Reboot OWS.

I would like to have an honest discussion of where OWS is headed and how it can be improved. This may be presumptuous of me but I hope this thread can serve as a clearing house on what objectives and direction the movement should undertake.

OWS needs rebooting because it seems to me that it has lost sight of its original purpose. That is not intended as a means to belittle the intent of all the people involved.

I have some observations and suggestions below to get the conversation started. Feel free to add or denigrate at will but please do so with the force of ideas and counter-suggestions, not to flame or denounce anyone.

I have always said I will never put anyone on an Ignore list. Everyone is different but I encourage us all to not lose sight of the idea that we are gathered at DU to listen to ALL viewpoints and to understand each other. Sometimes I think it’s ESPECIALLY important to listen to vociferous, even ugly, viewpoints espoused by others because it gives you insight into their character.

For myself, the more information I have, the better.

============================================

1. For the first bit of heresy: OWS = wrong target = bad name. (refer to point #2 for more on ‘wrong target’.

Occupy Wall Street only occasionally has anything to do with Wall Street. It’s original intent, in my interpretation, was to protest the financial meltdown that has led to a more than 9% unemployment situation and millions of people losing their homes and having to accept less for their immediate futures.

Instead, most conversations today about OWS are concerned about camping rights and fighting with the police.

Can we come up with a name that more accurately reflects this? SHOULD we come up with a new name?

I don’t have any suggestions for this yet.

2. Corporations -and by extension Wall Street financiers- should not be labeled the enemy. Corporations are nothing more than paper entities that translate into Mindless Greed Machines. (Interesting acronym, that: MGM.)

If we want to stop making corporations equivalent to people, then we need to stop treating them like they are.
Protesting corporations for taking the path of least resistance is willfully ignoring their…um, natures, for lack of a better word. They aren’t going to change simply because we tell them ‘Behave better!’

And it isn’t stealing when our esteemed legislators open the doors and say, ‘Here Take what you want.’

The dismantling of regulations to protect the majority in this country is what has led us to our current situation. Who did this? Our legislators. Particularly our Republican legislators who want to draw a high salary while doing as little as possible for their work.

3. Don’t we need a battle-cry? A more easily understood slogan than, ‘The 1% have take everything and the 99% have…’ Whatever.

How about a simpler, better sound-bite like, ‘Re-regulate’? That single word, I think, resonates better.

How about signs that say, ‘Re-regulate MGM!’ News organizations would ask what ‘MGM stands for (see Point #2) and the meme might take off.

4. I thought at first that a march on Washington was the only thing that would change the conversation. But DU has convinced me the logistics of that make it unfeasible. But something needs to be done other than camping out in public parks and squabbling with the police.

Assemble and disperse. Assemble and disperse. Don’t give them a moving target and keep the protest alive but also keep the protest focused on the financial calamity that has befallen our country.

5. Newt Gingrich recently said that deregulation was a bad idea. That may have simply been a word-fart that escaped before he could stop it but it brings up an intriguing idea. Should the movement seek to bring as many conservatives as possible into itself? Should we be courting Newt to stand with us?

I know, I know, it sounds like eating mud, but it’s just an idea off the top of my head.

6. Leonard and Penny are clearing getting back together. The romance has dragged on for far too long. Where should they be headed next?

(Again, I am in training for the next 2 days so I apologize for not being able to respond quickly. OTOH, maybe this thread will sink like a rock.)

What makes you think that?

And on fighting for the right to camp out in public parks.

The original purpose, I thought, was to protest financial injustice and mismanagement.

I think the Powers That Be are more than happy to see OWS engaged in local fighting instead of protesting about matters closer to them.

but maybe OWS needs more bumpersticker type soundbites to get their message across.

"Fighting for the right to camp" :eyes: isn't a goal, it's a reaction.

it's the fucking PIGS showing up in riot gear! the protesters are holding signs......

seriously?!?

how are they squabbling with the cops? I really want to know exactly how they are PROVOKING the police response they are getting.

I can give you the actual answer to the question, but it is not exactly in the way you mean it.

But if you know a response will be made and it's not a fight that has anything to do with your presence in the first place, don't stay there and let yourselves be abused.

The fight needs to be with the legislators. Is OWS determined to prove the police are poorly trained bastards who over-react? What does that have to do with the widespread economic injustice that brought OWS together in the first place?

