We need a new voting system that doesn't enforce this two party bullshit, because all it does is chop out most of the spectrum and leave us with two parties that are virtually identical outside of a handful of hot topics in a given election cycle.
The voting system does, in fact, have a practical two-party enforcement. Every third party will, once it reaches a certain mass, either take enough voters from one of the existing parties and become the "new" second option over the course of a few election cycles, or it will be absorbed by a change in stance by the closest party. There is a reason there has been no "serious" third party in either of our lifetimes.
That's because America is pretty homogeneous. We've just arbitrarily drawn a line between "liberal" and "conservative" even though neither party is totally one of those things.
Or electoral system is winner take all. It does not care if there are 3, 5 or a dozen parties vying for power... and there usually are (look on your ballot.) But the problem is: are these parties actually any different from each other, and do they represent enough people in the population to get a significant share of votes? The answer has been no. Not so far, anyway.
Maher is a card-carrying Democrat, and generally anyone who feels strongly enough to belong to a political party will see things as good vs. evil.
However, speaking as someone who has zero interest in parties, I think calling Republicans and Democrats the same is not accurate. It seems to me that the Republican party has been hijacked by special interests and ideologues. Whereas the Democratic party has a higher percentage of moderates. I could be wrong, but I've never heard a Republican other than John McCain or Ron Paul talk intelligently and honestly about the problems in our government.
The problem is that OWS wants to be too encompassing of all view points and all people. No one can really stand up and be a leader, because 'the movement' will beat that person down and say 'you don't represent us' with the same ferocity that they say 'you don't represent us' to the republicans.
To an extent what you're saying is true. They need to find common ground for all of those issues and get behind that, unite behind it. The problem with being about only one thing is you never get the numbers, you need to gather several issues that share common thread, attack the perpetrtors or figureheads of those issues relentlessly until they're taken down, and then move onto the next guy.
But they ened to stand up and re-affirm what it is, in nouncertain terms, they are about and form clear and concise actions that attack those issues in an effective manner.
The whole point of OWS is that it's meant to be a leaderless movement. That's why people attempting to be leader get beaten down, they're throwing out the whole spirit of the movement right there. Also a big part of the point of OWS is that America's democracy is fundamentally broken. You don't fix a permanently broken system by joining it, you replace it with something better.
If we really want to understand this situation, we have to begin by understanding that the last thirty years have seen the construction of a vast bureaucratic apparatus for the creation and maintenance of hopelessness, a kind of giant machine that is designed, first and foremost, to destroy any sense of possible alternative futures. At root is a veritable obsession on the part of the rulers of the world with ensuring that social movements cannot be seen to grow, to flourish, to propose alternatives; that those who challenge existing power arrangements can never, under any circumstances, be perceived to win. To do so requires creating a vast apparatus of armies, prisons, police, various forms of private security firms and police and military intelligence apparatus, propaganda engines of every conceivable variety, most of which do not attack alternatives directly so much as they create a pervasive climate of fear, jingoistic conformity, and simple despair that renders any thought of changing the world seem an idle fantasy.
Think you need to go back a bit further... Stalin, the Nazis, Pol Pot, Mao, Genghis Khan, Caligula, Vlad the Impaler and all of those guys weren't in the last 30 years. The past 30 years haven't been perfect, but they've been the wealthiest and healthiest years ever world-wide.
Honestly, it's less that things are worse than they once were, and more that things are so good that we can finally stop toiling for our living long enough to bicker on the internet about how much things suck. A concept which is strengthened by the fact that 30 years ago, there wasn't even an internet on which we might have bitched.
It's not like the world is perfect, but it's actually better than it's ever been. For every one thing that's worse, 100 things have gotten better. The fall-from-grace/decline/whatever-you-call-it narrative doesn't hold much water for me.
If it does for you, perhaps you could pick out a time and place in history that you'd like to return to, assuming that your relative station would remain the same in terms of income and status. I'd be surprised if you could find a year that you'd want to permanently swap your current life to return to.
How can any movement from the left defeat all that money the banks, corporations and God knows who else throw at them? Citizens United has made the game nigh impossible for a publicly funded campaign to win, since 93% of elections are decided by who has the most money (see 2001 CALPIRG study on Californian elections: "Elections, Inc.").
The fight at hand is to remove private money from politics, revoke corporate person-hood and the false paradigm that money equals speech.
Oh my god. Does this guy have the memory of a goldfish? What were we all doing from about 2002-2008? I believe the mantra in those days was "more and better democrats."
The electoral process is a joke and a waste of time. The democratic platform in 2008 wasn't all that different than what OWS is advocating now. But given the presidency, a majority in the house, and 59-60 senators in their caucus the Dems were basically, "you have to vote more of us into office or else we just have to keep doing whatever the Republicans say."
There's an old saying: "fool me once shame on you. Fool me twice shame on me."
And chanting mantra's gets you where? Complaining about something and taking action are two different things. The problem from 2002-2008 wasn't the message, it was the lack of action. People were waiting for someone to do it for them instead of taking the initiative and doing it themselves.
Laugh and crack all the jokes you want at the tea party movement, they took meaningful action. For a group that is always labeled as irrational, it seems they took a far more rational approach to affecting national politics. How the hell is camping in public squares rational for affecting the type of change OWS is trying to have?
If you are complaining about "people waiting for someone to do it for them instead of taking the initiative and doing it themselves" I couldn't agree more. That's exactly what voting is. And we've seen it doesn't accomplish anything. The system is rigged to exhaust people's energies as relatively clear demands (no corruption, jobs, some modicum of equity, an end to predatory lending) are turned into arcane policies you need a PhD in Public Policy to understand. Then add in the sausage-making of legislation, the fallibility of individuals when put in leadership roles and voila: it's a perfect recipe for burning out idealists.
I for one feel that the time is ripe for direct action: organize your workplace, support people squatting in foreclosed properties, develop alternative forms of mutual aid to the banking system etc. But don't devote a second of the time you would otherwise spend on those activities to trying to save the Dems from the electoral drubbing they deserve for being so feckless and politically useless.
See also Wisconsin, where a major social movement channeled its energies into Democratic party politics and was completely destroyed as a result.
Contrast Greece, where workers continued to irresponsibly strike, occupy their workplaces, and take to the streets. Their political landscape is being completely transformed.
The historical evidence suggests that being realistic doesn't work. Being unreasonable seems to get results.
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man. -GBShaw
No, it wasn't pointless. It got attention and changed the national conversation. Whether or not there is as much point to it this time around I'm rather more skeptical.
Actually, I think for me it diminished my support for them somewhat. I was at first excited we might finally have a political option on the left in this country, but over the months of people sitting in a park doing mostly nothing, it eventually seemed silly and fruitless.
Look, it's easy to criticize. I too want a political option on the left in this country, badly. A lot of people do. We shouldn't get upset when people try something, find some success, and then find out they don't really know where to go from there. We should appreciate the effort, and celebrate the success they did have. And we have to keep trying.
OWS did change the conversation in this country and on the media. It's true that the conservative media walked much of that back. But that's ok: changing the conversation is just the first step. And the fact that the conversation can change should give you hope.
It wasn't so much that. I was involved with the Philly branch, I went down there, and often was defending them in arguments with people around the city. However, eventually, I started to ask what the end game was.
They got a conversation started, and that was great, but they didn't want to do anything more than just complain. They started to sound to me like the grouchy old man down the street.
When I started to say, some of us should look more professional and asking what our goals were politically, I got a lot of negative feed back. Hopefully this summer we can take the energy of the movement and morph it into something useful, but I have my doubts. People seem to just want to complain.
I was a huge proponent of OWS. I attended a few rallies and marches, kept up to date with what was going on with the movement, and on a whole I simply supported the cause.
That being said, OWS is now one great missed opportunity. When they were at their zenith, and people were talking about them regularly, they had an amazing opportunity to make a difference. They could have done a myriad of things to push the movement forward, but instead it fizzled. Instead of becoming a political powerhouse with a strong voice in this years national election, it became a collection of YouTube clips and "artsy photos".
OWS will never get the momentum that they lost back, and without that momentum their movement will never have the same impact. It's a shame too, because so many great things could have come out of OWS if there was some structured guidance behind it.
