Occupy Wall Street

And here I thought that Ben and Jerry's was the unifying force that would finally give OWS legitimacy.

 

what i take to be the most powerful dimension of ows is that they are performing the need for a basically different conversation about fundamental socio-economic orientation, one that is inclusive rather than broadcast down at people from authorized opinion shaping systems. and they are beginning that conversation. putting it into motion. that was the point of the encampments. that's what makes the movement resonate. all this talk about ows that hasn't been primarily about the general assembly is beside the point necessarily. the reason ows is so powerful at this point--the reason it resonates--is that it is putting the conversation into motion and shaping some of the baseline points so directing it in ways that run fundamentally counter to the discourses we've been subjected to these past 30 years. the need for that conversation--either literally or symbolically--resonates with many many people. folk may not agree on the magnitude of the crisis neo-liberalism has made but they know there is one and that the way of thinking and doing things that we've been dominated by (and that's not too strong a term) cannot address it. and they kno that the crisis is quite large, involving very basic social priorities. and they understand why ows would be oriented toward the symbolic targets that it is. and they bypass the dominant media apparatus as a space within which this conversation can meaningfully happen---because there is no conversation there, only monologue.
--- merged: Nov 19, 2011 5:02 PM ---
o and eddie, dear, if a phd is so important for you in legitimating a viewpoint, i have one.

 

obviously, he doesn't get anywhere close to the problems. he's a conservative repeating conservative orthodoxy who is only getting cited because he makes that orthodoxy appear to be legitimate. and eddie's peroration demonstrates what should be now be self-evident: that reality is not constitute proof against conservative orthodoxy, which is made of transcendent statements in which nouns that point to the world operate in a special case or frame that only points to a world that follows from conservative orthodoxy. so he's an example of the psychological bind conservatives are now in, in a general kinda way, if you assume that there is a population invested in that orthodox frame in a way that is as doctrinaire as is typically presented as normative in conservativeland.
--- merged: Nov 19, 2011 5:18 PM ---
o and this is interesting: the right media may be all about this reassuring therapeutic narrative for the benefit of holding its electorate in place by giving them variously distorted images of ows to use a distancing devices, but it's clear from this that, say, the american bankers association is not thinking in this way about the occupation at all. the framework at the start of the document is sort of interesting, but the strategy that is proposed here is more so:

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/CLGF-msnbc.pdf

 

Is it a coincidence that the Tea Party became a "major political power" once the Koch Brothers and other powerful conservatives got on board?

 

I apologize up front for singling out this one line of your post to comment on. It doesn't mean I've haven't read your entire post and it's not my intention to take anything out of context, but it stood out and I felt as if it might hold the key to your disappointment in the OWS movement.

I've never viewed the OWS movement as anything more than a public reaction to the financial injustice our society is facing. Expecting the protest to suggest, offer or provide solutions, are expectations too far and will naturally lead to disappointment.

Efforts on the part of the movement to facilitate and manage the situation within their own ranks should be focused only on keeping the protest active and viable. Their purpose (the purpose of protest) is not to insure their presence is unfelt by local citizens though I believe they have sought to do that to the best of their ability in response to the constant barrage of negative media focused on isolated incidents of less than attractive behaviors.

It's possible that you don't understand the nature and goals of protest, pan (and I don't say this to degrade you or your opinions). But expecting that all active participants in a protest will harbor the same level of commitment or even views on the issues is like expecting that everyone aboard a plane bound for Paris will be staying in the same hotel. A protest is not the be all and end all. It calls attention to problems by voicing it's displeasure and dissatisfaction. It calls for change as it promises to get louder and louder until someone listens. A political framework can be constructed around issues associated with the protest but the protest itself is not a political machine. I see no indication that OWS has been co-opted by the Democratic party or powerful liberal entities within it, despite vocal support it may receive from them, much in the same way it receives support from those without strong ties to any political party. Someone can be in agreement with the protest and not be looking to take it over and steer it in a particular direction.

Those who understand the nature of protest know enough to let it be what it is.

