts.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/31/occupy-wall-street-defeated_n_3848340.html

As activists, we are deliberately nonpartisan and seeking to apply pressure on the system via direct action (among other things). Individuals may campaign or vote as they choose. So again, the only basis for your criticism is that you don't like it.

in any fashion for any reason.

How many people showed up at the last anniversary? A few dozen?

The basis for my criticism isn't that I don't "like" it--it's that it doesn't work. It never worked. All that camping, all that shouting, and what to show for it? A few YOUTUBE videos of a lot of caucasian millenial emos with attitude. That's not "activism," it's bad performance art.

Not finding time-wasting histronics worthwhile is "not in alignment with the movement," eh?

No one at OWS ever called a single Wall Street banker to account. Not a one. They've kept on doing what they are doing. The only one going after them is Liz Warren, and OWS in Boston and Lowell rather rudely told her to stuff it--so much for making change.

It's dead, Jim.

Back to complaining about tactics. This, after you've 'fessed up to wanting a partisan operation. By any reasonable standards the thing was a smashing success. It was one demonstration, the ripples were huge, and there are all kinds of new activists and new networks now.

What agenda, you say? Good question--because they don't seem to have ever had a cohesive one.

They were too busy yelling at cops about not being allowed to build fires in public parks, banging those drums incessantly in irritating fashion, pooping in sacks and leaving them hither and yon, and getting absolutely NOTHING done. And then, their Black Bloc pals decided to get violent, and that's when they got the skunk treatment, but good. And "activists" started leaving in droves.

Is not wanting change a "partisan operation?" You're naive if you think it isn't. Don't you think it's partisan to want equity in banking? It sure as hell should be--unless you think that everyone, including the bankers, are all Kumbayah on that topic. And of course, we know they aren't.

OWS is entirely partisan--they just aren't political. And if you're not political, you have no place at the table. If you have no place at the table, you have no ability to make demands, to make deals, to make change. We are a nation of laws, doncha know--and laws get made by politicians. It is really quite simple.

But hey, you go on and have fun with your new activists and new networks, now--they must be invisible ones, because every year that passes, fewer and fewer people are seen at these little OWS reunions at Zuccotti, and probably half of those rich-kid campers and drummers from days gone by are back at school, tuition paid by their wealthy parents, training to take Big Money "bankster" jobs on Wall Street. Oh, the irony....

The immediate goals of the Occupy demonstration were achieved in a big way. As I pointed out already, we got massive publicity and our numbers swelled thanks to Occupy. Maybe you wanted something else, but that's your problem and your defeat if you failed to convince people to follow your program.

You sound an awful lot like the reactionaries of the past who complained about labor and civil rights activists and insisted upon pronouncing a final judgement every five minutes.

There are promising signs, like fast food workers standing up for themselves, and community based activism taking place under the Occupy banner. That said, who knows where things will go from here. But as an episode in an ongoing struggle for economic justice, Occupy represents a significant victory.

It doesn't change the facts when you ineffectually fling internet barbs at me.

Britney Spears used to be the hottest thing on two legs. She's trying to make a comeback, too. I'll bet she does better--even without any discernible talent--than Occupy does.

I think labor and civil rights activists are swell, too. My family has members who were and are wired into both of those movements. I think emo children beating on drums and camping in the city--like that is gonna CHANGE anything--is stupid. Occupy was overwhelmingly white and college educated--they didn't represent the 99 percent and they didn't represent people who are not caucasian--which is rapidly becoming the default in America. It sure as hell wasn't the default in NYC. They also weren't supportive of the Democratic platform or politicians. Let me back that up with references:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/29/occupy-wall-street-report_n_2574788.html

http://theweek.com/article/index/220529/the-demographics-of-occupy-wall-street-by-the-numbers

?187
The Occupy Wall Street protesters are mostly under the age of 35, employed, and not pleased with how Obama is running things, according to new surveys. Joe Raedle/Getty Images

And you have some crust, I must say, even bringing UP civil rights activists in this discussion. If you remember--and I'm sure your selective memory forgot this gem--the overly white OCCUPY ATLANTA crew decided that John Lewis, civil rights icon with scars on his head from beatings by racist cops, wasn't sufficiently "valuable" to be handed a talking stick by the unwashed twinkle-fingered "don't know much about history" crew.

But, hey, "what-EVS"--as the kids say...

Just observing an historical parallel.

And what are you talking about, "comeback?" Occupy is part of an ongoing process. Whether or not it survives as a label is immaterial. The demonstrations served their purpose, the cause is better off now than it was before. Again, you just don't want the same things - you're upset because Occupy didn't run or endorse candidates, apparently. I told you what the point of the action was, and there is no question that the goals were met.