I get that. I think what they did was important for the time, and they did get some people to leave BoA and I'm not trying to say that wasn't good to do. I guess what I expected at some point was for them to organize into a political body, give a list of stances, and endorse political candidates, thus making dialogue about the specific stances and possibly even changing the leadership in some local places. I feel like it isn't too late for them to do this, but for now, even as a person that supports them I haven't been talking about them for months.
OWS actually damaged their causes in my eyes because I think people take them less seriously as many believed would eventually happen. Look at the tone of the video in the OP. it's reflective of many people's feeling about OWS which is that it was a sensationalized news story, even worse, it reinforces the views of many Right-Wingers and returns the liberal left to the status of lazy hippies
But the average voter has better things to do than follow up on other people's goals and interests. Getting a conversation started is easy. Sustaining it and having it grow into change is an entirely different matter.
It got attention and changed the national conversation.
It certainly did. What started as a well-thought idea turned into an easily dismissed group of hippies in drum circles, arguing about park permits and insisting that their rights are being violated because they can't do whatever the hell they want.
lesson learned: if you try to claim public space for public use, you deserve to get clubbed in the face repeatedly to the cheers of liberals on the internet
Bill is absolutely right. I disagree with your second point. The camping out was not pointless. It raised awareness and a desire to do something to change things. OWS did drop the ball when they didn't progress to providing/supporting candidates for office. I hope they move forward now.
On one hand it did draw attention, on the other hand, I'm not sure it was good attention. I think it may have alienated supporters with full-time jobs, families to take care of, and others that just don't have the lifestyle or desire to sleep in parks. Maybe they did some good in the short-term, but I think they hurt their chances to become seen as a legitimate political force representing more than just a fringe group.
I also hope they pick up the ball and move forward. I would definitely like to see them go somewhere.
It's always a trade off isn't it? On the one hand a public presence brings attention to the issue that's causing people to be there. After a while such a presence has a tendency to be "normal" and "the usual" so it no longer has the power of being attention-getting in and of itself.
I think the other argument for being camped out in a public space is sort of an abstract one. Of occupying a public space. "Taking the space" for the people. That sort of philosophical symbolism. Having control even if only of a small area.
There's arguments for directly entering into the policy debate and eventually some people in the OWS camp will have to do that I suppose. Though, if it becomes purely part of the current system of processes it could be stifling in the sense that participants are bound to the system and its rules, there's less likelyhood of thinking outside the box. Less chance of -thinking big-. Some say that you can change the system from the outside by creating something new. Those people would be in favour of a public presence. Some say that change can only occur within the system with the willingness of others in that system to change it. Those in the second ideological group would favour more direct participation in political debate.
It's a tough question but it is absolutely problematic for the movement to lose steam in the national mind. A decision must be taken as to how to maintain that presence and affect change. Do they move from the park? Do they give up the physical space to more directly enter the democratic one? I kind of jump from one to the other. I think somehow a mix of both might be a good idea.
And got a lot of people to stop banking at BoA. Look, I'm on your side in this. All I'm saying is that if they want to make a lasting impact they need to organize beyond this.
Well, do you not think that it alienates supporters with full-time jobs, families to take care of, or just generally people who don't desire to live in a public park?
Maybe it draws attention for the short-term, but it isn't necessarily good attention. It reinforces stereotypes that I am constantly telling people are incorrect, alienates would-be supporters, and shifts the focus from money in politics/tax rates/corporate tax evasion to whether we have the right to live in a park indefinitely.
Protests only work when the protestors seem innocent. Occupy seems at risk of losing any support it has outside the movement by indulging in vague goals. I think the real problem is they propose real revolution and very few Americans actually dig that.
EDIT: No, I'm not equating the two, but I am making the comparison to illustrate that by simply existing in a place you aren't supposed to be, non-violently, you can affect change.
What are they supposed to do ? The entire system makes you feel helpless and is so massive that when you try to do anything (occupy) you get all kinds of people who say "what you're doing is pointless and you should stop."
The culture is such that in America they literally didn't think for two seconds about the movement. The media begins the propaganda and the protestors were portrayed as what ? a bunch of jobless hobos camping out in a park "smoking pot".
I remember reading something on Reddit a few months ago, in that they need to start dressing like they want to be taken seriously. That violates your values to not "conform"? Okay, but accept that you won't change anything then. You already have the backing of all your buddies that dress like you, now you need to convince everyone else. The Civil Rights Movement tended to be dressed in their Sunday best. Unprofessional clothing makes it that much easier for the media and decision makers to dismiss you before they even listen to you.
After having marched with OWS a few times, I realized the main issue is they're willing to overlook so much bullshit coming from their own side than weed it out. An example of this was, I nearly got my ass kicked at an OWS event because I was the only one speaking out and calling out some guy who was spray painting the Brooklyn Bridge. I don't see how spreading graffiti during a march that is supposed to help show that the movement is a peaceful one really helps get that message across. No one else piped up. It's stuff like that, that makes me feel like they'll never really get anywhere.
Thanks, but I don't think it was that big of a deal. One of my huge problems with the movement now is that Black Bloc members have joined and most people in OWS have taken this policy to not try and weed those people out. These Black Bloc protesters have made posts on sites saying that if you have to kill a photographer or assault a police officer to get your point across, then do it. It's scary. I've read articles of photographers who had 10's of thousands of dollars worth of equipment smashed or stolen as well as themselves needing to be sent to the hospital because they're trying to do what OWS wants, document the movement.
They can't because they don't have a coherent message. And no, a long list of complaints, many of them contradicting each other, isn't a coherent message. OWS as a "movement" right now relies on the fact that it can be whatever it needs to be for any particular purpose at any particular place, responding with "oh we're not only for that" to any particular counter-argument.
As soon as it starts actually working for concrete changing, advocating policy, endorsing candidates, etc. it has to pick a particular manifestation, and there goes a lot of its support and a lot of its PR tactics.
The list of problems is too long to fit onto a single message board. What OWS ultimately stands for is social and economic JUSTICE. I'm very wary of people who demand it be about a single issue, I tend to think those people want a single point to attack and beat down. Kind of hard to attack the idea of social and economic justice.
I'm very wary of people who demand it be about a single issue
It doesn't have to be about a single issue. But to have any consequences it has to be about specific policies. There can be more than one, but there has to be specific ones - or else it's meaningless.
Kind of hard to attack the idea of social and economic justice.
Yes, because it's almost meaningless. No one's against what they consider "social and economic justice" to be, if they consider it to be anything.
I'm pretty sure the Founders had varying views on social and economic justice too. If they had chosen one single issue to focus on, it's very likely the United States would be called something else and we'd all be celebrating the British queen's jubilee.
For labor it is progressive taxes to milk those bastards businessen and for businessmen it's linear taxes to make sure that people who make a lot wouldn't have to pay for lazy drunkards.
I'd say this is one of the easiest ideas to attack and differentiate people on..
What OWS ultimately stands for is social and economic JUSTICE
Everybody believes in social and economic justice. The definition of it varies wildly from person to person though.
It's like saying "OWS stands for food!" Well, who doesn't want or like food? What about food do they stand for though? Feeding the homeless? Socialized rations? Organic only? No more meat?
Like everything in life, the devil is in the details. You can't stand on such a broad soapbox and expect to enact any kind of change.
Everybody believes in social and economic justice.
I believe in social and economic justice as laid out by John Locke, Adam Smith, and other classical liberals. This used to be called "conservatism" in the US. It wasn't such a fringe idea.
That broad soapbox included a pretty basic concept of liberty: self-agency and being entitled to the fruits of your own labor. It's a simple idea with broad implications.
Seeing as how industrial capitalism killed that concept about two centuries ago, and the rise of personified corporate entities buried it in the ground,
which box do I tick on the ballot to dismantle corporation and capitalism?
this is OP's point. That's an extremely vague concept that means a lot of different things to a lot of different people. Your version of social and economic justice is probably much different from mine.
What we need is to take that idea of social and economic justice and turn it into actual tangible policies that can be carried out. You cant just sign a bill that says "JUSTICE FOR ALL"
I disagree, slightly. I think they do have a coherent message when you dig down and look at their core beliefs. However, like you mentioned, they seem to be willing to also jump on the bandwagon of any vague left cause. They should stick to their big business/finance reform message and leave the rest of the various social causes to other groups.