 

http://openchannel.msnbc.msn.com/_n...ells-out-plan-to-undermine-occupy-wall-street

unintentional boldface that my wonky mouse is refusing to let me vaporize for some reason. screw it. anyway, here is the accompanying story about the strategy document prepared for the american bankers association from the msnbc website. a comrade raised a question about authenticity given that it's dated the 24th... so which puzzled me as well as i was driving.. so here's the framing story.

 

Some of the stuff I'm seeing from the OWS crowd has made me completely against the movement:

Examples:
1.) Demand by some for $90/hr income caps, abolition of private property, negative income tax, absolute debt forgiveness...
2.) Public defecation in the streets, on the flag. With others cheering. (And this is NOT protected first amendment speech, FYI).
3.) Generally implying, "if I can't have a good life, then neither should you" with the shutdown of docks, causing coffee shop employees to lose jobs, utter disrespect of other shop keepers property.

Reminds me of a couple of co-workers I have, who, rather than adapt and improvise, prefer to sit on their ass all day and complain.

 

nicely cherry picked to confirm a disposition, kir stang. i've been tracking the occupation in several cities and haven't seen anything like that from actual sourcing. maybe you could provide sources for those "points"?

 

You make some very good points and I appreciate the first paragraph. It points out along with your post that unrealistic, expectations can and have in some ways soured my views.

I still have issues but seeing what you say and looking at myself and what I believed and perhaps irrationally and most definitely unrealistically had hoped for was just that unrealistic and irrational. I am still conflicted within because I see negative issues souring and slowing the progress that have yet to be dealt with. Change isn't easy nor is it over night to expect either is being myopic and foolhardy.

I just don't see how attitudes that "yeah some businesses closed down, yeah some people lost jobs and yeah the people being hit hardest economically are the 99, but hey, war has casualties, just don't expect us to make sacrifices when we ask you to" are productive as a whole to the movement. I just think if you (the movement) want or expect people to make sacrifices then those expecting everyone else to sacrifice should do so without bitching about having to do so. Lead by example.

Bitching about losing the ability to charge your laptop or I Phone or having to pull up your tents is a small sacrifice when people are losing jobs and their businesses. It just seems that the OWS doesn't understand this or even cares to understand it. Granted that MAY BE a small percentage BUT that is the vocal percentage that is being seen and heard daily on the news and until your post in forums such as this.

It could just be "jilted lover syndrome", where I had unreasonable expectations and when not met and attitudes not living up to how I (rationally or irrationally) perceived those attitudes should be, I lost faith in the movement and thus out of frustration, pain and anger struck out venomously because I had invested myself into those ideals I had.

I think the blame is not just mine to bear though, that those who see issues such as people saying "who cares if you lost your business, your job" show more compassion, because in the end you are asking for that person to sacrifice for your cause and in doing so, you cannot have people within the movement no matter how small of a percentage, crying about the sacrifices they made. It's disingenuous. If all one hears and reads EVEN here, that the NYFD were harassing and had no right to take the propane tanks away or you tubes of "I can't charge my I Phone and we can't get messages out because we can't charge out laptops" and so on, while those same people are saying you lost your job and business and now you can't pay your bills, suck it up. Then you cannot expect people even the most ardent supporter to continue supporting you. If someone bitches about not being able to charge their laptop or I Phone then maybe they shouldn't be there. Maybe a majority voice needs to come out and show what the majority truly is willing to sacrifice and show some humility and true caring to those who have lost jobs and businesses and thus can't pay bills. Instead of letting a vocal militaristic minority show no empathy or sympathy what so ever.

Like it or not, claim bias or what have you, the spokespeople for your movement are the ones that are seen and heard, and yes, usually they are the minority looking for 15 minutes of fame. That's when those in it for the real purpose need to come forward and say those are the minority voices and they were just leaving. While we respect their voices, one must understand this is a mutual sacrifice and as leaders of the movement, as the ones in the public eye, we need to show we are willing to not just ask you to sacrifice but we, ourselves are willing to sacrifice for you. That unfortunately is not being heard, whether press bias or for whatever reason. It's not heard by anyone here saying it, it is not heard on YouTube or even on some of the Occupy pages I have visited.

