Occupy Wallstreet

[dubkitty]

actually, my entire point is that they *aren't* clear. in the Web and blog coverage of the New York and San Francisco protests i've seen i've seen socialists and anarchists with countervailing messages at the same event, a total lack of a unified message, and enough different focuses that it's unclear unless you go to the trouble of looking up the website--which hardly anyone seeing a street protest is likely to do unless they're already predisposed to the cause--what the protest is about except that the protestors don't like "Wall Street." when people are interviewed or give statements, they go off on their own tangents. this is not the way to present a political message effectively. by comparison, the Tea Party people have a simple, easily communicated message: Taxed Enough Already. and a simple idea to accompany it: opposition to "Big Government." thus, they're able to sell themselves despite the contempt-verging-on-hatred of the mass media. simple message, easily communicated.

blocking streets didn't stop the funding of the Contras. it didn't stop the war in Kuwait. it didn't stop the war in Iraq, or any other thing that tactic has been used against in post-Vietnam US history. it doesn't work. eventually, even the most foolish generals learn to abandon failed tactics. America is not, and probably will never be, at an October Revolution-like tipping point because it's not a toppling empire ruled by a Tsar many of whose subjects live in medieval conditions, and the Revolution brought Kerensky to power anyway; Lenin had to steal power. taking the streets isn't going to work in the USA; it's just too big, and too decentralized. political organizing works.

[McSpunckle]

It's not defeatist. It's an observation. The goals have been articulated. You just haven't seen it. Michael Moore has gone around talking about it. The news just doesn't run with the story.

And pretending the reason that the the Tea Party is covered that they have a clear, articulate goal is, frankly, laughable. There's a lot of money behind it. People are bused in. Corporations set up the rallies. The Tea Party is marketed in the same way as Toby Keith and Larry the Cable Guy. It's not a level playing field. The Occupy Wall Street protests are totally independent. Just a bunch of people pissed about the 1% hoarding all the money that went out to demonstrate. There's nobody behind them.

Not every protest you don't agree with is self-righteous. And just because they aren't getting coverage doesn't mean they don't have a message.

For the record, I'm not 100% behind the Occupy Wall Street thing either. I agree with their premise, but I'd like to see them organize something much larger and more nationally visible. But, frankly, if you can't figure out what the protest is about, you're intentionally ignoring it or dismissing it outright.

Whatevs. I'm done. Peace.

[jfrey]

One thing I am curious about: Whenever I see something come up about a protest, or some cause that I don't agree with, people seem to assume that if you don't agree with the cause then either you don't understand it, or are benefiting unethically from the situation being opposed. What if you just think that the goal - or means of achieving the goal - is immoral? And even if the goal has merit, how does that mean you can justify even the smallest wrong-doing?

To put this in something of a metaphor,
I wouldn't demand a crumb of bread from someone with a hundred thousand loaves, even if I was starving to death and every one of their loaves would rot without feeding anyone.

[dubkitty]

@McS: very well, then. but i'm afraid you're living in a bubble. people not on the extreme left quit paying attention to Michael Moore back around the time he compared pro-Saddam forces in Iraq to the Minutemen of the US Revolutionary War. i actually know someone online who has a Tea Party group in a small town in Massachusetts; she gets no corporate funding, and has had to struggle to find a room for her twenty or so people to meet. and people are bused in to all major protests nowadays; customarily when you want to get fifty people someplace efficiently, you hire a bus, and buses regularly deliver e.g. large groups of purple t-shirted SEIU members to Obama speeches and other rallies. and that's OK. if those people are freely choosing to speak by supporting those events, that's part of the process.

the problem from a Left perspective (putting on Mao cap LOL) isn't that the process is unfairly tilted against the Left, though the Left has cherished that excuse ever since the 70s; it's that the American Left is attempting to apply tactics from the European and Russo-Chinese Left which aren't applicable to the US because the US is a different type of nation-state with a different history and culture than other nations, which are distinguished by an established Marxist/Fabian/Socialist trend in their politics that's been accepted since the 1800s. the Octoberist/Spanish Civil War/French Revolution aux barricades! thing just doesn't resonate in America, because the American Revolution was based in English political philosophy and a mentality generally more individualistic and more suspicious of the State. the anti-Vietnam War movement was effective largely because it appealed to individual self-interest: "i don't want to go and get fucking shot!" the anti-Iraq war movement was less effective in direct proportion to the endangerment of the average college-aged American male. Americans don't sing the Internationale, and they don't call each other "comrade"; you've got to reach them individually, and convince them what you want is best for them, too. if the Left--by which i mean the "real" Left--doesn't figure out how to do this, they'll always be condemned to that 12-15% ghetto of the electorate, enough to swing the Democratic nomination sometimes but no more.

[dubkitty]

...because the American Revolution was based in English political philosophy which predated the French Revolution and Marx and a mentality generally more individualistic and more suspicious of the State, and the USA also doesn't have a millenium's history of founding, reforming, and disestablishment of nation-states and empires, repeated revolts against the crown(s), changes of sovereignty, military occupations with street battles, revolutions of the Right and Left, etc. as does Europe and European Russia/Kievan Rus.

[aens_wife]

I agree with some of what you are saying dubkitty (can't believe I just typed that lol). The left needs to come up with a more unified message. People need to start supporting each other and each others' causes in order to, in turn, get support.

But I will argue that the Tea Party's message is not simply less government and lower taxes. They are plenty ok with more legislation regarding a woman's right to reproductive freedom or capital punishment. They are also stirring up a lot of racism and hatred. I would also argue that most people, even republicans don't agree with the Tea Party on most important issues. They are just the ones screaming the loudest right now.