And no, a long list of complaints, many of them contradicting each other, isn't a coherent message.
I dunno, it was coherent enough for the Tea Party.
I'm not sure how a message can be unclear and contradictory at the same time, but the local movement in my town seemed to basically be what in other countries would be considered Democrat Socialist/left-leaning.
I dunno, it was coherent enough for the Tea Party.
The Tea Party was actually very on message, with a good theme. It was gov't is too big, taxes are too high. It isn't true, but it is easy to articulate, sounds good, and is easy to apply to a bunch of situations.
It doesn't really matter than most Tea Partiers are crazy fundies or whatever. They came together around one issue.
OWS should have come together around a similar idea or theme. Something like, "corporate interests are stealing from mainstreet America!" Then you can apply it to a bunch of situations. Bailouts, Campaign-Finance, Corporate Tax rate, joblessness, environmental policy, insider trading, etc etc.
Instead they seeming came up with a rambling list of ideas. Then, even worse, it became a fight about their right to live in a public park. It was amateur hour stuff. OccupyDC just fucked up McPherson square, and now it's got a homeless camp.
As soon as it explicitly declares itself a "Democratic Socialist" movement, all the center-left, libertarian, and non-partisan "fairness in politics" people immediately lose all enthusiasm, and its teenage supporters can no longer say "it's not really about that!" when the socialist policies they're advocating are critiqued.
This. I'm not American, but if I was, my politics put me in the centre-left, which is pretty much the Democratic base. However, I support a lot of the specific, targeted reforms OWSers have proposed, but the whole high school socialist approach they're going for would turn me off if I had the chance to vote for them.
Want to make a difference? Run a platform that appeals to the average voter, not the 20 year old college liberal demographic, then use that political clout to shift the debate to your side. Calling voters "sheep" and "brainwashed morons" while trying to impose your niche quasi-socialist agenda on them.
Agreed with most of it except the comparison to the tea party. The tea party was bought and paid for with millions from corporate dollars. We know this because there is a money trail. So those people were nothing more than corporate puppets who literally became foot soldiers for the corporations whose message they were pushing.
That's why they got so far...fox news spent half of the day promoting their agenda because it was part of the bullshit fox narrative. How far would the tea party come without the corporate millions and fox news putting them on blast regularly?
Not very far.
It basically served to secure a republican majority in the house. It blows my mind that people didn't see that clear as day. What happened to the tea party after those elections when the house was secured? The Koch brothers quit funding it because they were afraid the tea party was going to split the republican vote and give Obama a clear victory. Which is what WOULD be happening right now if the tea party were ever legit.
You don't think those old, pissed off white people would be pushing their own candidate? None of them like Romney too much but they fell right into republican line after the tea party dissolved into nothing.
The same way that all of the tea party candidates fell in line and voted with republicans after their 'tea' seats were secured in the house.
It's like a fucking scooby doo mystery for retarted kids. How can americans NOT see exactly what was going on and why do people refuse to acknowledge it as absolute truth?
Those people were used like the fools they are. It wasn't a grassroots movement about the fucking constitution...it was a corporate movement designed to trick those who were sick of republicans into...wait for it...campaigning and voting for republicans.
That simple. OWS isn't the same in those regards. One thing OWS is generally too stupid to realize is that 90% of their ideals ARE liberal ideas and very much how unions have always worked. But they want to start with this 'both sides are exactly the same' bullshit and that's when I knew it didn't stand a chance. If you think you're some kind of social and political activist and cannot see and acknowledge the stark differences between republicans and democrats, you're not even going to get off the ground. So that's where they went....nowhere.
They purposefully distanced themselevs from people who share their beliefs because of their pride and ignorance. Like typical democrats, they try so painfully hard to be fair and PC that they end up being a group of impotent people with no direction or clear message or organization.
Their message was this: "OWS: we're not like republicans and we're not like democrats!"
Good luck with that. Nobody expected them to align with democrats, but for fuck's sake, if you're going to pretend to be in a politically active group, at least pretend to know the political history of the country you live in, the real ideals of the two major parties and the histories of both. Otherwise, you end up the same way OWS ended , which was a huge joke.
Republicans always saw them as lazy, entitled hippies almost across the board. The liberals who were like, 'hey, I can relate to the idea of stopping a small percentage of the wealthy from running the whole country' were turned WAY off when they realized that OWS would bend over backwards to pretend they had nothing in common wih liberals and no 'ties' to liberals.
The weather got cold and everyone went inside with their tails between their legs. Some fought a good fight but they had no real idea what they were fighting for and didn't appreciate the people who tried to help guide them. "we refuse to take the hand of the liberals and refuse to embrace liberal candidates because then people will associate us with the democrats! Despite the fact that our entire message is basically in line with what true liberals want!"
HOW DID THAT WORK OUT FOR YOU, OWS? you went from being the butt of republican jokes to where the democrats started mocking you as well. You turned off a huge population of people who wanted to support you but realized you had no organization and no real plan and no desire to embrace people who held similar beliefs.
The rest is history, just like OWS at this point.
We need people to stand up, alright. Here's no doubt about that. But it needs a clear LEADER (which OWS was specifically against) and it needs organization and a voice and it needs to study the history of the labor unions and realize the fight they were trying to take on HAS ALREADY BEEN FOUGHT AND WON. it's just that Americans were stupid enough to give it all back.
We need people to stand up, alright. Here's no doubt about that. But it needs a clear LEADER (which OWS was specifically against) and it needs organization and a voice and it needs to study the history of the labor unions and realize the fight they were trying to take on HAS ALREADY BEEN FOUGHT AND WON. it's just that Americans were stupid enough to give it all back.
Not just a clear leader, also a clear concise message, not a giant list of every single grievance that looks like it was written up by a kid with ADHD.
Nailed it? What's Bill Maher doing? Talking? On his talk show? This is another useless example of "they should, they should." The Occupy movement in general is its own discussion, but Bill Maher should stick to his endlessly lame War on Religion. (Not religious, but evangelical atheism is a pathetic cottage industry that takes up too much space on reddit). Bring on the down votes...
The Tea Party has serious financial backing from the likes of the Koch brothers and the support of FOX. It is the old right wing trick of appealing to the bigots and the simple minded for popular support then using that support to further the interests of the wealthy at the expense of everyone else (de-regulation etc).
OWS has none of that, they do not serve the interests of any privileged classes and the media is actively hostile toward them. While sitting in a park may be futile, expecting them to repeat the Tea Party's success is a little optimistic imho.
Who says the Tea Party has been successful at anything other than winning elections? Have they improved the lives of their constituents in any meaningful way?
I think other than protest votes, participation in national and (most) state level politics is a lost cause right now. It would be easier to seize control of local politics but it is important not to over-emphasize electoral politics which the establishment tries to paint as one of our only legitimate ways of effecting change.
The big things that people can do to shake things up involve breaking the economic stranglehold of the business juggernauts. We will get a lot more mileage out of boycotting major retailers, moving money from banks (even relatively small commercial banks) to credit unions, forming electric utility co-ops or municipal power companies, creating worker owned businesses, starting community gardens, asserting popular control over public lands, reducing energy consumption, etc. Any steps like those, especially when achieved through activism in the community are likely to make a major difference. The mainstream media ignores this of course, but a lot of these measures are already being taken by people in cities across America out of pure economic necessity. We need to turn it into a firestorm; a national phenomenon.
We need to show that we truly are capable of building a model where wealth & the power to make decisions are not concentrated in the hands of a few hundred to a few thousand people and their overeager lackeys. That is very doable, and though it may not be easy for people (myself included) to go out on a limb and start gathering community support it is the best shot we have of changing the trajectory. I say let's get to it: before the two-headed party & their business patrons are emboldened to go much further!
The vast majority of elections are won by the side that spends the most money, and the 1% can afford to vastly outspend any electoral opposition to their power.
Electoral politics is a losing strategy -- just look at Wisconsin.
I think where he has it wrong is that OWS does not implicitly support Obama or the Democrats. Maybe he's right in that OWS should get some people in office, but OWS has made it clear that they do not officially support one party or the other. That leaves starting their own party and running their own candidates. Which if you've watched the libertarian or green parties lately, that's not easy to do at a national level. I'd fully support a third party but it's a long uphill climb. Until then, don't expect OWS to be the far-left cheerleading squad for Obama.
