Occupy Wall Street

[PanzerJaeger]

Occupy Wall Street



So what's the story here? At first, it seemed like these protests were made up of the same 'professional' protestors that will show up for whatever the current leftist cause de jour happens to be, but it seems to have grown into a somewhat greater populist movement trying to emulate the Arab Spring protests.

The unions, liberal commentators, and other MSNBC types are wrapping their arms around the movement as an anti-Tea Party Tea Party of the Left, but I've also read of Tea Party types joining the cause. Should it be viewed in terms of the unique American left/right paradigm - or maybe as a more traditional disenfranchised populist movement made up of multiple and not always aligned interest groups?

Will the movement gain steam? Can it find a broader base of support among the American people, or will the media's short attention span and an expected harsh winter put an end to it?

Also, is it weird that after watching interviews like this, I feel a strong desire to wade into the crowd on camelback with a beatin' stick in a fit of counter-revolutionary zeal?

[Rhyfelwyr]

At first, it seemed like these protests were made up of the same 'professional' protestors that will show up for whatever the current leftist cause de jour happens to be

I don't like those types either but you have to admit they have some good points.

Nothing motivates people to get up and take action bettern than fear. And there is a lof of that. I don't even think it is just because of the recession or the hatred of the bankers etc. These are more like blips compared to bigger changes. Like the fact that a lot of people just can't pursue a career like they used to. There's less employment stability, less social stability with families etc. And those two are linked a lot.

The problem is IMO the dismantling of the welfare state from the 80's, with Reagan for you guys and Thatcher over here. It's become the norm, there's no serious alternative, there's negligible difference between Labour/Tories or (mainstream) Republicans/Democracts. Hence the disillusionment.

I'm also not surprised that Tea Party types might associate with these protestors because their free market idealism couldn't be much further away from the current system which seems almost like some sort of corporatism.

Not that I identify with the left. I think they are inconsistent in that while they claim to make a fairer society, they cripple the worst off (working-class) by supporting immigration and the like, so I would never vote Labour. If only we had the old style (pre-Thatcherite) Tories! If I was having one of my moments right now I might shout my support for the National Front (not BNP) and national socialism, but I'm feeling too level headed right now. Boring!

Anyway, I don't really mind Michael Moore because he's just an eccentric guy that's wrapped up in his own little world and he's just living it.

[Beskar]

Hello Panzer! I hope you don't mind your resident "Lefty~" butting in.

So what's the story here? At first, it seemed like these protests were made up of the same 'professional' protestors that will show up for whatever the current leftist cause de jour happens to be

I resent that statement a little, you imply that the 'Right' is completely blameless. Whilst the Union Representative might decide to take up the cause for the 'Left', you have that Church Preacher taking up their arms for the 'Right'. The only real difference ultimately (as they are both striving for their cause) is that the Union Rep might finish it off with a packet of Fish'n'Chips and the Church Preacher ends it with Sandwich and a reading from Luke.

Sort of "The pot calling the kettle black", if you forgive the idiom.

The unions, liberal commentators, and other MSNBC types are wrapping their arms around the movement as an anti-Tea Party Tea Party of the Left, but I've also read of Tea Party types joining the cause. Should it be viewed in terms of the unique American left/right paradigm - or maybe as a more traditional disenfranchised populist movement made up of multiple and not always aligned interest groups?

I think Disenfranchisement is a big issue facing the West. The problem stems that from parties and people feeling unrepresented or looking out for their interests. To make it even more difficult, we all have different interests and views!

For pure example: I argue that the corruption in governments and powerstructures is preventing a democratic and function European Federal State which would greater serve the interests of the population. On the otherhand, Furunculus feels that on the larger scale, his view might be severely more diminished and the current corrupt system is simply "Just going to get worst" so wants to scrap the whole European idea.

In many ways, both Furunculus and me are right. If it is going to get worse in my opinion, I would support simply pulling out as well. I am also sure there are situations or examples where Furunculus himself might change to my view if certain conditions or situations were met. But this leaves a very sporadic and completely misguided middle ground which causes this bastardised power systems and 'Compromises' (Which are not really a real compromise.)

I think America is a very polarised and great example of this. Due to the politics involved and different interest groups, it has resulted in a rather bizarre system where no one is really "Right" or "Left" and simply "Corrupt Corporate". The reason they are "Corrupt Corporate" is that unlike the real people on the ground, the grander interests of constructed corporates have a far more powerful sway and they are less sporadic than public opinion, which advertises to the politicians as being the "people" to support.