Tell me why did the first end up with civil rights legislation? And no, they were NOT in the corridors of power.

What you are telling me is that OWS should do what is not threatening, nor annoying, nor challenging.

Oh and camping in the park while standing for FREE SPEECH in PUBLIC SPACES is not a walk in the park.

At first. I'm not so sure it's the right analogy any more. I think civil rights were a LOT more important and had a LOT more people worried. I don't see our legislators all that worried.

Camping out is not a widely recognized form of speech or protest. It's camping out.

civil Rights?

By the way the STATE has made that a civil rights fight too.

Why would that be a recognized form of speech or protest? It's camping out. Not the same thing, IMO.

A line is always drawn between rights to assemble and speak and the rights of others. If there was no line, we could protest in theatres and churches and schools.

I don't see that occupying a park is doing much to further the cause.

the access that is in contention is to PUBLIC SPACES, you know the PUBLIC SPHERE which is ESSENTIAL for Democracy... JEFFERSONIAN DEMOCRACY to be specific.

That is what this is about as well.

We have lost quite a bit of ACCESS to public space.

I recommend, seriously, that you get a jacket, and go down to your encampment. Yes, a few residents can be scary... but you really need to have that discussion with actual occupiers.

As I said above, if this was not seen as a threat, and it goes beyond tents and a park by the way... it is going well over your head... it is about first amendment, fourth amendment, economic justice, reestablishing Glass Steagal, Taxing the UPPER crust... and a whole revision of our economic policy. They are not doing the petition and all that because they have figured out that the system IS broken and NOT responsive. Here is a free hint. 1% are the upper crust. 24% in Congress fit that category. Don't you think that explains some of this? I mean it is NOT in their self interest.

The CAMPS are also a way to HIGHLIGHT the plight of the invisible populations among you... the homeless.

Why is it that you have ONLY heard about the fights with the cops? BECAUSE THE MEDIA and the powerful are setting up a narrative. This is as old as the country... those protestors are ANARCHISTS (Haymarket) and UN-AMERICAN. Those kids are free loaders and unamerican (1960s)

Look at them do drugs! Again 1960s

Those workers are lazy scum... (History of labor, insert action here)

They want to take away your wealth and to make this a communit country (1950s)

Better dead than red... (1950s)

They are agents from Al Qaida (currently), since red baiting is not working.

So now they are compared to dirty hippies who are shiftless and use drugs, and are lazy... given the history of this country and how it reacts to REAL CHALLENGES... well this is like predictable and shit.

Here is the problem with this... if somehow this is pushed underground... we could potentially could see some real violence... and I don't mean police riots.

So be careful what you wish for.

Oh and one more thing... Dylan's song applies...

The times are indeed a' changing...

But, again, ACCESS is not perceived the same as CAMPING OUT, or taking up semi-permanent residence in public parks.

I also don't give a shit what the media reports as long as I have enough sources of info to make up my own mind.

I just think the fight needs to be taken to the people who are responsible for our current situation. It sure as hell is not the police in Oakland or the mayor in New York.

It's the legislators.

See Post #73 below for what I think is the most realistic response on this thread so far.

and it does not work that way anymore. That is what they are trying to tell you.

Go down there, serious.

...instead of the people who are responsible for our current situation.

If OWS is trying to convince me there is a different way, I am not receiving that message. And I don't think the powers-that-be are, either.

In fact, here is a prediction. They will TRY HARD to get ALL encampments destroyed by Thanksgiving. They simply cannot have a flash point when the super committee comes down on all of us.

As to you... I seriously recommend you go down there and talk to them.

Get involved... participate in a GA... LEARN how it works. You are learning SOME on the net, but there is nothing like first hand knowledge to try to figure this out.

As to how municipalities will react... well power reacts as power does when challenged. OWS is a direct challenge.

I'm not sure how clear I can make that. And they should have nothing to do with protesting for economic justice.

And I know it will still not be clear on the post bellow. In fact if it was JUST camping you'd not see this response. Example... locally there are three tent cities oh blocks from Occupy SD... do tell me why are those urban campers not really harassed?

and not get tear gassed and pepper sprayed and shot with rubber bullets, then. Same activity, right? Should get the same response.

and they obey the police when told how to act?

I've heard people say that OWS is a bit of a Rorschach test. With that in mind, I realize this is only my interpretation.