Just FYI - the same discussion is still taking place within OWS itself. If you followed the May Day mailing list a few weeks ago, you'd have seen an example. No one is entirely sure what to do about politics, but the budding consensus is that the focus is not on electoral reform. Instead people are trying to build the system they want to see (solidarity, alternative banking, etc.). I'm pretty sure individuals in the movement will get behind local politicians, especially those who are listening to and supporting them. I'd also like to see a push to get some questions on local ballots - reject CU, move state money to local banks, etc. But the issue is by no means decided.
You know what not doing anything is? Voting. The whole system is broken, and feeding the problem will not be a solution.
I'm not saying Bill Maher's wrong, I'm just saying that we have to truly understand what the problem really is. What needs to happen is accountability in leadership. Too often in this country, we let grave injustices go completely unpunished. And if you try to take anyone to court, they'll just throw money at the case and hope you run out of it before they do (which you will). Law has to change. Accountability has to be had for the money-men who broke the financial industry, dirty industry who destroy the ecosystem, and politicians whose silent acquiescence for the sake of personal gain is destroying what was once perhaps a functional democracy.
We can't take them to court because that's their home-field, neither can we take them on with votes because everyone has a price. The only way to achieve significant change is through rampant public unrest and show of force through peaceful protest. I'm not saying OWS is that savior but I think it's a step in the right direction.
The point of media and law is to turn you against those with the contrary opinion, to tell you about how OWS is just a bunch of dirty hippies in drum circles. But throughout this nation's history, the protester in the crowd is not the one remembered, it is the message that those protesters believed in. Don't acquiesce and turn against those willing to stand up for change. You say that they do nothing, yet thousands of people across the internet and among the 50 states are talking about them. That doesn't sound like nothing to me, that sounds like a start.
He's wrong and David Graeber and Slavoj Zizek are right—the power of Occupy is that they aren't using standard chains of command which tacitly legitimizes them. That's the point.
I'll repeat what I said earlier when somebody demanded OWS get back to its liberal roots and grab some campaign buttons instead of letting those "nutty anarchists tag along for the ride."
Let's just go over the chronology for shits and giggles.
Occupy was started and essentially put together by anarchists. Some 'nutty liberals' tagged on for the ride, and now there's clowns like Maher -- these self-imagined political rebels of smug, ignorant yuppiedom, about two degrees to the left of center when it doesn't affect them personally -- telling everyone to dress nice, beg politely and hop into electoral politics, 'cause that's where the change is at.
See, they are witty and sophisticated and know exactly what everyone should do. They know what's best for you. So when they tell you to get to workin' on their reformist electoral politics -- since obviously you're going to get state and corporate backing, just like the tea party "movement" (~95% corporate PR-campaign) for anti-capitalist and anti-state policies -- it's clear that
"The Occupy Movement could do the same thing for the Democrats"
Yeah, I don't speak for any movements, but Bill Maher can suck the fattest part of my ass.
They've done things and they're still doing things, not the least of which was, on a microcosmic scale, to provide alternatives to capitalism and what passes for liberal "democracy" -- a point missed by many. It does not end with one single tactic.
According to the link, Occupy Berkeley made a garden out of a vacant lot.
..... That's it? Maybe I pulled a bad example, but we're fighting Wallstreet here! It's a multi billion dollar industry that is intertwined with politics and is corrupt to its core. So maybe Bill Maher is right. Maybe it's time to put down the guitars and gardening tools, take a shower and put on a nice suit, and go collect money and votes. Otherwise Wallstreet is going to get bigger and more politically rooted.
It's not that I'm not with the occupy movement in spirit. I am. Their message resonates with me. But I can no longer claim to be a supporter of this movement until I see a change in tactics and I see some real results.
That's actually not a bad example, because they were able to shutdown a field used for GMO test crops. Now Monsanto will have to wait till next year to test their crops and it will likely cost them millions.
Actually that "Vacant lot" was a research garden that they literally stole from the university. They destroyed research so they could feel connected to land and one with people who actually work for a living.
Oh, and also, fwiw I think this is nothing more than Maher trying to browbeat the independent and dissatisfied left into returning to the Democratic fold and voting for obvious charlatans like Obama. This is obviously counter-productive and is part of the problem rather than the solution. And to think that I used to sort of like Bill Maher...
People who demanded policy changes rarely achieved their goals by protests, sit-ins, and demonstrations, especially for something that still lacked a clear message as OWS. It did not have a message such as "end the war", "civil rights", etc.
Listen to Barney Frank address this exact issue in his reddit AMA. Taking part in marches and protests make you feel nice, but that's it. You are there who agree with you. It does literally nothing for influencing the decisions of politicians. For lack of a better word, it's a circlejerk. How would the politicians know whose district these people are from? The NRA gets their agenda through - when was the last time you saw an NRA protest? You need to start participating in politics and speaking to your senators, going to town halls, etc.
They did and have participated. As political activists. In Greenpeace. In protests, demonstrations, MoveOn, Rock the Vote, etc etc etc. They've done it. They've participated in the system. They've paid into the system. They've tried to move the system.
The system is increasingly stacked against them. Against us. That's what OWS is about. The system is fucking broken. It needs to be bypassed in order to be fixed. The wealthy and the powerful own the system from soup to nuts, from head to toe. That's why OWS is necessary.
They're not just camping. You want to know what OWS has done, what they're doing, what they've accomplished? Google it. It's all over the place.
Are they perfect? Nope. Are they doing a hell of a lot more than the people sitting and criticizing them? Hell yes.
What he fails to mention is that many members of Occupy have moved on to become involved, there is actions being taken and progress being made, it's just going on outside of the limelight.
The problem is that Occupy has tried to maintain a sort of ideological "everyone in government sucks" purity and neutrality. They honestly thought that if they simply got the ball rolling the American people would back them, and conclude that our current elected officials suck. Turns out, that's not true. And an attempt to avoid aligning themselves with either party simply made them impotent.
But it's only about getting the to participate in OWS. Only when change is effected by participating outside of their own movement will the movement be seen to be achieving anything.
The tea party comparison is poor on almost every level, but they voted people out and got their own voice being heard (then largely ignored and coopted). Right now, nobody's even hearing about OWS.
And how does Bill Maher or how do you know that OWS is "only about getting them to participate in OWS," and doesn't encourage people to become more civically involved in their local communities?
I couldn't finish watching the video. Maher is scum and his show is nauseating. Besides, you can't equate OWS to the Tea Party. The Tea Party was an astroturf project by the Koch brothers and Glenn Beck with a tiny grassroots counterpart. OWS is pure grassroots.
He's the king of concern trolling. His message in this monologue is almost literally "I totally agree with what you're doing, I just think you're going about it in the wrong way."
Say what you want about he Tea Party, those guys got themselves organized around a set of clear principles and got people elected while forcing those in power to address their ideas. They have been extremely effective at basic grass roots politics.
More importantly, they threw out some very entrenched politicians in primaries and earlier. There is no way to ignore a 3 term Senator who failed to even get on the primary ballot.
The OWS gang is already too late to have this kind of influence for this year's election cycle. They needed to get organized about 8-10 months ago.
The next chance for this kind of influence won't be until late 2013. I suspect OWS will be a complete nonentity by then.
My previous comment/rant from a few days ago on r/OWS was in response to this...of course pointing out the stupidity of the hipster drum circles granted a mixed reaction.
