That 99% figure is being whittled away as folks demand fealty to one issue/belief or the other

I don't recall a progressive movement which threatens to be as exclusionary as folks speaking for the OWS movement here at DU appear to be advocating.

For such a loosely defined and evolving movement, there sure are a lot of folks here who don't seem to be able to bear any critical examination of the ultimate direction and goals from folks here who very likely fall into the 99% category. Questions and observations from working folks are treated like some threat; with questioners and observers labeled as 'part of the problem' or even accomplices to one-percenters.

More curious to me, questioners and commenters are often referred to some list of goals residing somewhere that's supposed to be so widely known that those questioning the movement must certainly be insincere.

But, how can such an evolving and diverse movement, which has drawn so many disparate folks from around the country to place their individual and particular grievances on top of OWS's deliberately broad platform, begin picking and choosing between viewpoints -- especially those with opinions and criticisms about the direction and substance of the reasoning behind the protests?

Especially those looking for some leadership within the OWS community to step out in front and make the movement's peaceful intentions crystal clear to those looking on through the filter of the mainstream media (as the majority of the 99% are restricted to getting their impression of the movement from)?

Now, I came out fairly early in favor of the OWS movement and I want to see it succeed in many of its stated goals. Yet, I've found that I'm not really in agreement with each and every one of the opinions and intentions expressed by supporters. That doesn't mean that I'm going to pack up my liberalism and go out and denounce the movement or work to undermine it in any way. Quite the opposite. I'd like to think the movement could use all the help it could get to promote it and help carry some of the demands forward.

DU is a perfect spot to flesh out many of the contradictions in opinions within the OWS movement, and even gain understanding about the substance of the many different platforms and positions around the country.

I wish we could be more tolerant and understanding of those questions and criticisms here on this discussion board. There will inevitably come a time when even the most committed participants and supporters will feel challenged (within their own reasoning) by the assertions of organizers and by some elements of the movement they disagree with, especially as the movement gains more focus and manages to define themselves ahead of the media and other detractors.

It will be a shame to alienate folks who are inclined to support the movement, just because they have hard questions and concerns about what it intends and where it's ultimately going.

By the way, I'm a night-clerk at a union grocery store. I've been a union worker for almost 30 years. I can't even imagine myself as a 1%er at this point in my struggling existence, so don't even go there with me. My income is meager and my expenses are monumental, so I'd really appreciate some respect for that point from folks who express so much concern for the working man.

I can't be the only struggling working man to question the scope, intention, and ultimate goals of the movement -- even as it has my early and enthusiastic support right now. I want the movement to be vital, enduring, and transformational. What more can you ask?

as you intended it to be a clever (presumptive) put-down.

Inspiring.

. . .to withstand such a conventional challenge? Plenty of folks throughout history have stood up and taken the heat for what they believe in.

But, I'm mainly speaking here to the discussions we have on this Democratic board. You've made a separate point which isn't very well grounded in the history of protest movements in the U.S..

TPTB, the politicians, the M$M the 1% are salivating for someone to target as the "leader" of OWS, it's the way they have been accustomed to doing things for decades now.

If they can't find any dirt on any particular leader, they'll be more than happy to make some up out of whole cloth, or have you forgotten the whole "Al Gore invented the internet" thing?

Al Gore was part of TPTB, a part in a rarefied strata of TPTB in fact, and he was slammed so many ways it still makes me dizzy to think about it.

in the past about single issue candidates. Now I am hearing complaints that a movement is not single issue. Both complaints came from M$M. I consider the source and file thirteen the complaints.

I support OWS, they are the change I voted for.

. . . but I'm not going to support every utterance or initiative from participants or organizers -- especially since many of the demands and assertions are so nebulous and contradictory right now as to be almost incoherent.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

their agenda is the Republican Party.

. . . like they were the enemy.

Fiction, hardly. Plenty of folks here privately expressing to me their discomfort in asking questions for fear of being labeled outside of some progressive mainstream that's supposed to exist here. I understand, though, that it's not possible to read every thread or be aware of everything on this board. It's not as if I can go back and re-create the 'deleted messages' to make my point.