OWS is pointing the finger at imbalance of power. In that sense, civil rights (both in general and in the sense of protesting racism in the '60s) is a subset of what OWS is all about.

I think OWS gives us a chance to identify and name the principle cause(s) of many of our most serious problems - not just unemployment or economic inequality, but all the problems that involve one group of people wielding power over another. And yes, money is usually at the root of it.

Is the OP now the boss of what name to give the OWS?

This isn't about discussion. This is a discussion killer.

Trust me.

...is best served by squabbling with the police over camping rights?

Really, I would like to hear your cogent arguments for this. I am NOT looking to start a flame war.

The march on Wall Street is a step in the right direction. I would like to see more of that and less time and energy spent on butting heads with the cops over the 'right' to take over public park for one group's use.

It's not about a land use issue. That's the establishment spin.

It's about redress of government. That's the fact. Enumerated in the Constitution.

We've been here for many years.

This ain't our first rodeo.

I clearly requested input and discussion. I'm not telling ANYONE what to do or to think.

Who here has that right? Or that kind of power. Are you out there Occupying anything? Do you speak for the 99% now? Go to a General Assembly if you want to decide what is best for OWS.

That was a suggestion. A topic for discussion. Nothing more.

OWS General Assembly.

Do you honestly believe you'll visit, tell whomever is in charge, "Well, gosh, posters on Democratic Underground think you should change your name," and it's going to happen?

I asked if the name SHOULD be changed. It's pretty clear I was posing that as a topic of conversation, nothing more.

You're more interested in the world behind your keyboard than in those who are actually doing the work in Zucotti and elsewhere.

Every town and city can have its own Occupy...and feel connected to a global movement.

The very act of occupation is about taking ownership for the people and making the point that we (the 99%) are not going anywhere and the 1% need to deal with it (hopefully in a positive way by bringing more fairness back into economy).

Can it be used another way? Or should it? Not really sure, myself.

it can be used in metaphorical ways too...

Call it whatever you want and give it a cute logo and make sure corporations endorse it.

But I'm still not clear on why occupying DC wouldn't be the better approach or why it would be logistically more difficult.

The fact is that nothing is going to change the minds of the people on Wall Street. No amount of people, no amount of camping, no amount of nothing.

So what is the end game? I agree with the goals. More fairness in the laws....more regulation...stop rigging the game for the wealthy.

But nobody on Wall Street is going to allow that to happen let alone do anything about it themselves.

Please don't flame me. As I said, I fully support OWS, I just think it may need to regroup and refocus as you said and I still am curious for a more clear explanation why this same movement in DC wouldn't be the better approach.

Thanks in advance.

Their rights aren't being suppressed on the level of civil rights in the 60s.

Their rights are being suppressed in more subtle ways.

I could be wrong about it. Maybe there ARE enough people for a march on Washington.

The anti-war movement, the Civil Rights movement and the Women's rights movement didn't start off full blown the way the TV shows. They all took years to make changes.

Your arguments here are really misinformed.

OWS is also symbolic. And if you think getting the world's attention in less than a month is a waste of time then there's very little to say to convince you of anything.

to where the 1% are. Why go through the middle man?

End game - as far as I'm concerned get rid of capitalism. Anything less than that is crumbs. YMMV.

I don't understand that. The 1% should not even be the target. It should not be moral failing to be rich. The failure is with our legislators who opened the barn door.

Who said it was? I spoke of the economic system, capitalism, which is inherently unequal and only rewards greed. It is a moral failing that we uphold this system.

If your problem is with the 1% as a target that is a whole different OP. One that I have no interest in discussing ...

From Washington. That's where the message needs to be delivered. Not to a mayor in Oakland or New York.

Our government is bought and paid for.

...maybe we'd have a better time of it concentrating on the few hundred legislators who let them loot the system.

most of the wealth is concentrated in the top 400 families.

And as far as the legislators go - they are going to keep letting them "loot" the system because the system encourages that behavior. No amount of "regulating" is going to change that.

If you're saying that protesting politicians and legislative bodies is useless because no matter what we can or cannot get legislators to do as far as putting laws on the books, that the rich will continue to do what they do and get away with it..........then what?

If what you're saying is that all hope is lost and that you are completely convinced that nothing is going to change no matter what any of us do......then I can't argue with that.