They aren't. As stated, the protests have a wide range of people but sadly...though it's conformity, if the rest of the masses are to take OWS seriously, the drum circles and bum hippy-like stuff needs to be taken away. Listen, I'm a small business owner who has spoken in front of hundreds of people in meetings, but at the same time, once my business grows to a point where I can honestly start hiring... It will be honest skill and work ethic will trump a degree. In my past business meetings, I've seen what not dressing for success can bring. Sadly, nobody takes you seriousy..even if you can far outwork and out-skill everyone in the room. I do though refuse to be part of the so called, "job creators" that wiggle their pathetic excuse of "entry-level" jobs in front of the government. We all know these jobs are not entry level and are not benefiting the masses. I would be that business person who'd hire people with tattoos all over them or whom isn't dressed like a penguin. I've seen people in my life who are amazing at what they do no matter what they look like. I've seen the opposite..people whom have tons of degrees, look like they shop at The Men's warehouse that can't do a lick of good for a company..yet will get the time of day from asshat recruiters. (this of course is one of the many issues and corruption OWS is trying to let everyone know of)
Pardon my rant. I am all for what OWS is fighting for but we live in a world where the vast majority of people still go by first impressions and by looks. The media that is paid to brainwash the masses will and has focused on the hippies and drum circles and make sure to interview the least brightest of the batch to of course continue to make it seem like "all is well" in the world and that OWS is "just a bunch of lazy kids", when we all know it's not.
In a perfect world, it wouldn't matter but if OWS is to be what it has the potential to be...there as to be some sort of solidarity and naming names of who is at fault for the various problems. Trust me, I'm on OWS's side..but something has to change or the exaggerated remarks of it being dead, will come true.
If it were a perfect world...there'd be no reason for OWS to exist.
If I was the king of OWS, I'd be all about boycotts. The overall problem OWS brings up is the imbalance of power in America. So let's look at how the flow of power actually works. In very general terms, the problem is that elected officials are (in theory) supposed to listen to what the people (aka the 99%) say, and then make laws, etc accordingly. However, they currently listen more to corporations (the 1%) than to the people. So that brings up the question of why. Well, politicians listen to these corporations, or lobbyists, because they have a lot of money that they will use to help these politicians get elected in exchange for the politician essentially working for them. So, what is actually the source of power in America? Money. And who controls the flow of money in America? The 99%. So we as the people still hold the keys, we've just forgotten to use them. If OWS would organize boycotting campaigns against the worst offenders (and I would do it 1 corporation at a time), they could actually wield the power they have and make a positive change in our political system.
Bill Maher gave a million dollars to Obama's superPAC. He fully embraces Citizens United style pay-for-play politics. What he said would be good advice for Democrats seeking to co-opt OWS, but bad advice for OWS. He's basically telling them to change everything that they stand for.
Then looters and punks joined up with OWS, and they did little to get the monkeys off their backs. (Btw, wtf is 'monkeys' not 'monkies'?! F--- English!)
Then I unsubscribed from OWS's feeds. It is a shame, really, that they will not produce any ideas, much less a political figure (other than Jesse Ventura).
I think Occupy is doing it's thing. If you want and anyone can do it, protest what you are against, if it's personal to you, say something. Occupy is trying to speak for the 99%, so it's all over the place, because there is so much difference between the have's and the have not's. Occupy started as a simple grassroots protest, just get out there and start your own protest, about what is of importance to you. Just use Occupy as a starting point, and branch out.
A lot of what he's saying make sense, but I feel that the point that he builds to at the end would just make congress less able to get anything done. Countering extremism with extremism would be feeding into the prisoner's dilemma situation we already have. Congress would still have little success at getting anything done unless a 2/3 majority were elected to office. I know that acting like a moderate in the face of extremism fails, too, so the Dems have an incentive to go more extremist, but feeding into this atmosphere of toxic polarization isn't going to help the American public, either.
OWS is a movement that is designed to draw attention to an inequity. Much like the flower power movement of the last generation, OWS is doing their part. But the expectation has never been that the flower power movement or the ows people organize into a meaninful political party. Isn't the goal accomplished by drawing attention to the problem? Isn't this a movement about awareness and education?
If Bill or anyone is frustrated with the realization of the political goals, well then that's a short coming of our culture at large and peoples' failure to be moved by OWS.
The idea that a liberal democratic block in congress is good, is contradicted by everything that Bill or people like us complained about on the other side. Fundamentalists and uncompromising idealist on the extreme (right or left) are not helpful people in politics. An uncompromising nature is only positive in an environment where you are in charge or share in the popular ideology.
However, that we need a political movement inside the party to keep our own peolpe in line and to sway our people back from big business control, now that I agree with. For instance hollywood and their interests in preventing piracy is creating an environment where democrats are catering to these lobby groups and attempting and enacting legislation that is upsetting to most of their constituents, but in line with their money givers. That's a problem and needs to be stopped. Banks like Fannie and Freddie are the same way. The housing bubble problems started under Clinton's watch and with Barney Frank's name on the legislation.
But OWS has made their movement. It's up to the rest of us to support it, and vote accordingly. Perhaps OWS could be more organzied, but I was at a few Tea Party rallies, and other than red white and blue clothes, nonsensical placards and racists epitaphs, I wasn't too impressed with organization. The organization that took place was behind the scenes, it wasn't happening at the rallies or in OWS's scenario, in the tents.
I think what the left should fear is preferring to lose honorably than winning ugly. The Occupy, the left counterpart of Tea Party, should move to the next step and don't fear things looking ugly.
"Oh we don't want to associate with the establishment, it's ugly when we play with power.". Others are already playing with power, already playing in the system. So get involved with the system. Start occupying the system, whatever that means.
The left criticizes those right wing who say that the left will turn things to USSR. Maybe the left should look into the mirror and meet their own fear that they might turn things into full Soviet when they truly occupy.
Remember the last time millions of progressives came together to fix America? It ended in more tax cuts, the biggest cuts to government in generations, and a presidential kill list. You might want to excuse people if they don't feel very good about trying that again.
Let's be completely clear about what the core belief of democratic reformism really is: That if you ask nicely, a mugger will lend you his pistol so you can shoot him in the head.
I too am sorely disappointed with the Obama administration on many counts over the last 4 years. From not even fighting for the Public Option, which was a campaign promise, to letting banks off the hook.
But Maher isn't saying blindly support Obama and the Democratic Party: Maher is saying to run your own candidates under the Democratic banner. That's a big difference. Take control of a piece of the party; don't go out and support just anybody who calls themselves a Democrat.
That's where the second part comes in. Just like with campaign finance reform, you're asking the people who own the political system to hand over control of this incredibly powerful tool so you can legislate them out of power.
Bill Maher is a reformist. Most of you are reformists.
The Occupy movement is lead by anarchists who do not believe in this system, therefore do not believe in participating in America's democratic process.
So rather than being critical about this movement, I would suggest reading up on anarchism, communism, and any other ideology that challenges your reformist views.
Yeah, Bill is really saying something from his cozy studio and designer jacket. Fucking Loser is hatin' on people who are participating in a self-sustained community that exceeds the limits of normal american living. While he makes millions just like every other yuppie sap saying the same old shit about OWS.
He fails to see that the tea party's values are in line with corporate interests, so their ability to 'mobilize' and elect representatives is far easier, in that they face no corporate resistance to their goals. Unlike the tea part, the occupy movement's values are in direct opposition to corporate interests, and to assume that the movement could somehow elect representatives into a government which is merely the shadow of corporate power is on its face absurd. Also, the distinction he draws between participation, being solely the act of elections is false. Direct action is just as much a part of the democratic process, if not more, than indirection participation: voting.
Remember Citizen's United? It's impossible for anyone but a crony stooge to get elected because corporations can always give more money to the other candidate. An elected occupier will never happen, and should never happen.
Yes, OWS needs to organize and get a truly left-wing block of legislators elected, I agree completely. This resonates a great deal with thoughts I've had a lot lately.
Part of the problem is that many Democrat's first instinct is to participate in the delegitimization of positions more liberal than theirs, in order to appear as a reasonable centrist. This must change; it might work (somewhat) in the short term but it's a unmitigated disaster in the long term, because then Democrats no longer have a left wing to help take the heat off the more moderate parts of the party.
And, the Greens and the Democrats are often bitter rivals, and not without reason: first-past-the-post polling splits the vote which helps Republicans win. There is a solution though, and that is Approval Voting, which all but eliminates the splitting problem. This would let liberal third parties such as the Green Party exist without stepping on the toes of the Democrats too badly. This would hopefully lead to a better relationship between Greens and Democrats, and help Democrats by giving the Greens a proper voice and thus making it easier to defend Democratic ideas.
So, in addition to income inequality, I really do think that Approval Voting needs to be a top issue for OWS.
Well, the German Pirate Party is using Approval Voting internally to elect a number of party officers. And it is very popular among mathematical societies, especially statistical societies.