Will the movement gain steam? Can it find a broader base of support among the American people, or will the media's short attention span and an expected harsh winter put an end to it?

It hasn't really picked up yet, it has hit "Noticed". If we are still talking about this in a few months, then we will see if there is any real credibility.

Also, is it weird that after watching interviews like this, I feel a strong desire to wade into the crowd on camelback with a beatin' stick in a fit of counter-revolutionary zeal?

Given your political opinions, not really, but it is a shame it is a rather one-sided Zeal and not including you wading into "Anti-homosexual"/"Anti-Abortion"/"No to Affordable Healthcare" protester groups of the American Right. But if you include them, I will concede and admit I feel tempted.

[CBR]

If they had watched Inside Job I'm surprised they didn't just want to nuke it from orbit instead of occupying it...

[Strike For The South]

Good.

[Ronin]

Faux News sends troll reporter down to Wall Street.....protester makes him look like an idiot.

[a completely inoffensive name]

So what's the story here? At first, it seemed like these protests were made up of the same 'professional' protestors that will show up for whatever the current leftist cause de jour happens to be, but it seems to have grown into a somewhat greater populist movement trying to emulate the Arab Spring protests.

I don't know what professional protesters you are talking about. First images of the wall street sit in were college kids looking like hippies or hipsters. But, I guess this isn't really important to dwell on.

The unions, liberal commentators, and other MSNBC types are wrapping their arms around the movement as an anti-Tea Party Tea Party of the Left, but I've also read of Tea Party types joining the cause. Should it be viewed in terms of the unique American left/right paradigm - or maybe as a more traditional disenfranchised populist movement made up of multiple and not always aligned interest groups?

Covering the story isn't wrapping their arms around it. When Fox news started giving meeting times, asking people to call in for info on where the closest tea party rally to them was, telling people to get out and join on such and such date...that is closer to putting your arms around it. Having Rachael Maddow saying, "These people are right." Isn't exactly MSNBC wrapping arms around it.

But yes, it is populist because everyone, both left and right have been screwed over. Progressives want wall street tamed, libertarians want wall street to fend for itself without government bailouts or teats to suck on. They want different results but both are unhappy with the treatment of wall street.

Will the movement gain steam? Can it find a broader base of support among the American people, or will the media's short attention span and an expected harsh winter put an end to it?

Depends on how the media wants to portray it. Manufactured irrelevance is still going strong in America.

Also, is it weird that after watching interviews like this, I feel a strong desire to wade into the crowd on camelback with a beatin' stick in a fit of counter-revolutionary zeal?

Knowing you, not really. I kind of guessed that citizens expressing discontent and petitioning their democratic government would be the kind of thing that gets under your skin.

[CountArach]

it seems to have grown into a somewhat greater populist movement trying to emulate the Arab Spring protests.

Bingo, that's the movement in a nutshell.

I read this article that touches on something I hadn't really considered about the movement:

Those hallmarks are dubious successes, at any rate. A movement propelled by money – as the Tea Party is, gifted with millions from conservative influencers – dies without it. OWS has something more important than money: a marketing plan. Adbusters, who put out the initial call for the occupation, has always been savvy about mixing a healthy amount of "ad" in with its "busting", borrowing the techniques and strategies of Madison Avenue even as it preaches abstinence from capitalism.

With franchises rolling out in LA, Boston, San Francisco and Chicago, and a growing list of celebrity endorsements, OWS has an advantage that even the most successful political campaigns lack: it isn't even trying to get someone elected. Like Nike, like Coke, like America itself, OWS has the potential to become the most powerful thing an idea can be: background noise.

Even if the movement doesn't achieve anything (which is likely, even almost certain) then the manner in which it implants itself on the civic discourse of America could have more potentially far-reaching consequences. If only by further enforcing the Us vs Them dichotomy that has boiled under the surface for so long, this movement has the power to cause a notable change in the political sphere.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Protesters are weird people, who knows why they do what they do.

this movement has the power to cause a notable change in the political sphere.

By making people grimace when they read descriptions of how savvy it's celebrity endorsements are?

[CountArach]

By making people grimace when they read descriptions of how savvy it's celebrity endorsements are?