But if you're saying that the laws and the rules aren't what need to be changed, then what DOES need to be changed? That's where I'm getting confused and a bit lost in this whole discussion. Even assuming (which I agree with) that one of the largest goals is to call attention to the issue and get more people aware of the problem and how it impacts them.........then what? Is the hope that when the 99% all realize they are the 99% that somehow that is going to change the minds of the greedy and the morally corrupt who are destroying the country? Is the hope that their hearts will grow 10 sizes that day if they hear all the who's in whoville crying out against them?

but that's just me.

The legislators. Not the Mindless Greed Machines any more than a hay baler decides how much hay to bale.

I'm sorry but I've really lost interest in this thread. You don't like the protest, fine, start a new one.

I personally don't think OWS is going to change much, but they have raised awareness, and for that I give them credit. If we really want to change things we are going to have to become more of a threat to TPTB, and that has nothing to do with legislation.

You and I are on way different pages here.

I just don't think the protest is being heard by the right people. Solidarity with ourselves is fine but that's not going to convince our legislators to re-regulate the financial industry.

But again....how? I'm honestly not trying to be adversarial since I think we're on the same page, but you don't seem to want that question to even be asked. If the answer is that you don't know how, then that's fine. I don't know either. And I don't think most of us know. But if you're going to get irritated at people for wanting to ask the question, then that's not fair. If none of us know then we should start trying to figure out how and move forward in that direction and that comes by asking questions. Raising awareness is good. I think they've done that and it's great. But at a certain point either it's got to move beyond that to action. Whether that is now because the awareness is reaching as far as it can go or whether that is when every single person in the 99% agrees.

You say we need to take the fight to the powers that be. If you don't think the powers that be are the legislators then fine. I can see that point, no doubt. If you do think the powers that be are the 1% and wall street then you have to believe that somehow all of this is going to change their minds and make them change the marching orders they give to their pawns in Washington.

Again, I don't have the answers. I don't think any of us do. But then getting annoyed at people for asking the questions and just insisting everyone clap louder for the movement is not really going to get us anywhere either.

I think OWS is fine, but limited. It may raise awareness, and after 30 years of extremely conservative power, that is a good thing.

How do we change it? By putting enough pressure on the status quo. I don't think anything you or I do today - whether slogans or where we protest is going to effect that. What will effect it is conditions. We need enough folks out in the streets. We need regional strikes, massive protests, and finally national strikes where we shut down commerce.

Personally I don't think we'll have that until after the POTUS' reelection. At that time austerity is going to hit harder and then I think we'll see some greater numbers. We'll see what we can do at that point.

Actually what we need is a revitalized labor movement or something very similar to a labor movement.

And I agree nothing is going to happen until after the election when the austerity really hits and the Democrats (Obama in particular) have nothing to lose by going all in with the 1%.

I just worry that by the time we reach the saturation point everyone will be so deep at each other's throats and enough people will be desperate enough that they will still be able to keep the machines running (so to speak) because they'll have enough people unemployed and eager for any scraps that can be thrown their way.

there's a reason that the owners have decimated our unions. Along with that most communists were shut down (or deported) in the 1950s, leaving us without a serious organized left to fight back.

As for the last line, people are at that point already I think - with thousands of folks showing up for just a few job openings in many places. So we can't worry about that.

I believe what we can do is continue to educate by talking about labor history, talking about alternative economic ideas, and encouraging folks to resist. Just by the show of how many have turned up for OWS we know folks aren't oblivious to this. Some of this requires our patience, and believe me it is as hard for me as anyone else.

We're definitely on the same page.

How is OWS making them listen?

That's beside the point that I don't think rich people should even be the focus of the movement. The legislators should. They are the ones who decide who gets to keep the money.

Rock and a hard place.

Ironically the best Activist against money in politics is the Starbucks guy who is probably a 1% er

We all do what we have to each day - we work, vote, pray ... but we can also resist if we don't like what our government does.

But for me the voting is secondary to educating and raising awareness.

SO FAR, unlike the glorious blue Democratic havens of Portland, Oakland, SF and NYC.

So the Occupy DC hasn't made the news because nobody here is against it!

It just seems like a distraction if the purpose is to change the system. More and more OWS is exposing the thugs in local municipalities. How is that furthering the cause of creating a more just economic system?

Maybe we need MORE people in D.C. Enough that can't be ignored.

IS IT NOT OWS who is doing this. OWS does not have command authority on the police department.