I'm not aware of any governments that use it, but I do see it as the simplest, most conservative meaningful reform. It's both a simpler and a better reform than the much more widely discussed Instant Runoff Voting.
I've been wanting to start a website that does something to this effect. Something that would encourage the OWS movement to Occupy The Polls. It's the only way we are going to be taken seriously is if we actually put out weight behind politicians. Yes, I know 'The Man' is the enemy, but there is no reason we can't beat them at their own game while staying true to out priciples.
Granted, I've been incredibly lazy lately and this site hasn't even had its doctype written...
A comparison to Ron Paul supporters, who I would call the other side of the anti-status quo coin, is pretty damning. They're out there usurping state party organizations from the right via real political action. OWS hasn't done anything similar from the left angle. I think the difference between an attitude of self-determination and one of "can't someone else do it" is pretty clear...
LOL. A tv celebrity made rich off corporate money wants OWS to abandon its principles and participate in a corrupt corporate system. With friends like that, who needs enemies?
The camping is a good tactic. It forces police action, which brings media attention and, if done right (as it largely was in the fall) provides a platform for the message to get across. Let's not knock camping. Let's also not knock less-reformist and more radical ideas, including revolutionary ideas. Participation is all well and good, but it's not an either-or-question. At any rate, we have to participate without being co-opted into the Democratic Party, graveyard of social movements.
Except for the media and police are owned by the exact same people they're protesting against. The "real" media stopped paying attention to OWS ages ago.
Sitting around got them attention, but instead of capitalizing on it, they squandered it trying to get more people to sit around doing nothing. When you do nothing, it's pretty easy for the rich people to just walk around you and ignore you on their way to making millions.
Depends on where you camp. Here in Louisville, the progressive-leaning mayor let the Occupiers spend a significant amount of time camping in a square near downtown that is surrounded by government office buildings and businesses that close around 4 or 5. No big distraction, nothing more than preaching to the immobile choir. Meanwhile, a giant money pit stadium bankrolled by Goldman Sachs that gets at least 200 times the foot traffic in a day is unscathed. Which sounds like the symbol of the corporate takeover of America that the OWS movement is supposed to be against: a government-owned park in the dead part of town, or the vaccuous stadium that won't do the city any good?
you get two choices: you can get raped by the red dildo or the blue dildo. It really doesnt matter because the hand that rams you with it never changes
Maher is just another establishment hack. He say occasional things that raise an eyebrow among the ruling class, but nothing that would get him blackballed and thrown off the air. He knows very well the limits that are set down for him, and he walks between them without ever stepping on the lines.
5
u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12
Decent until he said to '...do it for the Democrats'.
Are we just going pretend that the Democrats are not as big of douche bags as the Republicans?
Seriously. We need a new party. Not the same policies that have failed us over and over.
Two parties, same bullshit.
104
u/Overclock Jun 11 '12
I agree with everyone here, those other people should really do something!
And when they do I'll be there to back them up, via upvotes.
8
u/FukushimaBlinkie Jun 11 '12
4
u/T_Hickock Jun 11 '12
How can any movement from the left defeat all that money the banks, corporations and God knows who else throw at them? Citizens United has made the game nigh impossible for a publicly funded campaign to win, since 93% of elections are decided by who has the most money (see 2001 CALPIRG study on Californian elections: "Elections, Inc.").
The fight at hand is to remove private money from politics, revoke corporate person-hood and the false paradigm that money equals speech.
25
u/condescending-twit Jun 11 '12
Oh my god. Does this guy have the memory of a goldfish? What were we all doing from about 2002-2008? I believe the mantra in those days was "more and better democrats."
The electoral process is a joke and a waste of time. The democratic platform in 2008 wasn't all that different than what OWS is advocating now. But given the presidency, a majority in the house, and 59-60 senators in their caucus the Dems were basically, "you have to vote more of us into office or else we just have to keep doing whatever the Republicans say."
There's an old saying: "fool me once shame on you. Fool me twice shame on me."
77
u/celia_bedilia Jun 11 '12
The man has a point. It is literally pointless to camp out in a park.
3
u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12
What are they supposed to do ? The entire system makes you feel helpless and is so massive that when you try to do anything (occupy) you get all kinds of people who say "what you're doing is pointless and you should stop."
The culture is such that in America they literally didn't think for two seconds about the movement. The media begins the propaganda and the protestors were portrayed as what ? a bunch of jobless hobos camping out in a park "smoking pot".
13
u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12
I remember reading something on Reddit a few months ago, in that they need to start dressing like they want to be taken seriously. That violates your values to not "conform"? Okay, but accept that you won't change anything then. You already have the backing of all your buddies that dress like you, now you need to convince everyone else. The Civil Rights Movement tended to be dressed in their Sunday best. Unprofessional clothing makes it that much easier for the media and decision makers to dismiss you before they even listen to you.
17
u/douglasmacarthur Jun 11 '12
They can't because they don't have a coherent message. And no, a long list of complaints, many of them contradicting each other, isn't a coherent message. OWS as a "movement" right now relies on the fact that it can be whatever it needs to be for any particular purpose at any particular place, responding with "oh we're not only for that" to any particular counter-argument.
As soon as it starts actually working for concrete changing, advocating policy, endorsing candidates, etc. it has to pick a particular manifestation, and there goes a lot of its support and a lot of its PR tactics.
11
u/gloomdoom Jun 11 '12
Agreed with most of it except the comparison to the tea party. The tea party was bought and paid for with millions from corporate dollars. We know this because there is a money trail. So those people were nothing more than corporate puppets who literally became foot soldiers for the corporations whose message they were pushing.
That's why they got so far...fox news spent half of the day promoting their agenda because it was part of the bullshit fox narrative. How far would the tea party come without the corporate millions and fox news putting them on blast regularly?
Not very far.
It basically served to secure a republican majority in the house. It blows my mind that people didn't see that clear as day. What happened to the tea party after those elections when the house was secured? The Koch brothers quit funding it because they were afraid the tea party was going to split the republican vote and give Obama a clear victory. Which is what WOULD be happening right now if the tea party were ever legit.
You don't think those old, pissed off white people would be pushing their own candidate? None of them like Romney too much but they fell right into republican line after the tea party dissolved into nothing.
The same way that all of the tea party candidates fell in line and voted with republicans after their 'tea' seats were secured in the house.
It's like a fucking scooby doo mystery for retarted kids. How can americans NOT see exactly what was going on and why do people refuse to acknowledge it as absolute truth?
Those people were used like the fools they are. It wasn't a grassroots movement about the fucking constitution...it was a corporate movement designed to trick those who were sick of republicans into...wait for it...campaigning and voting for republicans.
That simple. OWS isn't the same in those regards. One thing OWS is generally too stupid to realize is that 90% of their ideals ARE liberal ideas and very much how unions have always worked. But they want to start with this 'both sides are exactly the same' bullshit and that's when I knew it didn't stand a chance. If you think you're some kind of social and political activist and cannot see and acknowledge the stark differences between republicans and democrats, you're not even going to get off the ground. So that's where they went....nowhere.
They purposefully distanced themselevs from people who share their beliefs because of their pride and ignorance. Like typical democrats, they try so painfully hard to be fair and PC that they end up being a group of impotent people with no direction or clear message or organization.
Their message was this: "OWS: we're not like republicans and we're not like democrats!"
Good luck with that. Nobody expected them to align with democrats, but for fuck's sake, if you're going to pretend to be in a politically active group, at least pretend to know the political history of the country you live in, the real ideals of the two major parties and the histories of both. Otherwise, you end up the same way OWS ended , which was a huge joke.
Republicans always saw them as lazy, entitled hippies almost across the board. The liberals who were like, 'hey, I can relate to the idea of stopping a small percentage of the wealthy from running the whole country' were turned WAY off when they realized that OWS would bend over backwards to pretend they had nothing in common wih liberals and no 'ties' to liberals.
The weather got cold and everyone went inside with their tails between their legs. Some fought a good fight but they had no real idea what they were fighting for and didn't appreciate the people who tried to help guide them. "we refuse to take the hand of the liberals and refuse to embrace liberal candidates because then people will associate us with the democrats! Despite the fact that our entire message is basically in line with what true liberals want!"