Until, you get that under control, and there is proven shared sacrifice then don't expect support from those losing their jobs, businesses and can't pay their bills because you want to throw wrenches into the machine but not assume any sacrifices yourself.

 

ows is heavily influenced by the recent history of protest movements which have used social media as channels for information, mobilization and organization. these technologies are simply part of how a lot of people operate in the world. while this is a class marker to some extent (how much is open to question, really) they're also basic to how many people interact with the world and with each other. the technological mediation of such relations is, if anything, increasing as the demographic you're talking about gets younger.

so there's a sense in which this whole fixation on technology as if it constituted something other than a tool that's being used for ends that it was not intended for (a kind of technological détournement, in the language of the situationist biz) is partly an old fart perspective. o those kids and their smart phones....not that different from grandparents who complained about their children's perverse affection for hi-fis and elvis records. but to move from an old fart view of these technologies to some attempt to discredit what the occupation is about **only** makes sense if you assume that the occupation is somehow anti-capitalist. and that, pan, is simply, empirically wrong.

i get the idea that from the viewpoint of someone who is hurting economically because of the ways in which cowboy capitalism has worked to treat working people as expendable while being all blah blah blah prosperity that these technologies and their uses may position the movement in class terms in a way that makes you feel as though there's strange going on---but that's like assuming you can understand someone from the color of their hair or the shoes they wear. it entirely misses what the occupation is and how it is operating. it misses the point entirely. entirely.

the occupation is about changing the conversation, as i mentioned. it's about a fundamental redirection of priorities away from the monetarist-style "globalization" model based on the idea that labor costs are variable and that anything goes in terms of location of production facilities and that the consequences of that are inevitable and necessary so the people left behind by them should suck it up because god wants capitalism to work that way. that's lunacy. it's destructive and unnecessary and irresponsible and its the way capitalism has operated for 30 bloody years. you'd think that even if you don't like the smartphones and dont understand what their functions are, that you'd be all about changing a conversation about policy away from the monologues that have fucked over people like you and treated you like debris--and told you to suck it up if you complain. so what if you don't like the technologies? so what if you imagine ben & jerry's some nefarious corporate puppetmaster---even if that were true (and it isnt) the conversation being changed so that you can work toward participating in making an america in which people like you and me aren't fucked because of the way god wants capitalism to work would be a good thing. so bloody what if it doesn't look like some sanitized version of the indian independence movement, or some truncated image of the civil rights movement (the indian independence movement was a tough haul, if you know anything of it's actual history---the civil rights movement went WAY beyond mlk and involved a LOT of actions that you'd probably dismiss out of hand---but all that stuff is the past and can be sandblasted and twisted around to suit anyone's needs...)? if things continue as they have, you are fucked. if they change, you might not be. so why on earth would you defend ways of thinking that have done nothing but result in outcomes that have fucked you over?

now you've been operating, pan, in this defensive framework that equates every refutation of your position as some kind of personal attack or disrespect in a way that leads me to wonder if the only way to show respect for your position is to ignore it. but that seems the opposite of respect---its marginalization, its a decision that your viewpoint cannot be taken seriously enough to question. i would think the fact that people engage with your posts an indication that you are accorded some respect, even as the way you react to that respect is to busily work to undermine it. but if it is in fact the case that the only way your positions can be respected, in your view, is for them to not be criticized, so to ignore you, basically, please let me know and i'll oblige.

 

So it is ok to bitch about losing a laptop "because that's technology and the ONLY way to communicate" while someone loses their business or job and can't pay the bills and you say suck it up? That's ok, that's mutual sacrifice? Bull shit, those are nothing more than materialistic excuses. Tell that to the person that just lost everything they owned.

Again Bullshit, excuses for not wanting to sacrifice. Plain and simple. Not EVERY person there needs a laptop or phone. I don't give a damn about the "technology" it is the APPEARANCE that people like you within the movement ask for sacrifice, look at people losing their jobs and businesses and can't pay the bills as nobodies that don't f'n matter to you so long as your BS excuses allows you to keep "technology" and not have to make 1 fucking sacrifice in any of this.

For the record WHAT HAVE YOU SACRIFICED?