But what is the point of waiting around for the police to come after you when they have nothing to do with economic injustice?

They are providing services to the homeless.

Among them

FOOD.

HEALTH CARE.

SHELTER when they are allowed to.

SOCIAL WORKERS are coming in to work with that VERY VULNERABLE population.

They are running classes, ranging on all from civil rights, to history, to yes architecture and the role of architecture in public and private spaces.

See that is another media meme... that they are just sitting there doing nothing.

I assure you Adbusters doesn't believe in all the crap that comes out of those protestors. That was evident as they tried to take control of the group's direction last weekend.

The way to get people in the streets was to make it a purely American movement. Captured the same zeal as the Egyptians managed.

"Occupy Together" seems to invoke a worldwide movement. "Occupy America" seems a little more patriotic.

Newt will say and do anything to get elected. Forget him. I'd hate to lose the nation's stability to someone like him. And things would go badly for the left because -- well he'd turn into Gadhafi, to be frank.

Many conservatives already support the movement. They are anti-regulation, but pro-justice. The key theme here is justice, and the notion that Wall Street leaders have escaped it. That's a concept the entire country can rally behind. However we're now in a situation where Congress is also under indictment for the same. That creates a big problem that doesn't have a quick fix. Essentially all insider traders need to be vilified and a concerted bi-partisan effort made to remove them from office. As such, a temporary alliance with the Tea Party may be possible.

That would be a disaster by any stretch of the imagination. Plus, he hasn't got a snowball's chance in hell, anyways.

tactics so close to home,

keeping in mind that the PARK SERVICE, unlike the WALL STREET RENT-A-COPS known as the NYPD,

have NO INCENTIVE to support the current neoliberal agenda on Capitol Hill (which calls for
defunding the Park Service.)

At least there are SOME people there. If there were more, more attention might be drawn to the cause. Any idea how many people are already in D.C. for OWS?

needed revolution.

The message is clear.

WE are taking a stand to fix the wrongs of our country. We are staying until we have made a difference. We are the people and we are taking our power to be heard by the world. Wall Street is the essence of corruption and greed that has gambled and lost our capital. Their lust for more has bought our voice now we will stay until it is returned.


The 99% are individuals. Your voice will sound for your concern. Mine for mine. We want it heard.We are guaranteed by our Constitution that it shall. We are guaranteed that we have rights. Those rights are to be used. We are democracy.

I hear the message. We are the message. The 1% can no longer speak for all of us. Corporations are not people. They are groups of people who are a governed by greed and by that principle must ignore the common good. It is unconstitutional for them to control governmental processes.I stand against that principle and so does this movement. I hear the message.

I can hear it. I don't the powers that be are all that concerned with people fighting the police over public park access.

Fucking Bloomberg cleared out the entire park - and you think he's not concerned?

Thought he was just a mayor. What does he have to do with economic injustice?

Is he responsible for passing the laws that enabled the banking industry to loot us? The legislators are.

on how to remake a political movement........

This is a discussion forum. You need to brush up on all the threads and DU'ers who are saying OWS has lost sight of its objective. Granted, they are in the minority but more and more people are starting to see that time is being lost on squabbling over camping rights.

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

:evilgrin:

OWS is not just not just about the tragedies of unemployment or housing, but the more complex, broader and deeply rooted concepts of injustice and the disparate, unequal socioeconomic opportunities that affects ALL of us.

Real democracy with one person one vote, and people over profits, has been supplanted by greed and the influence of unlimited money that affords crony capitalism unfettered benefits paid for by working class taxpayers. This entrenched system of quid pro quo political bribery precipitated -- and continues to exacerbate -- our mounting national problems.

If slogans are important, "We are the 99%" is perfect as is, and very clear and easy to understand. Keep in mind that "Wall Street" is the symbolic image that defines the greed, corruption and injustice that was written into law by the Citizens United ruling, establishing that rich are more valued than the poor, and their money speaks louder than Free Speech or votes, and thereby creating two unequal castes of American citizens.

Only 60 days old, OWS has grown from a handful of daring souls standing up to injustice in a tiny park in the richest financial center in the world, to vibrant a national and global movement. In all of history, nothing like this has never happened before, and it is not being diminished by opposition, rather the basic concepts of equality, fairness and justice are being reinforced and validated and inspiring even more participants.

Beautiful words!