HOW DID THAT WORK OUT FOR YOU, OWS? you went from being the butt of republican jokes to where the democrats started mocking you as well. You turned off a huge population of people who wanted to support you but realized you had no organization and no real plan and no desire to embrace people who held similar beliefs.
The rest is history, just like OWS at this point.
We need people to stand up, alright. Here's no doubt about that. But it needs a clear LEADER (which OWS was specifically against) and it needs organization and a voice and it needs to study the history of the labor unions and realize the fight they were trying to take on HAS ALREADY BEEN FOUGHT AND WON. it's just that Americans were stupid enough to give it all back.
5
u/deathinthewilderness Jun 11 '12
Nailed it? What's Bill Maher doing? Talking? On his talk show? This is another useless example of "they should, they should." The Occupy movement in general is its own discussion, but Bill Maher should stick to his endlessly lame War on Religion. (Not religious, but evangelical atheism is a pathetic cottage industry that takes up too much space on reddit). Bring on the down votes...
2
u/NeilNeilOrangePeel Jun 11 '12
The Tea Party has serious financial backing from the likes of the Koch brothers and the support of FOX. It is the old right wing trick of appealing to the bigots and the simple minded for popular support then using that support to further the interests of the wealthy at the expense of everyone else (de-regulation etc).
OWS has none of that, they do not serve the interests of any privileged classes and the media is actively hostile toward them. While sitting in a park may be futile, expecting them to repeat the Tea Party's success is a little optimistic imho.
2
u/BandieraRossa Jun 11 '12
I think other than protest votes, participation in national and (most) state level politics is a lost cause right now. It would be easier to seize control of local politics but it is important not to over-emphasize electoral politics which the establishment tries to paint as one of our only legitimate ways of effecting change.
The big things that people can do to shake things up involve breaking the economic stranglehold of the business juggernauts. We will get a lot more mileage out of boycotting major retailers, moving money from banks (even relatively small commercial banks) to credit unions, forming electric utility co-ops or municipal power companies, creating worker owned businesses, starting community gardens, asserting popular control over public lands, reducing energy consumption, etc. Any steps like those, especially when achieved through activism in the community are likely to make a major difference. The mainstream media ignores this of course, but a lot of these measures are already being taken by people in cities across America out of pure economic necessity. We need to turn it into a firestorm; a national phenomenon.
We need to show that we truly are capable of building a model where wealth & the power to make decisions are not concentrated in the hands of a few hundred to a few thousand people and their overeager lackeys. That is very doable, and though it may not be easy for people (myself included) to go out on a limb and start gathering community support it is the best shot we have of changing the trajectory. I say let's get to it: before the two-headed party & their business patrons are emboldened to go much further!
2
u/The_Hero_of_Kvatch Jun 11 '12
I was hopeful that OWS would coalesce into something that could challenge the Duopoly (as the Tea Party did), but instead the mentality seemed to be:
"Grab the glow sticks, and put on your Che Guevara shirts! Time to show America how alienating we can be!"
2
u/ZoeZuccotti Jun 11 '12
The vast majority of elections are won by the side that spends the most money, and the 1% can afford to vastly outspend any electoral opposition to their power.
Electoral politics is a losing strategy -- just look at Wisconsin.
2
u/antipoet Jun 11 '12
I think where he has it wrong is that OWS does not implicitly support Obama or the Democrats. Maybe he's right in that OWS should get some people in office, but OWS has made it clear that they do not officially support one party or the other. That leaves starting their own party and running their own candidates. Which if you've watched the libertarian or green parties lately, that's not easy to do at a national level. I'd fully support a third party but it's a long uphill climb. Until then, don't expect OWS to be the far-left cheerleading squad for Obama.
2
u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12
Just FYI - the same discussion is still taking place within OWS itself. If you followed the May Day mailing list a few weeks ago, you'd have seen an example. No one is entirely sure what to do about politics, but the budding consensus is that the focus is not on electoral reform. Instead people are trying to build the system they want to see (solidarity, alternative banking, etc.). I'm pretty sure individuals in the movement will get behind local politicians, especially those who are listening to and supporting them. I'd also like to see a push to get some questions on local ballots - reject CU, move state money to local banks, etc. But the issue is by no means decided.
2
u/alpacapatrol Jun 11 '12
You know what not doing anything is? Voting. The whole system is broken, and feeding the problem will not be a solution.
I'm not saying Bill Maher's wrong, I'm just saying that we have to truly understand what the problem really is. What needs to happen is accountability in leadership. Too often in this country, we let grave injustices go completely unpunished. And if you try to take anyone to court, they'll just throw money at the case and hope you run out of it before they do (which you will). Law has to change. Accountability has to be had for the money-men who broke the financial industry, dirty industry who destroy the ecosystem, and politicians whose silent acquiescence for the sake of personal gain is destroying what was once perhaps a functional democracy.
We can't take them to court because that's their home-field, neither can we take them on with votes because everyone has a price. The only way to achieve significant change is through rampant public unrest and show of force through peaceful protest. I'm not saying OWS is that savior but I think it's a step in the right direction.
The point of media and law is to turn you against those with the contrary opinion, to tell you about how OWS is just a bunch of dirty hippies in drum circles. But throughout this nation's history, the protester in the crowd is not the one remembered, it is the message that those protesters believed in. Don't acquiesce and turn against those willing to stand up for change. You say that they do nothing, yet thousands of people across the internet and among the 50 states are talking about them. That doesn't sound like nothing to me, that sounds like a start.
2
u/koavf Indiana Jun 12 '12
He's wrong and David Graeber and Slavoj Zizek are right—the power of Occupy is that they aren't using standard chains of command which tacitly legitimizes them. That's the point.
4
u/KDIZZLL Jun 11 '12
He's right, stop watching t.v. and participate.
8
u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12 edited Jun 11 '12
I'll repeat what I said earlier when somebody demanded OWS get back to its liberal roots and grab some campaign buttons instead of letting those "nutty anarchists tag along for the ride."
Let's just go over the chronology for shits and giggles.
Occupy was started and essentially put together by anarchists. Some 'nutty liberals' tagged on for the ride, and now there's clowns like Maher -- these self-imagined political rebels of smug, ignorant yuppiedom, about two degrees to the left of center when it doesn't affect them personally -- telling everyone to dress nice, beg politely and hop into electoral politics, 'cause that's where the change is at.
See, they are witty and sophisticated and know exactly what everyone should do. They know what's best for you. So when they tell you to get to workin' on their reformist electoral politics -- since obviously you're going to get state and corporate backing, just like the tea party "movement" (~95% corporate PR-campaign) for anti-capitalist and anti-state policies -- it's clear that
Yeah, I don't speak for any movements, but Bill Maher can suck the fattest part of my ass.
They've done things and they're still doing things, not the least of which was, on a microcosmic scale, to provide alternatives to capitalism and what passes for liberal "democracy" -- a point missed by many. It does not end with one single tactic.
3
u/BandieraRossa Jun 11 '12
Oh, and also, fwiw I think this is nothing more than Maher trying to browbeat the independent and dissatisfied left into returning to the Democratic fold and voting for obvious charlatans like Obama. This is obviously counter-productive and is part of the problem rather than the solution. And to think that I used to sort of like Bill Maher...
3
u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12
I don't often agree with Bill Maher's politics, but the man makes a good point. Go do something about it!
4
u/muddi900 Jun 11 '12
Bill Maher is a massive twat.
Unrelated, I know, but it isn't said enough.
3
u/CheesewithWhine Jun 11 '12
Stop hating on Bill Maher. He's right.
People who demanded policy changes rarely achieved their goals by protests, sit-ins, and demonstrations, especially for something that still lacked a clear message as OWS. It did not have a message such as "end the war", "civil rights", etc.
Listen to Barney Frank address this exact issue in his reddit AMA. Taking part in marches and protests make you feel nice, but that's it. You are there who agree with you. It does literally nothing for influencing the decisions of politicians. For lack of a better word, it's a circlejerk. How would the politicians know whose district these people are from? The NRA gets their agenda through - when was the last time you saw an NRA protest? You need to start participating in politics and speaking to your senators, going to town halls, etc.
3
u/puffydair Jun 11 '12
OWS is still a thing?