It is the same as raising awareness of an issue - once the idea is out there, it is a part of the civic discourse and thus enters the public consciousness. Whether anything is done in a strictly beaurocratic sense is another question, but it will certainly change society in the sense of changing the way that people think about the world and issues. That, in turn, is what drives the more significant social changes in the long term. Celebrity endorsements of things are stupid and no one really goes along with them, but if you look at Lady Gaga, for instance, who focussed the public consciousness towards issues of gay rights (for whatever reason), that does have an effect on discourse.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

It is the same as raising awareness of an issue - once the idea is out there, it is a part of the civic discourse and thus enters the public consciousness.

So people are talking about it and it's in the news? But what have I been made conscious of exactly?

Whether anything is done in a strictly beaurocratic sense is another question, but it will certainly change society in the sense of changing the way that people think about the world and issues. That, in turn, is what drives the more significant social changes in the long term. Celebrity endorsements of things are stupid and no one really goes along with them, but if you look at Lady Gaga, for instance, who focussed the public consciousness towards issues of gay rights (for whatever reason), that does have an effect on discourse.

Has it made the discourse more chantable? What long term social change does that bring? Perhaps the effort to fit political thoughts onto cardboard signs will have an effect on the discourse.

[Major Robert Dump]

Protests don't accomplish anything unless they hit people's pocketbooks, and unless you do that legally you will get in hot water.

Boycotts are more effective than protests.

Remember a couple years ago when all of the Latinos decided they were going to protest US immigration law enforcement, and they all decided to protest and skip work so they could cripple the economy? Nothing was crippled. No one blinked. But a lot of Latinos did get fired.

Listening to a bunch of unemployed halfwits prattle on about economic issues they barely understand, conveniently disguising their own selfish agenda with the selfish agenda of the big evil man they are fighting....we have bettet things to do

[Papewaio]

Golden Rule:

Who has the Gold makes the Rules.

Fractionated boycotting:
List the companies then boycott the worst 20% in each industry.

[Husar]

Eh, on one hand I'm not a big fan of protesters as you usually see them either, on the other hand I do wonder why that is and think it is proof that we live in a democracy and a good thing that they are allowed to voice their concerns in such a manner. And I fully agree that it is a shame when peaceful protesters are being arrested while people who caused billions in damages walk free.
As I said at the time, the higher your paygrade, the more responsibility, responsibility means you have to own up to your mistakes, not get a bailout.

[Lemur]

Listening to a bunch of unemployed halfwits prattle on about economic issues they barely understand, conveniently disguising their own selfish agenda with the selfish agenda of the big evil man they are fighting....we have bettet things to do

Having worked on Wall Street for eight years, for a minute there I thought you were talking about investment bankers or stock brokers.

I have no formed opinion about Occupy Wall Street; I suspect they are indulging in ineffective protest, but I'm willing to be convinced otherwise.

True story: My neighbor the cop was talking about how dumb all of the crooks are. "Where are the smart criminals?" she lamented. "Wall Street," says the lemur.

Also, note that at least one study shows that convicted psychopaths are less impulsive and reckless than the average stock broker. Based on my personal experience, I would agree 100%.

So ... I don't think what the protesters are doing is effective. But I truly believe that the financial infrastructure built up to support investment bankers and stock brokers is over-built by a factor of at least thousand, and I believe that high-level finance people add far less value to the economy than they think they do. In fact, I think the average investment banker is much more parasitic to our economy than, say, a welfare mother.

[Major Robert Dump]

I'm not defending Wall Street by any means. It's just that these protests aren't going to accomplish anything. The Wall Street crew are laughing at them. Anything they "do" to reform at the bequest of the protestors will be crap. The only way to breach these criminals is to enforce the law and hit their pocketbooks.

Stop buying corporate. There's an idea. Invest in something other than stocks and bonds. Pass laws that reign in on the fact that people in government are not subject to insider trading laws, and they get a free pass on obvious conflicts-of-interest by saying their protfolio is managed by a third party, as if they never meet with these third parties and say "Pssst, Solandra is about to get a half a billion, be subtle...."

[Samurai Waki]

In order for it to be effective it has to become something political, and in order to do that it has to learn how to find a voice through politicians who want the kind of change America needs. I look to Ron Paul... I honestly believe he is the only GOP member that has a shot against Obama.

[TheLastDays]

"Yes, we can", anyone?

[Crazed Rabbit]

After seeing that it's mostly the same ole socialist protesters, and that many whiny college students* identify with them, I've changed my opinion to one of indifferent contempt (I hate police brutality, but sometimes I just want to see a socialist scumbag get hit).