This whole paragraph was degrading and pointless. to me that is again you feeling far superior and having to talk "down" to the plebeians. I don't much appreciate the tone or lack of respect shown in this paragraph.

That said:

You can blame it all on "cowboy capitalism" all you want your unwillingness to sacrifice and yet treat others who do have jobs and are losing them in a very bad economy as well, nobodies that don't matter because YOU have a purpose and BS excuses for your technology" is far worse than how they were being treated BEFORE you came along. At least in a bed economy they were holding on to their business and/or working and paying their bills. BUT NO MORE FUCK THEM.... HERE COMES OWS WITH THEIR TECHNOLOGY AND REFUSAL TO MAKE SACRIFICE.

t

Again, this is just more bullshit excuses about why you feel EVERYONE else should make sacrifices but heaven forbid the OWS has to send someone out to use a land line payphone. Snobbery does NOT just come from the 1%.
Make the sacrifices that you expect EVERYONE ELSE TOO or go away and admit if YOU have to sacrifice and the bullshit of your excuses is not good enough then you don't want to be there.

You talk about this movement bettering society, I see people feeling ENTITLED and not giving a damn who they hurt because it is an "altruistic" movement. Which is nothing more than open "conversation' for what? are those people going to get their businesses back? Are those that lost everything going to get their lives back in order? DO YOU FUCKING CARE? From your esponses here. NO, you don't. So how can I support ANYTHING that treats people the way you in your own words want them treated. as pawns in your f'd up power play.

in the end what separates how you view and treat people than those 1% you say you are protecting the 99 from? I don't truly see much of a difference other than you KNOW what one side feels and expects and is willing to give and yet the other side claim to want to help but only do so at the cost of others because they are too important to make sacrifices.

As you can see from my last post I can answer civilly when addressed with respect for my views and not talked down to as if one is superior to me. If you can do that (and in this post I showed where I had issues), then we can debate. DEBATE is not lecturing (I am guilty as well, I'll own up to that), but an exchange of ideas and reasonings, while trying to show where your point of view comes from hoping to educate and help each other understand the other's view points.

criticize my ideas all you want just do so as though I am on an equal level and show me respect. that's all I ask for. Don't care if you like me or not. ANSWER questions DON'T ignore or make degrading claims instead of answering them. THERE is NO way I can understand you position or how you came to it if you refuse to answer my questions. Hence, if I can't understand and you criticize me while I answer each and every one of your questions and showing respect, then as your refusals and degradations to my questions continue, I will become more and more hostile to your criticisms because again it all boils down to your control. You control the questions, you control the attitudes and you control tones in how we communicate. When I have tried to make it equal, you refuse to answer questions and blow off all except that which YOU CHOOSE to discuss. That is not in my opinion an equal grounds debate. Take you high road all you want just don't do it with me.

If you can do that then we can go on, if not, then you we cannot communicate civilly, the respect won't be there.

Chances are based on the past dealings with you, you can't do it, or are totally unwilling to. Which is ok with me either way.

 

Yeah I just returned from a trip north and visited a few "occupy" sites I saw or heard nothing like what Kir Stang is describing. I certainly never saw anyone taking a shit on the US flag and I'm certain I'd remember that, probably still be in jail had I.

Most people I spoke with were either laid off tech industries or blue collar types or students fed up with increasing tuition. That's not to say someone somewhere isn't demanding the end of personal property or shitting on the US flag just that I never saw anything of the sort. To me this is conjured up by folks trying to tie the OWS movement with socialism and communism. There maybe an element of the movement that does support that but I seriously don't think those people amount to mathematical or vocal majority. Not even close. I stopped by the UC Berkeley (wasn't even 100 people there) and approached the person with the sign that seemed extremely far left. I can't remember what her sign exactly said but it was misspelled and mentioned something like "social and economical equality NOW!" I wondered what her version of "equality" sounded like, turns out she and her boyfriend were out there protesting tuition increases and her father has been unemployed for about 2 years. Nothing she said sounded like socialism or communism. She did sound pissed off but also said violence was not an option and thought violence would hurt not help the cause.

You know back when people were debating whether or not the tea party was racists I ended up traveling through the Pacific Northwest. I had no problem finding TP protests with pictures of Obama with a bone through his nose or made to look half monkey half man. In fact I don't think I saw one protest where this wasn't front and center.