But I think most of the people listening to the message are already part of the 99%. I don't see any strong message being delivered to the legislators who control how money can be obtained.

why do you think POWER is reacting the way it is reacting? If they were co-opted or no threat... (see Tea Party), the OWSers would be able to walk around totting AR-15s.

It is precisely because they are a THREAT that you have seen the reaction you have seen.

No local government can let citizens camp out for indefinite periods of time in public parks. It's a recipe for disaster, which is what occurs when police clash with protesters.

And is THIS what OWS is for? To provoke violent responses? I thought it was to fix -or even replace- the current system. Getting beaten up and thrown out of a park hardly seems like a way to further the cause.

to go down to your local occupy.

Of a lot of wrong statements in a post, THAT one has to be the top. :wow: :crazy:

Guess that suggestion did, huh? I sure as hell don't mind anyone telling me that's a lousy idea.

Protesting in the street is fine and dandy, but the leadership we have in Washington today is already bought and paid for by whichever constituencies put them there. While OWS may give a few of them pause, I simply cannot imagine any congresscritter in Washington saying "You know, I was going to vote for this pro-corporate bailout, but OWS changed my mind!"

Street protests in the United States tend to be effective at building solidarity between the disenfranchised, but they are rarely effective at achieving actual policy change. Bastards as they are, the Tea Partiers got that, and went FAR BEYOND merely protesting on street corners. They understood that we live in a democratic nation, and that all change must ultimately come through the ballot box. They identified Republican candidates, by name, who agreed with their agenda and had their local groups fight hard to support them. They identified candidates who opposed their viewpoints and fought hard AGAINST them...even if those candidates were Republicans. They drew a line in the sand and said, "These are our goals, and those goals are more important than party, so you're either with us or you're the enemy." In areas where only "RINO" candidates could be found, they went out and recruited their own candidates to run against the party establishment. Like it or not, they made a dent. For better or worse, they bent the Republican party to their will.

OWS needs to change gears and start doing the same thing. OWS is great for venting anger, but it won't actually accomplish anything until it gets political and starts fighting for individual candidates and pushing their agenda to Congress and the state houses. OWS needs to start looking at candidates in every district in America and ask the question, "Does this person support the Occupy goals? Or is this an enemy that we need to be fighting against?" Then they need to mobilize the local OWS groups to start supporting and fighting on a daily basi.

OWS is a lot of light and noise right now, but they aren't actually going to have any real power or impact unless they get real and get political. When OWS starts putting our elected representatives from the Republican AND DEMOCRATIC parties on notice that their jobs are in jeopardy, Washington and the state legislatures will start to listen. The Tea Partiers figured this out and dragged much of our government to the right. I'm waiting for OWS to figure this out so we can drag it back to the left.

Nicely articulated.

I know it's common for people to say that OWS doesn't need any leaders. I dispute that entirely. without leaders, a cogent message will not be sent nor delivered.

As for the political grassroots actions you advocate, I think you're on target. But that requires leaders for each and every local OWS group to be effective.

And in this country, you cannot act effectively without being political.

As for the lack of leadership, I think the TP themselves disposed of that myth, and I happen to disagree with you. The TP has no real "leaders", but it did identify people like Palin who shared its values and allowed her to speak for them. That said, she has no real control and is more "spokesperson" than "leader".

I don't have a problem with the participatory direct democracy that is present in the OWS movement, and I do believe that these councils can be more effective than any titular "leader", but I wouldn't mind seeing a few spokespeople appointed who can start presenting the OWS arguments to the American people in a more organized and comprehensible manner. The American people are only seeing OWS through the nightly news videos of them being driven out of the parks. It's time to get some Occupy-friendly talking heads on these news shows to start explaining to people what Occupy is really about and is fighting for. That's more important than having a leader.

1.- Tea party is an astroturf group

2.- Tea party was used to advance the objectives of the men behind the curtain.

Of course I could also tell you that civil rights started in 1958... and that is just one example.

I don't expect this to lead to immediate changes (Another sign of how co-opted the tea party was... citizens for prosperity IS part of the establishment). As an OWSer put it... five years seems like a reasonable time line for the movement to start having an objective effect.

Yes, yes, I know about the Kock brothers backing it at a national level, but living in a red area, I've known quite a few tea partiers. The local 'bagger groups that have been impacting local elections here in California and across the country aren't astroturf, but are organized and run by real (misguided) people who are passionate about their (equally misguided) cause. It may be turf at the highly politicized national center, but the local groups are far more organic in structure and aren't run all that different from the various local OWS groups.