Question anything that Obama does or says and you stand an excellent chance of being attacked as outside the liberal mainstream.

You might recall that eighty three percent of liberal Democrats support Obama.

. . . and wrongheaded. Our leaders should be regularly and vigorously questioned. Barack Obama has said as much.

Although I must admit that their number seem to be falling of late.

what OWS says, then what any poster says is what DU says. I suggest to you a search of DU using the words 'gay poutrage pony'. See what it is like for most of us all the time. See how you like those shoes.

I've been hearing that the youth weren't involved. That they weren't organized. I see a very involved and organized group. Who knows where it will go, but it sure has people who I would like to know fear fearful.

. . . characterize almost every movement.

This one is being staged in many parts of the country -- and in many others around the world.

Should working people 'fear' the movement?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

. . . between those advocating non-violent protests and those who supported more direct action.

You're working hard, though, I see, to marginalize my complaints outside of the movement. That's pretty much what I'm complaining about on this thread.

Wait until the movement actually settles on a handful of points they can agree with and defines itself within those parameters in a more challenging manner than this loose association of protests has so far. There will be splintering from within the movement. It's inevitable.

There are certainly lines being drawn which I believe fall well short of the beliefs and intentions of the 99% that the movement says it speaks for.

Your OP says 'fealty' is demanded to one issue or another. Which issues do you refer to? The lack of specifics is not helpful. What issues specifically have you been asked to express fealty toward which you dissent from? Are there any actual issues or is this just off gassing?
I asked you simple questions, and here you are characterizing me as 'working hard'. Good lord. Can you hear yourself? I ask you a question and off you go. Is this OP not about asking questions without nasty remarks in return?
Do you have actual specific issues you dissent from, that you feel 'fealty' is demanded toward? What issues are those? Or is this just hot air expelling time?

It's all so vague! Someone spell it out for me!

demands, the discussion was free-wheeling, respectful (for the most part) and inclusive. The discussion went so far as to question (quite rightly, I now believe) whether it was even appropriate to be making demands before agreeing upon collective grievances.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x2235351

For the record, I will hard-block any proposal I deem anti-worker or anti-working class. And I know many others at OLA who feel exactly the same way. At OLA, which uses the 100% consensus model of decision making, a single hard block prevents a proposal from passage by the General Assembly.

that thread was cleaned up a bit

the 99%, shows how diverse the 99% remains. I don't recall reading anyone saying they would leave OWS because of the list of demands, even though some (including myself) are vehemently opposed to certain demands on the list.

. . . and on others I've read and participated in. I think most folks here know what I'm talkng about, notwithstanding your own opinion about your own thread.

lesson from Harry S. Truman: "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen."

I've already made it abundantly and unequivocally clear that I will adamantly oppose any measure put before the OLA GA that I deem to be anti-worker or anti-working class. Since I equate the 99% (really, for me, it's the 90%, but it's not my metaphor) with the "working class," you can rest assured that your concerns will not be easily shunted to the sidelines, at least at OLA.

I can't speak for DU, of course. And, upon reflection, I do think there was some sniping on that thread that was never my intention in publishing it. But that's more a reflection of DU than it is of OWS, I would argue.

. . .if you were satisfied with the level of support you have right now and don't aspire to expand that support beyond the present enthusiasts.

I am speaking, mainly, about the responses to questions here. I think we can all take responsibility for the discourse here. That's my concern, that's why I raise these points.

site in person yet? I cannot recommend it highly enough and hope you can if you have not yet done so.

DU is not equal to OWS.

One long stay and two walk-bys.

I found the protests to be quite similar to the countless ones I've graced with my exhausted, ragged presence in my 40-some years of participating in progressive movements.

I'm not getting your point, though. I don't know how experiencing those events in person would make it any more palatable to be labeled outside of some progressive mainstream here at DU for questioning such an evolving movement.

apologize.

What I meant to ask is whether you had attended a General Assembly or (gasp!) participated on any Committees? I too started with a lot of skepticism toward Occupy, thinking it was at root fundamentally anti-democratic. After I had participated in GA and a couple committees, I found my skepticism had given way before a new-found faith in the soundness of the democratic process. OLA does not use 'majority rule' but it does rigorously observe the principle of 'one man, one vote.' That, to me, is democracy at its finest.