The real key isn't Wall Street getting special treatment because they make loads of many - it's the political class and those they favor vs the rest of us. Wall Street doesn't have the power - our huge government, which creeps into more and more facets of our lives every year, has the power. The power to destroy your life for violating one of thousands and thousands of federal crime (criminal intent no longer required for many new crimes!), to pick winners and losers (see the loans to that solar panel company, and the bailed out banks) in our economy, and the power to run our lives by controlling what we eat, drink, what we can own, etc.

EDIT: Check out this bizarre and hilarious video of Atlanta "occupiers" deciding whether or not to let civil rights veteran and Democratic congressman J


CR

[Sasaki Kojiro]

"We have someone here..."

"We have someone here..."

"Who would like to address the assembly."

"Who would like to address the assembly."



What is this, Kindergaten??????

I literally can't watch the rest of that video.

[Centurion1]

WHAT THE **** WAS THAT

[a completely inoffensive name]

I watched 3 minutes of that video, does that **** really go on for 10 minutes? Oh my god, if I found myself participating in that, I would shoot myself for early dementia.

[Beskar]

It is a faux-communist totalitarian indoctrination. You are the state, you speak with the voice of the state....!

Crazed Rabbit, clap your hands!
*The ORG* Rabbit clap your hands!

I said, Crazed Rabbit, clap your hands!
*The ORG* Rabbit clap your hands!

[PanzerJaeger]

If you watch to the end, he doesn't even get to speak!

Reminds me of the Spanish People's Councils during the early days of the civil war.

[Crazed Rabbit]

I watched 3 minutes of that video, does that **** really go on for 10 f'n minutes? Oh my god, if I found myself participating in that, I would shoot myself for early dementia.

Yes it does. Would have been quicker to just let him speak. It seems most people wanted him to, but not the guy with the mic, who managed to keep asking until he was able to say they should proceed with the agenda.

At about 8:40 it's clear John Lewis isn't going to speak, so he starts heading out. One guy standing near him starts speaking loudly to apologize. Then the guy with the mic starts loudly saying "Mic check! Mic check!" and the crowd echoes him, to drown out the non-conformist trying to apologize.

Watch for yourself, and be glad those folks are really like 0.9%

CR

[Beskar]

Just for something more politically balanced, here is a interview with Noam Chomsky on this matter.

[Ronin]

After seeing that it's mostly the same ole socialist protesters, and that many whiny college students* identify with them, I've changed my opinion to one of indifferent contempt (I hate police brutality, but sometimes I just want to see a socialist scumbag get hit).

sorry couldn´t resist....it's a common pet peeve I have with Americans.

[Major Robert Dump]

Apparently these protests are the place to be were one wishing to get laid, get drugs and/or poop in an alley

[Crazed Rabbit]

sorry couldn´t resist....it's a common pet peeve I have with Americans.

Did you watch the video? I believe the guy is of the "nationalize industry" variety of socialism, not just a democratic party member. Just because we don't have socialist politicians doesn't mean we don't have a few socialist people, especially in a country of 300 million+ people.

CR

[Lemur]

An interesting comment, with which I largely agree, about conservatism and the OWS movement:

I was interested, and glad, to see this sentence in Gregory Djerejian analysis of the Occupy movement: "They are acting to secure conservative aims of re-balancing a society that is becoming dangerously unmoored and increasingly bent asunder." Why? Because it reasonably identifies a truth about today's Conservative/Liberal political environment - that many on the Liberal side of the political equation are often quite philosophically conservative. And that today's "conservatives" are anything but.

As a long time resident of that liberal political hotbed Madison, Wisconsin, I've often said that it is in fact one of the more conservative places you'll find.

Why? Because even most of the more radical lefties living here (and there are far fewer than some would like others to believe) are living essentially conservative lives; they want a safe place to raise their kids, value their monogamous relationships (gay or straight), support law and order, have decent middle-class jobs, and want their world to be primarily stable and fairly predictable. They surround themselves with generally like-minded neighbors, talk to them over their fences (or across their hoes at the community gardens), and politely wait for their children in the pick up zone of their schools.

Do they vote Democrat or even Green? Sure. But at their core, they want what traditional philosophical conservatives seem to want: community, neighborliness, predictability. When hundreds of thousands of them marched daily around our Capitol last spring in response to the new "conservative" governor's radical policy changes, it was because they felt the changes were moving too fast and the rules weren't being respected. The foundations of their lives - built generally on following the rules, respecting their contracts and following what seemed to be reasonable and stable career paths - were being shaken too vigorously and unfairly. You don't have to agree with their take on the situation to agree that the core of their complaint was about as traditionally conservative as you can get.