And Civil Rights is a great example of what I'm talking about. Street protests may have brought civil rights to national attention during the 1950's, but they didn't end it. Neither did the marches or the riots. Things CHANGED when it got political. King famously never endorsed any Presidential candidates, but local civil rights groups across America began fighting to remove pro-segregation candidates from office. They replaced them with candidates who supported equality. Even in races where the incumbents couldn't be removed, they caused enough of an uproar that opposition to desegregation eventually lost favor. The Civil Rights movement was heavily political and politicized, almost from its inception. And it worked.

If OWS is going to accomplish anything beyond "awareness", it must get political.

that started in 1964...

And OWS is quite political. You will see leaders emerge... who WILL run and CHALLENGE the RIGHT WING of the Democratic party... that I guarantee.

In fact it is part of the conflict between the New Left and "these kids," as they are dismissively called.

And that leaders will emerge. I would like to see it happen sooner rather than later.

this is what is so hard to wrap heads around... how organic this is

Ummm, you didn't live through the 60s, did you?

The anti-war movement never got "political" as you describe it.

The civil rights movement never got "political".

The women's rights movement never got "political".

But each and every one of them led to legislation/action/policy chance.

All three of those movements were heavily political and politicized. All three of those movements regularly spawned fights during election season over a particular candidates "pro vs. anti" stances. All three of those saw politicians thrown from office, and others ushered in, based primarily on their positions related to those causes.

So no. There has never been a single major policy change in the U.S. that was driven primarily by street protests. Protests can raise awareness, but they only rarely cause politicans to change their votes. Policy change requires political change, and in the U.S. there are only three ways to achieve political change: By buying them off, by making them afraid to oppose you, or by outright swapping them out for someone who will vote your way.

They later became "political" in the sense of trying to elect certain politicians.

and as you asked, here are my thoughts:

1. For the first bit of heresy: OWS = wrong target = bad name.

The term "Occupy Wall Street" confused me quite a bit at first. It does give the impression it's directed at the financial industry. Although it might all appear to be the same thing in some protesters' minds, the financial industry is NOT the same as large business in general, executives as individuals, the wealthy, or any other way of defining an opponent.

The term "occupy" suggests can suggest college students taking over the Dean's office for a day rather than camping out and extending the protest over a long period of time.

Both those distinctions are important. Over time, it became clearer how the movement is defining itself, but those nuances may have been lost on a lot of folks who just see and hear a few news clips and soundbites.

2. Corporations -and by extension Wall Street financiers- should not be labeled the enemy.

I agree. Corporate malfeasance should be a target, but not corporations. There are certainly Marxists and statists paarticipating in OWS, which is fine. But it would be an enormous mistake for the movement to identify itself being fundamentally anti-business. That way lies Gus Hall.

3. Don’t we need a battle-cry? A more easily understood slogan than, ‘The 1% have take everything and the 99% have…’ Whatever. How about a simpler, better sound-bite like, ‘Re-regulate’? That single word, I think, resonates better.

The 99% vs the 1% is probably the best thing to come out of OWS. It has become a well understood phrase and has entered the public consciousness. "Re-regulate" may be an admirable goal in some areas, but "regulation" IMO is not a word for slogans. It is technical, complex, and difficult to generate any kind of excitement or outrage over.

4. I thought at first that a march on Washington was the only thing that would change the conversation. But DU has convinced me the logistics of that make it unfeasible. But something needs to be done other than camping out in public parks and squabbling with the police. Assemble and disperse. Assemble and disperse. Don’t give them a moving target and keep the protest alive but also keep the protest focused on the financial calamity that has befallen our country.

The camping out for weeks was actually a brilliant method of gaining attention. I think it would have fizzled and been forgotten if it were simply a bunch of day rallies.

At the same time, it is not clear that the protesters can expect to permanently live on small patches of public land in downtown areas. In some cities, it may need to migrate into day rallies where the participants sleep elsewhere in order to continue.

5. Newt Gingrich recently said that deregulation was a bad idea.... Should the movement seek to bring as many conservatives as possible into itself? Should we be courting Newt to stand with us?

It's always a good idea to get supporters from across the political spectrum, as long as it can be done without compromising principles. I personally don't think Newt is the right audience, but there are a lot of conservative economic populists who may (and do) sympathize with some of OWS concerns.