. . . or General Assembly. I'll take what you say, though, under advisement.

attendance at GA and Committee. Fascinating stuff. Feels like 1776 (or 1789) all over again :)

Unless you're going to give everyone who shares these values a vote in it.

you oppose GA, then you oppose OWS. It's really that simple.

Sort of like, if you oppose 'one man, one vote,' you oppose democracy.

Everyone at GA has an equal voice. That's as it should be, imo.

Maybe I'm not getting your point?

This is not right. You are trying to control the country with a congress of people in one city? Did you ever stop to think that not all of us can make it to your General Assembly? Maybe we have reasons for not being there? Do you think you are our heroes????? Are you that psychotic? I hope Adbusters has no illusions that their writ extends outside their illegally obtained camping spots. Ya'll need to focus on a grass-roots reform of the Democratic Party... organize the left and be respectful. We ain't gonna put up with no revolution now, ya hear? I already recommended that you charge the NYSE and take it... you couldn't see the good sense in that advice. One single stroke and the country would be changed forever. The bankers would turn on each other and you'd see a wave of justice washing over the land. I had hoped you were building up to that point, otherwise I'm not sure there is a point to this. The polls look bad... people don't change as easily as you suggest. If you don't make a move by next summer you'll be remembered as nothing more than a flash mob that energized Obama's campaign.

for itself and itself only.

Wow.

No point responding to this. Your diabribe has earned you a spot on my Ignore list.

Go from there.

I don't know if you've read any of the criticisms of dissenters here, but I've seen many attempts to marginalize the questioners, and in some cases, label them as the enemy. Standard stuff for an organic protest movement -- but, not really respectful of the myriad of opinion and belief among that 99%.

who is in the 99% believes that a created argument by the 1% is good for the 99%, it is most likely that what that person believes they want may be out of place. It's more about the system. The best answer I can give is to attend an Occupy near you and your questions will be answered. It's much simpler than you think. It's about actions more than beliefs.

What you say may be true about some beliefs expressed, but I don't think you can accurately generalize about every viewpoint outside of the OWS mainstream as being some sort of complicity with the 1% or out of touch with allegiance to some core progressive principle.

Now, I HAVE been to several gatherings in D.C.. I HAVE spoken with MANY folks, and read the opinions of countless others. I'm frustrated by getting that response from you. I've been told that before and I think it's a bit condescending. One fool here told me to 'just shut up and listen'. Well, I have listened, and I have questions. I don't see them as threatening anything. I also think it's ridiculous to claim folks coming here to express one opinion or the other in questioning the movement could do any harm.

For many folks here, the movement seems less about concern for needs of the 99% than it is about defending its own existence and right to protest. And you emphasize 'action' over 'belief'. I'm at a loss to understand acting without first believing.

ardents, the only way 'belief' exists is when expressed as action. That is, there is nothing until there is a tangible action to define it. For Pragmatists, action IS belief or at least it is the only possible proof of belief.
Interesting stuff.

There is 'belief' by the elected in our political system, but in the acting on those beliefs, within our democracy, we are challenged to reconcile many diverse and disparate interests and views into action. Protest movements are often less accountable for the complete and unaltered realization of those beliefs. To act in our political system is an act of pragmatism, because the myriads of those diverse beliefs represented by our elected officials come to the political process from many, many disparate parts of the nation.

As I said, our political process is designed for argument or compromise. There's very little room to impose either 'belief' or action in our decidedly pluralistic democracy.

The our elected officials represent the myriads of diverse beliefs of the 1%. The complete and unaltered realization of those beliefs is killing the rest of us.
Our political process is designed for greased palms and clandestine commissions. We do not have a democracy.

That's why I'm part of the 99%. Can't speak for all the rest, but there seems to be a general consensus.

From that standpoint, if an Occupy in whatever city knows of a bank on the street that might have engaged in an abuse of say foreclosure powers against someone, they go to that bank on a street in their city to protest their actions. An abuse isn't an opinion, it either was an abuse or wasn't. That doesn't require an ideology or belief.

the support of all the 99%, nor does advocating for the 99% of necessity require perfect agreement among those advocates themselves.