I, for one, am glad to see someone doing something about the bullshit system right now. I simply cannot support a system that allows a few to buy islands and yachts, while the rest of us struggle to pay our mortgage. Fuck that.

[Bellyheart]

In order to get a unified message people have to gather and unify...so that's what you're seeing currently. I'm sure it's wrong for some reason or another, but that's what you're seeing now. No one's house is big enough so why not gather where you can/can't, just to be close by and let the people you're coming for know you're coming for them.

[dubkitty]

But I will argue that the Tea Party's message is not simply less government and lower taxes.

but that's the simple message that the Tea Party can convey effectively, and they know how to communicate that to "middle Americans" if we have to have a term. people way less odd than me, you, or the typical person on a music forum. that's all i'm saying.

being as objective as possible, i think the Left in the US has been going around in circles since George McGovern lost and the Vietnam War ended. there's never been a unified Left critique since then, and really, there never was a unified critique from the Left since the Great Depression. even during the 50s and 60s there was at least a liminal split between the Democratic Party and the SWP/IWW/CPUSA hard Left, and many Democrats openly disowned the hard Left. the closest the US Left has come to unity was in the latter part of the Vietnam era, and even then it was split between the non-violent and revolutionary wings, and in those days between Walter Mondale-style liberals and Weather Underground Maoists. since i'm not a Leftist i have no stake in the success of the ideology, but i just don't like seeing effort expended doing the same things over and over again when they haven't worked. it bothers me on an intellectual level. i'm like "would y'all please stop banging your head on that building? it's not going to cause the State to fall. convince people who don't agree with you that you are right instead. that's how you can win even against the corporate mediaplex. all you're doing now is annoying the very people you need to convince."

[dubkitty]

see, what you folks don't know or don't understand about me is that i was very much a Leftist until the mid-1990s, when a lifetime of observation convinced me that Leftist solutions didn't work in the real world. i've helped organize demonstrations against nuclear power and nuclear weapons. i've been part of meetings where we debated how to reach people, and talked with folks who worked with veteran organizers like Dick Simpson in Chicago. and one thing i learned is that you can't rely on stunts and impressing people...you have to reach their minds and touch their hearts, and behave like people who the people you're trying to reach with your message will think deserve their attention. otherwise they will tune you out. they don't owe you their attention. they don't owe you anything. it's up to you, the activist, to convince them that you and your chosen ideology are their friends. you're a billboard, the same way that anyone who wears a cross around their neck is a positive/negative representative of Christianity. how do you want to be seen by the people you wish to convince?

anyway, in case i haven't been clear, i'm not saying "don't demonstrate." i'm saying "if you want to reach 'The People' effectively, this type of action won't accomplish it for these reasons, and here's what i think would be better." if it makes you happy to Occupy Wall Street, live it up. but you're still going to have to gain a majority before you can "come for" anybody.

[Bellyheart]

People often do things I couldn't accomplish because they've found other ways to do it. I imagine after awhile of doing the same thing and getting no results you'd have to change your opinion and try a new solution until you get your results...or die trying...or let the fire burn out and live being dissatisfied and bitter about the world.

[MEC]

Maybe getting pepper sprayed is a step in getting people to notice, listen and in turn be convinced.
I for one, probably wouldn't have even heard about this if it wasn't for those girls getting pepper sprayed.
I admit I am sympathetic and supportive of their cause but I also view the pepper spraying as part of the risk associated with protest.
As far as advancing causes go, getting pepper sprayed on film garners a lot more attention/coverage than quietly holding a sign.

[D.o.S.]

see, what you folks don't know or don't understand about me is that i was very much a Leftist until the mid-1990s, when a lifetime of observation convinced me that Leftist solutions didn't work in the real world. i've helped organize demonstrations against nuclear power and nuclear weapons. i've been part of meetings where we debated how to reach people, and talked with folks who worked with veteran organizers like Dick Simpson in Chicago. and one thing i learned is that you can't rely on stunts and impressing people...you have to reach their minds and touch their hearts, and behave like people who the people you're trying to reach with your message will think deserve their attention. otherwise they will tune you out. they don't owe you their attention. they don't owe you anything. it's up to you, the activist, to convince them that you and your chosen ideology are their friends. you're a billboard, the same way that anyone who wears a cross around their neck is a positive/negative representative of Christianity. how do you want to be seen by the people you wish to convince?

anyway, in case i haven't been clear, i'm not saying "don't demonstrate." i'm saying "if you want to reach 'The People' effectively, this type of action won't accomplish it for these reasons, and here's what i think would be better." if it makes you happy to Occupy Wall Street, live it up. but you're still going to have to gain a majority before you can "come for" anybody.

Bolded for emphasis.

[Bellyheart]

Some press
http://brooklynsentinel.com/continued-message-woes-for-wall-street-occupiers/
Some progress
http://www.scribd.com/doc/66751652/Grievances

[Bassus Sanguinis]

oh I can see there something pretty solid: economy with a little more regulations, a tax reform for the better social benefits and support for the needing, You know - taking a step in perhaps the Nordic model direction.

There are huge differences in culture that would make the Nordic model impossible to export over here.
[/obvs.]

the obvious is obvious, yeah, there's no fucking way to change the culture. I just meant that I totally see why Obama wants to ensure tax incomes - especially from the wealthiest part of the society - instead of simply dropping them, when he want's to ensure more funds for public sector. That's what I meant, really. Going for full progressive taxes reform would be a political suicide.

[D.o.S.]

It also has to do with your comparatively homogenous (in all senses of the word) population.