How inconvenient for you that John Lewis understood, accepted, and approved of Occupy's policy of not granting special privilege to celebrity.

I talk about Occupy, you talk about me.

If you want to continue to press the case that it is part of an "ongoing process" you knock yourself out.

And count how many fewer people show up at the Zuccotti Nostalgia Reunion next year.

When they can't muster more than a few dozen in NYC, the effort isn't on life support--it's part of history.

John Lewis was just too smart and too polite to reduce himself to the classless level of those white kids who didn't appreciate who the hell he was. Nothing "inconvenient" about the rudeness with which he was greeted by those self-indulgent, self-important and clueless children. It's not surprising that violence was the next act the movement went for--temper tantrums on a group scale.

The failure of the movement was all down to the behavior of the participants. Such a waste.

Were the organizers goals met? Yes, they were. We call that "success." Did Occupy behave as you wanted? No, they didn't. So your goals weren't met. We call that "failure." Nothing personal about it.

because you can't deal with the facts I've provided to you.

You can call failure "success" all you'd like.

I can call my bicycle a Ferrari--it's still a bicycle.

The rebuttal is in the facts.

I asked you what you thought the goals were, or should be. That's how one measures success or failure.

That is telling. You have not been conversational in this exchange, you've been personal.

I replied to you--you didn't like my reply, so you proceeded to make it about me.

I noticed what you did, and now you're trying obfuscation.

Sorry--no sale. You cannot, on your own, redefine the term "success" to encompass what is, to any sentient person's view, an abject failure by a faded movement.

There's a clear way to measure success here - did the demonstration fall short of, meet, or exceed the organizers goals? It exceeded them. You're the one who wants to redefine here.

I'm not projecting anything. I'm providing references to back up my assertions. Your response is to say something snarky about me. Stop telling me how you think I feel about civil rights and worker rights. Every time you can't make your case, you start characterizing me. It's noticeable. Observable. Documented.

Stop playing a weak internet bully game--it's not working, and it diminishes your attempts to press your points, which, I have to tell you, are as moribund as Occupy.

Occupy failed to meet any reasonable person's goals, it went from initial excitement to nitpicking to pointlessness to violence to disintegration and finally, sadly, pathetically, irrelevance/mockery (see: http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2012/05/has_occupy_wall.php ) -- which is why it is just a memory to the overwhelming majority of society, and only exists in the minds of a few relentless hangers-on who remember it fondly, rather like old hippies looking back fondly on the Summer Of Love (another "moment in time" that will not pass this way again).

You still haven't said. That's what I'm trying to talk about. My responses aren't about you, they're about what you're saying.

most of America and the world were left to wonder "What in hell WERE the goals of OCCUPY?"

To fight with police? Violence? To camp in the city and deliver a big Eff U to "society?" To complain about political problems related to economic issues, yet not offer political solutions?

It was a mystery, and it will remain one, because the "movement" has no LEADERS--you know, people in "authority" with the consent of the movement's participants, to articulate those goals.

No one person has the authority to speak for Occupy; thus, no one can speak--authoritatively or otherwise--for them. At least, they can't speak and expect their contribution to be regarded as "any more valuable" than anyone else's, as some stinkle-fingered guy in Atlanta said about John Lewis.

About the only lasting contribution OCCUPY made was to encourage some municipalities to put laws on the books forbidding urban camping.

They could have done so much more. So much energy and enthusiasm--wasted.


http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/Latest-News-Wires/2012/0918/Occupy-Wall-Street-fizzles.-Is-the-movement-over-video

http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/01/09/is-occupy-dead/

http://gawker.com/5943872/just-like-old-times-dozens-arrested-during-occupy-wall-street-anniversary-protests


Even the anarchists call it toasted (while cheerleading for more violence, yeah, that's the ticket): http://www.anarkismo.net/article/24577

http://gawker.com/5994421/a-discussion-with-anarchist-activist-and-scholar-david-graeber-author-of-the-democracy-project


If this experiment is ever resurrected, it will only happen with leadership and without camping. And if that happens, it won't ever be what it was, now, will it?

We set out to draw attention to dramatic inequality of wealth and power, and attract new people to the movement. We accomplished both of these things.

Obviously, you are disappointed. Yet you still haven't said what (additional) goals should have been met by now.

I seem to recall OWS protesting about everything from the Afghan war to Mean Old Bloomberg to fighting with the police in Boston about a kitchen sink.

Those "goals" that no leader was able to articulate to the public got lost in all those shenanigans. Neither goal that you articulated was realized. Attention was brought to a bunch of disruptive campers who were complaining about a wide range of things, but it was mostly negative attention.