Anyone can make up their mind if they want to protest or not. I just side with the right of those that decide to do so.

"For such a loosely defined and evolving movement, there sure are a lot of folks here who don't seem to be able to bear any critical examination of the ultimate direction and goals from folks here who very likely fall into the 99% category. Questions and observations from working folks are treated like some threat; with questioners and observers labeled as 'part of the problem' or even accomplices to one-percenters."


I've seen it most often from the religious zealots who cannot STAND to have any part of their beliefs questioned.

And god forbid they would ever ask questions themselves!!!

But it also applies to various issues here at DU as well.

IMO, if someone doesn't have faith enough to tolerate questions from other people and answer them with civility and grace, instead of accusing the questioner of being a "troll", then there's something wrong.

the opinions of the movement. Or of the DNC, or of anything, they are just posters on DU, and if they ask you questions you don't like, some poster asked you, not OWS. So this pretense of confusion, I'm not really buying it. How can I when your entire premise is that your opinion is keenly important and you are among those who feel the deep need for 'leaders to emerge'. I tell you flat out that the best thing about OWS is the lack of hyped personalities, the graceful lack of ego displayed even by those members who wind up on Countdown is breathtaking, and far more impressive than some ego clown trying to be the symbol of it all.
Your personal angst wants leaders and all manner of traditional political accessories. OWS is run by consensus, with open meetings. You should carry your angst to an assembly and share it with the others. OWS happens at the occupation sites, not on DU. Some DU stating their opinion is no different from you stating your own. Neither is speaking for OWS, they speak for themselves. If you expect all who are taking this in to agree with you, or with them you are expecting much that you will not get.
Here on DU we discuss what we each think about OWS, but only OWS can speak for OWS. To take some DUers opinion and throw that at OWS is nonsensical.

:loveya:

I am copying your post, printing it, and keeping it plain sight near my computer, for personal growth reasons.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

and you want to put me on ignore?

Ha! If you're that intolerant, I'd actually welcome that.

That's what usually happens.

Someone questions something because they "don't get it".

And that is the person's fault? People who "don't get it" aren't worthy of getting a civil answer?


That game sucks. I've seen it before from other people...

"Well, if YOU don't understand, then I'M NOT going to tell you!!!"


When I was a kid, I didn't have a defense against the game. Now that I'm older, I can read between the lines.

When someone puts the person who "doesn't get it" at fault, it merely means that the person who doesn't want to explain... cannot.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Yes, there are people among the 99% who are going to disagree with you strongly and may even be quite rude in expressing their opinions. They do not represent OWS however, no one truly represents OWS. OWS is a movement for the 99%, that 99% has very diverse opinions and not one single person can speak for the group. That is the way it should be, I sure as hell don't want any "leader" to represent me because the moment a single person takes charge of the movement a large number of people will become alienated by the leader. The lack of leadership allows for much greater diversity of opinion, we are not following what a leader tells us to follow we are taking the path that we as individuals think is best and we are standing in solidarity with those who are also marching a similar path.

The OWS idea is essentially right, but no movement with any set of beliefs at all can speak for the 99%.

which you dissent from? Is there an actual issue or 'belief' you refer to, or is this just some general pondering? What are the issues and beliefs you speak of so strongly without actually naming?

without the actual posts.

They're mostly deleted, and as tempting as it is, I can't call out the one I'm looking at right now.

I'm sorry that I can't be more specific. I do think that many folks here know what I'm talking about.

Maybe you can tell me why a newer DUer felt compelled to email me expressing their 'fear' of being ostracized for expressing a dissenting opinion here about OWS? I'll give you a piece of this to ponder (without the screenname)

___ "I'm new here but quickly finding out that it takes a certain amount of courage to question, even in the slightest, the aims and goals of OWS . . .

That's just fucked-up, in my view.

How can he supply facts? He doesn't have a leg to stand on.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Inspiring.

How typical. :eyes:

The Wall

Posted by bigtree in General Discussion, Mon Oct 10th 2011
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/bigtree/1389


Agitation, Alliances, and Action

Posted by bigtree in General Discussion
Sun Oct 30th 2011
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/bigtree/1395


sorry you missed them

The first link you compare OWS to the Tea Party in the first paragraph and the next link you just have more of your standard 'I know better then thou' punditry people see in the M$M. So no those are not positive journal entries...but keep trying.