To do this, I would suggest de-emphasizing government efforts to spread the wealth and emphasizing eliminating corporate welfare and other ways government gives economic favors to corporation and the wealthy. THAT issue resonates with a large majority of Americans and fits in with OWS's message.

------------------

I have been to protests on subjects such as the invasion of Iraq which have been absolutely massive and yet barely registered in the media or on the public consciousness. Friends report the same thing happening in the Vietnam War era.

I think OWS does not fully realize what an enormous success it has already been in raising public consciousness of the gross disparity of wealth in this country and creating support for legislation that tries to alleviate it.

However, if OWS supporters imagine that this is an American version of the Arab Spring that will lead to Obama stepping down and a change in government, they are living in a fantasy world. Short of that, there has to be a way of pursing progress in small concrete steps. This requires political savvy and legal expertise as well as a leadership who can change tactics and choose where to focus efforts.

The civil rights movement was very good at gaining small victories and building on them. I have been thinking about writing a original post comparing OWS to the civil rights movement as a way to suggest the best direction for the future, but it requires some research. Maybe your thread will be an incentive.

On the other hand, I am not sure that there is enough agreement among the various participants in OWS on which smaller goals should be pursued. The simplest starting point is increasing the upper federal tax bracket, which has already been staked out as an issue. But even that may not fly with protesters who want to change the entire economic or political system. So as a practical matter, I am not sure it's going to work. I guess we'll find out.

You've given me plenty to think about. And I hope others, too.

There are a series of truths- each progressively less palatable and therefore more likely to trigger an avoidance response- that Americans need to confront before they can restore our society to better health:

1. Our society is in economic decline. The slow growth/no growth economy that has become the norm is even worse for the median household which is seeing declining income and a reduced standard of living.

2. Our democracy has become a thinly disguised plutocracy.

3. The Democratic Party has been sufficiently co-opted so that no constructive change is possible with the current political machinery.

I find it interesting that #OWS operates in a universe in which Mr. Obama appears to not even exist. I see no signs supporting him or vilifying him. His main connection to #OWS appears to exist almost entirely in the fevered imaginations of some members of the conservative media.

...the movement MUST get political in some way. You can't change politics without being political.

I think it is imperative we begin to discuss a new paradigm that allows people whose labor is not in demand to survive until they can retrain.

Then we also need to confront the idea that maybe we won't need everyone's labor.

1.For the first bit of heresy: OWS = wrong target = bad name.

Over time, the American media- who are all in for the 1%- will try to tar and feather any progressive movement, and if they fail in that effort, they will try to change the subject and redirect attention elsewhere. Any name and any form of demonstration will face that barrier. I can see #OWS changing names and tactics, but I think Wall Street is and was an excellent place to start. Wall Street is very much a symbol of our changed economy. The bankers aka Wall Street aka the 1%- got bailouts and bonuses while the 99% got layoffs, foreclosures, and a crippled job market. Most people can see and understand that.

2. Corporations -and by extension Wall Street financiers- should not be labeled the enemy. Corporations are nothing more than paper entities...

Corporations are not the enemy, but they are tools of the enemy. The enemy are the 1%- more precisely, the 0.1%. These people control the actions and reap the benefits of marauding corporations. Corporations are used to reduce people to "human resources." Corporations are used to cut wages and benefits because they are costs and they are used to ship jobs overseas. Corporations are a legitimate and necessary target.

3. Battle-cry. What's our bumper sticker, what's our "brand"? Sorry, but "re-regulate" definitely doesn't cut it. I like "we are the 99%" because it focuses attention on the single truth that the American media refuses to acknowledge or discuss- the massive expropriation of wealth by a tiny elite. If I could wave only one sign, it would say STOP THE LOOTING.

4. I agree that a march on Washington would probably be unproductive. The media would ignore it or mischaracterize it.

5. Eating mud.

Good idea. Joining forces with Newt- not so much. Truthfully, I think a significant portion of our politicians- and the people who vote for them- are incorrigible. They are only receptive to ideas and stories that confirm their convictions. They need to be bypassed. "Bipartisanship" is how we got to where we are today.

6. Leonard and Penny.

If they get together my wife will let me know.

Note- I wrote this two days ago and lost my internet service before I could post it. Posting anyway in case somebody is still monitoring the discussion.