And the movement is moribund. The campers have gone home. They aren't in the streets demonstrating, or doing anything. The "activists" that remain are talking to each other--and no one else.

I'm disappointed that they didn't use more traditional paradigms of leadership and organization to protest against the economic inequities in this country, sure. I'm disappointed that they achieved zero political gains--if they're going to be as unpopular as the Tea Party, it would be nice to have a hundred Congressmen to show for it, wouldn't it? (That was only half-sarcastic, FWIW.)

And since they're no friends to Democrats, I really can't care about them. They tried, they failed. Maybe the next group up to bat will learn from their enormous mistakes.

You are calling Occupy a failure, therefore you should be able to articulate what goals should have been achieved but were not. So far, your criticisms have only to do with the characters of the participants, and the tactics used. As I've pointed out, that is the nature of the criticisms leveled at previous social movements during various stages of their efforts.

The demonstration was planned, and planned by clear headed people who understand history and set realistic targets. The goals were, in fact, attention and recruitment. There was enormous publicity and there are now more active participants in the movement than there were before Occupy.

Exactly what other results should we have seen? Explain these goals and why you think it could have been possible to meet them by now.

You can't. Realistic targets? What are you talking about? They changed the subject constantly--it was a joke. Planned demonstrations? The only ones that "worked" were organized by UNIONS, not by OCCUPY. What results should we have seen? How about a few elected reps in Congress who can help to pass laws that support economic equality. Hmmmm? Waaah, but OWS isn't "political!!!!" That's why they're INEFFECTUAL, you see.

Attention? They got that--but it was all the BAD kind, thanks to the Black Bloc contingent of violent offenders that took over the Occupy brand name.

The "banksters" still walk free. No one has been punished for excess. The few fines that have been levied don't touch the responsible individuals, and OWS had nothing to do with that anyway--those awful "politicians" that OWS hates, why, they had a hand in that.

They accomplished....NOTHING.

So you must have something in mind. What, exactly, do you think was possible to achieve within the last two years that was not? You need to be able to answer that in order for your complaints to have any validity whatsoever. So far you are either unwilling or unable.

What parts of LEADERSHIP and ORGANIZATION are so tough for you to grasp?

Leaders who are organized could have made that self-indulgent mess work. The focus needs to be political, because that's where power lies.

Anything else is just camping and introspection. As for "unwilling and unable" that describes OWS to a T.

Got it.

by dumb-ass tactics, e.g. the "no leaders" and the "repeat everything everyone says" and the "absolute consensus" rules.

It's why nothing got done. The lack of results were a byproduct of the failed tactics.

Apparently I can speak with you all the live long day, and you still haven't "gotten it." I'm not using big words or engaging in complex ideas, I've made my points quite plainly from the git-go.

Your inability to understand the points I am making is .... curious.

What didn't happen that should have?

They did ZERO towards that goal. Zilch, nada, nothing. They didn't even get a single politician elected to make that happen, either.

In fact, the one woman who got elected who had the ability to go after financial fraudsters was elected despite OWS, not because of them.

If you think there was, in fact, popular support for going after Wall Street, then the folks who squandered the opportunity were in the Executive branch of the Federal Government. Aim your complaints where they belong.

But it is of course fair to evaluate OWS relative to larger goals which include at the very least taking on Wall Street. And I think most would agree that some kind of larger systemic change is among the hopes as well.

When would you date the start of the labor movement?

life story and "I am the 99 percent."

OWS, if you remember, had no desire to associate itself with politics or politicians. In fact, the majority of the OWS people did not support the Executive Branch of the Federal Government (and fwiw, the "Executive" is not a king--all law starts in Congress, and all appropriations start in the House....see "It's Only a Bill" from Schoolhouse Rock).

Then, when the OWS people started spitting on cops, and not doing a damn thing to stop the Black Bloc disruptors (Ewwwww, they're part of the group, toooooooo....) and getting all afield and aflutter about the war, this issue, that issue, cooking in the city, porta-potties, sock distribution, and all sorts of unrelated...well...CRAP, it became clear that the movement was unproductive and unserious. Useless. Pointless. A mockery of itself. Opportunity squandered.

It killed itself, all by itself. It could have been a contender....

The Executive Branch could have gone after Wall Street.

The rest of what you said is colorful but uninformative, uninformed, and immaterial.

When would you date the start of the labor movement?

Like "When would you date the start of the labor movement?" like that has anything to do with this topic of discussion.

I'd say Egypt, if you must know--around the time of the building of the Pyramids.

And if we're going for colorful and uninformative, I'd say you wrote the book.