"THE Occupy Wall Street protests and their growing support around the nation among average Americans are the inevitable recasting of the populist sentiment that buoyed the Tea Party in its origination but was hijacked by republican politicians in the midterm election season and exploited to fuel dissatisfaction among voters with the pace and scope of change and progress from the Obama administration in its first two years."

I think you demonstrated clearly how you view folks expressing differences of opinion from your (apparent) own, in dismissing my thoughtful attempt to draw parallels between this present movement and the civil rights protests where demonstrators were challenged to transform their agitation into legislative action to realize actual change.

Do you have anything at all relevant to what I actually wrote to discuss further?

If the shoe fits, don't cry about it.

Because I haven't seen much evidence of that.

Edited:
'Lately'. After the initial spread of people throughout various cities, I meant.

Until there is some real change, I don't think this is going to dwindle away.
I may be wrong, but I don't think this is a seasonal fad.

. . . it's as spontaneous and organic as any movement the nation has ever seen. That comes with real depth of frustration and need that won't be driven away or easily assuaged.

someone of long standing DU membership and progressive credentials has at last said what needed to be said. The hypocrisy, bigotry and narrow mindedness of some here continues to amaze me.

Thank you bigtree

Edited for a dupe phrase.

They are individuals who are protesting and yes, fighting against those who are occupying and controlling our country. You can liken it to Iraq or Afghanistan, if you must, or maybe Indian tribes or abolitionists. If there is no head, it is much harder to kill it. There is no head to negotiate with, so the government has no idea what to do. That is the beauty and simplicity of the movement, no MLK to strike down.

As far as the ultimate goals of the 99% or OWS, it is simple. Every one should have an equal voice in the government, and should be heard equally. Which means that elections have to be supported by government money, with a strict set of rules. Lobbyists should be separated from politicians, meaning you can't lobby unless you have not held office for let's say 5 years, but 10 would be better. If a person works 8 hours a day, 5 days a week, that person should be able to support their family, no matter what job that is. Stop invading other countries, and start spending that money by making this country self sufficient and great again.

Simple and elegant.

zalinda

I can have a say at any Occupy GA that I show up at.

I don't feel like my vote is worth Jack shit right now in our traditional system...

I've been there. I've done it. I influenced a vote at a party meeting I went to, by discussing the issue with other attendees. It's a great feeling, you should try it.

Cynicism has its place, but I'm concerned that our generation has too much of it.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

they are desperately seeking a father figure.

They want someone who can be shot dead and then watch the system die.

I have to wonder about those passing themselves as democrats.

political empowerment of the bottom 99%. The bottom 99% of American people or even the bottom 70% or the bottom 1% for that matter are going to have a wide variety of opinions on everything and anything - It includes people with very liberal social attitudes and people with some very conservative social attitudes. It will includes some very religious people and some completely irreligious people.It includes people with a variety of opinions about almost every issue. But the simple demand that priorities of society must shift from only satisfying the wants of the top 1% to focusing on satisfying the needs of the bottom 99%. This alone is the only issue that can give credibility to a movement that claims to speak on behalf of the 99%

Those who have other issues should of course be free to work on those other issues as much as they see fit. But no movement can claim to speak on behalf of the bottom 99% if they demand any litmus test other than a commitment to the economic and political empowerment of the bottom 99%

someone to point the finger at, right?

and demonstrations is that when too many messages (FREE MUMIA) get mixed together (NO BLOOD FOR OIL) then sometimes (LEGALIZE IT!) the original message (FIGHT GLOBAL WARMING) can get lost (INK NOT MINK) and what was intended to be a movement (SAVE THE WHALES) toward a specific goal (KILL CORPORATIONS NOT PEOPLE) starts looking like a bunch of random people (FREE TIBET) airing a random list of issues (BRING BACK CRYSTAL PEPSI).

For liberals, maybe. Progressives, no. No I would prefer not to have to endure the smell of pot every time I walk outside, thank you very much.