 

I don't understand what you are saying here, pan, and as you repeat the same idea a few times, maybe you can clarify.

Are you criticizing protesters because you think they are mocking those they are out there speaking on behalf of, asking others in the 99% (those not actually protesting) to make more sacrifices because they are out there sacrificing by protesting?

Or are you condemning the OWS movement for requesting the 1% make a greater sacrifice than the protesters are willing to make themselves?

Are you, when talking about the businesses which have closed down and the loss of jobs, referring to local businesses and loss of income somehow resulting from the occupation itself?

However you mean it, I get the impression that you don't really see any sacrifice at all in on the part of the protesters.

Imagine if you were out there (I try to) - you're cold most of the time, living in a very inconvenient environment - packed together like sardines, away from families and home towns, eating whatever happens to have been donated, worrying about where you're going to be able to urinate or defecate or sleep the next time you have to, putting yourself out there every day to be maced, billy-clubbed, or arrested, being angry but doing your best to hold your temper because you know it's not about you and you know you're position is lost when you do.

It doesn't sound like anything most people would be willing to jump up and volunteer for. I don't think any of them really want to be out there in those conditions, but they realize that someone needs to. No matter what comforts you may think they are whining over, the truth is, their very presence and willingness to do what most of us can't or won't, is a sacrifice in and of itself - and I don't hear many complaining about it.

What the local citizens and businesses may be suffering as a result of the occupation is temporary, at best. These communities will survive the interruption in their lives, but to what end, if the corporate and financial status quo remains the status quo? Maybe these communities should be looking to their leaders to put pressure on banks, corporations and politicians. I'm sure the protesters would be glad to go home and this would certainly hasten the process.

 

http://www.occupywallst.org/forum/proposed-list-of-ows-demands/

Of course, a single individual is not representative of an entire movement, but it's examples like that that turn me not only off, but against the movement.

Other sample of 'occupiers.'

http://dailycaller.com/2011/11/05/chaos-video/

 

Acknowledging the post is not representative of the entire movement (or even supports the movement at all for all you know and is not just some guy out to discredit the movement) and, at the same time, suggesting that it turns you off to the movement could lead one to suggest that you might be predisposed to find a reason to oppose OWS. I would take the Admin note into consideration (Admin Note: This is not an official list of demands. The user "bchang1987" who posted this speaks only for themself, not the movement. This website would never in a million years endorse a list of demands of the 1%.)

I've also seen the pics of a guy defecating on a police car and a later acknowledgement from the police that he was a homeless guy (I've see homeless guys pissing in the parks in DC on more than one occasion....while tourists grab their kids hands and walk quickly in the other direction)

As to the charging laptops and I-phone issue, I have participated in many protests and there is often down time when you relax and joke around, particularly when the protest is measured in days not hours. IMO, it is just another example of selective mis(representation).

 

Perhaps. But I really started out more like Pan. I was more of a neutral observer with hopes that the movement could really break up the incestuous relationship between government and big money. However, rather than seeing a political statement, I'm seeing miscreants who act out mostly because they can.

Times are tough for everyone, not just OWS demonstrators. Rather adapt, innovate, and overcome, they prefer to protest and ask someone else to fix their problems.

 

It's an open forum posting, Kir stang. Opinions are like assholes, as they say.

Prefacing the entire post is a statement by the site admin:

I think the entire movement turns you off for the most basic of reasons - you're probably not fully on board with what they are protesting over. So, for you this may just be icing on the cake.

Though I like some of his points, I see them - as I imagine the movement sees them - as indicative of the way fringe groups can go off topic. I wouldn't worry your head about this sort of thing being implemented - it veers far off course from where most are.

Oops, just saw redux responded to this in basically the same way while I was typing.

 

Isnt that how most significant social/political movements have started (women's suffrage, civil rights, anti-war...) with demonstrations and illegal acts (civil disobedience) by a few of the more impassioned citizens, upsetting the status quo and getting arrested? And yes, willing to get arrested (and possibly mistreated and beaten by the police) is a sacrifice.