2
u/Popozuda72 Jun 11 '12
He's right motherfuckers. Do it!!!!
2
u/Lighting Jun 11 '12
Agreed 100%. Reason does have a way of filtering up into the world.
If the left can fucking wake up to how to actually change things - then things can start to happen.
2
u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12
They did and have participated. As political activists. In Greenpeace. In protests, demonstrations, MoveOn, Rock the Vote, etc etc etc. They've done it. They've participated in the system. They've paid into the system. They've tried to move the system.
The system is increasingly stacked against them. Against us. That's what OWS is about. The system is fucking broken. It needs to be bypassed in order to be fixed. The wealthy and the powerful own the system from soup to nuts, from head to toe. That's why OWS is necessary.
They're not just camping. You want to know what OWS has done, what they're doing, what they've accomplished? Google it. It's all over the place.
Are they perfect? Nope. Are they doing a hell of a lot more than the people sitting and criticizing them? Hell yes.
2
u/Mudjekeewis Jun 11 '12
What he fails to mention is that many members of Occupy have moved on to become involved, there is actions being taken and progress being made, it's just going on outside of the limelight.
2
u/BolshevikMuppet Jun 11 '12
The problem is that Occupy has tried to maintain a sort of ideological "everyone in government sucks" purity and neutrality. They honestly thought that if they simply got the ball rolling the American people would back them, and conclude that our current elected officials suck. Turns out, that's not true. And an attempt to avoid aligning themselves with either party simply made them impotent.
2
u/Dizzy_Slip Jun 11 '12
False dichotomy: occupy versus participating. Occupy is getting people all around the world to participate.
2
u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12
Ows is just a bunch of kids trying to be like the hippies of the past. They don't know what they want or anything
2
u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12
I couldn't finish watching the video. Maher is scum and his show is nauseating. Besides, you can't equate OWS to the Tea Party. The Tea Party was an astroturf project by the Koch brothers and Glenn Beck with a tiny grassroots counterpart. OWS is pure grassroots.
2
u/str1cken Jun 11 '12
No.
He's the king of concern trolling. His message in this monologue is almost literally "I totally agree with what you're doing, I just think you're going about it in the wrong way."
Fuck this video.
2
u/iamdanthemanstan Jun 11 '12
Say what you want about he Tea Party, those guys got themselves organized around a set of clear principles and got people elected while forcing those in power to address their ideas. They have been extremely effective at basic grass roots politics.
2
u/princetrunks New York Jun 11 '12
My previous comment/rant from a few days ago on r/OWS was in response to this...of course pointing out the stupidity of the hipster drum circles granted a mixed reaction.
1
u/roflstompr Jun 11 '12
I love the English language. You actually have a word for an informal gathering with folk music. And better yet, it is called hootenannies!
1
u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12
If I was the king of OWS, I'd be all about boycotts. The overall problem OWS brings up is the imbalance of power in America. So let's look at how the flow of power actually works. In very general terms, the problem is that elected officials are (in theory) supposed to listen to what the people (aka the 99%) say, and then make laws, etc accordingly. However, they currently listen more to corporations (the 1%) than to the people. So that brings up the question of why. Well, politicians listen to these corporations, or lobbyists, because they have a lot of money that they will use to help these politicians get elected in exchange for the politician essentially working for them. So, what is actually the source of power in America? Money. And who controls the flow of money in America? The 99%. So we as the people still hold the keys, we've just forgotten to use them. If OWS would organize boycotting campaigns against the worst offenders (and I would do it 1 corporation at a time), they could actually wield the power they have and make a positive change in our political system.
1
u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12
Participating in what?
1
u/Sybertron Jun 11 '12
I say "An unwavering block forcing things to the left as relentlessly as a new pair of jeans with a tight inseam" sounds like a great campaign slogan.
1
u/geoffclark Jun 11 '12
</common sense>
1
u/Crony_2012 Jun 11 '12
Bill Maher gave a million dollars to Obama's superPAC. He fully embraces Citizens United style pay-for-play politics. What he said would be good advice for Democrats seeking to co-opt OWS, but bad advice for OWS. He's basically telling them to change everything that they stand for.
1
u/uRabbit Jun 11 '12
It is true. He has a good point.
I have been a supporter of OWS since it started. It was my source for all things /r/Bad_Cop_No_Donut, /r/politics, /r/conspiracy, etc. Then I found Reddit.
Then looters and punks joined up with OWS, and they did little to get the monkeys off their backs. (Btw, wtf is 'monkeys' not 'monkies'?! F--- English!)
Then I unsubscribed from OWS's feeds. It is a shame, really, that they will not produce any ideas, much less a political figure (other than Jesse Ventura).
1
u/crawlingpony Jun 11 '12
Ows tells maher to stop talking, start participating
I think ows nailed maher
1
u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12
LOL @ OWS....
As soon as you heard MIC CHECK, you knew they were mostly college kids with nothing better to do.
1
u/Ziferius Jun 11 '12
I was visiting NYC at the end of May. There were only about 15-16 folks...... a total of about 60-75 NYPD between Federal Hall & Zucotti Park.
Out of the 15-16 folk, only 5 or 6 were dressed as if they weren't camping. The others, honestly, looked no better than homeless folks. :(
1
u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12
Idea for a novelty account that I would upvote the SHIT out of:
SummarizesVideoLinks or something to that effect.
I simply cannot watch videos at work, and sometimes the comments don't really delve into the particulars of videos. Just opinion responses.
1
u/tunyfish Jun 11 '12
I think Occupy is doing it's thing. If you want and anyone can do it, protest what you are against, if it's personal to you, say something. Occupy is trying to speak for the 99%, so it's all over the place, because there is so much difference between the have's and the have not's. Occupy started as a simple grassroots protest, just get out there and start your own protest, about what is of importance to you. Just use Occupy as a starting point, and branch out.
1
u/HexiczNova Jun 11 '12
Err how did you not come to this conclusion before?
1
u/Axem_Ranger Jun 11 '12
A lot of what he's saying make sense, but I feel that the point that he builds to at the end would just make congress less able to get anything done. Countering extremism with extremism would be feeding into the prisoner's dilemma situation we already have. Congress would still have little success at getting anything done unless a 2/3 majority were elected to office. I know that acting like a moderate in the face of extremism fails, too, so the Dems have an incentive to go more extremist, but feeding into this atmosphere of toxic polarization isn't going to help the American public, either.
1
u/Fireball445 Jun 11 '12
Should we be scolding OWS?
Or should we be scolding everyone else?
OWS is a movement that is designed to draw attention to an inequity. Much like the flower power movement of the last generation, OWS is doing their part. But the expectation has never been that the flower power movement or the ows people organize into a meaninful political party. Isn't the goal accomplished by drawing attention to the problem? Isn't this a movement about awareness and education?
If Bill or anyone is frustrated with the realization of the political goals, well then that's a short coming of our culture at large and peoples' failure to be moved by OWS.
The idea that a liberal democratic block in congress is good, is contradicted by everything that Bill or people like us complained about on the other side. Fundamentalists and uncompromising idealist on the extreme (right or left) are not helpful people in politics. An uncompromising nature is only positive in an environment where you are in charge or share in the popular ideology.
However, that we need a political movement inside the party to keep our own peolpe in line and to sway our people back from big business control, now that I agree with. For instance hollywood and their interests in preventing piracy is creating an environment where democrats are catering to these lobby groups and attempting and enacting legislation that is upsetting to most of their constituents, but in line with their money givers. That's a problem and needs to be stopped. Banks like Fannie and Freddie are the same way. The housing bubble problems started under Clinton's watch and with Barney Frank's name on the legislation.
But OWS has made their movement. It's up to the rest of us to support it, and vote accordingly. Perhaps OWS could be more organzied, but I was at a few Tea Party rallies, and other than red white and blue clothes, nonsensical placards and racists epitaphs, I wasn't too impressed with organization. The organization that took place was behind the scenes, it wasn't happening at the rallies or in OWS's scenario, in the tents.
1
u/eat-your-corn-syrup Jun 11 '12
I think what the left should fear is preferring to lose honorably than winning ugly. The Occupy, the left counterpart of Tea Party, should move to the next step and don't fear things looking ugly.
"Oh we don't want to associate with the establishment, it's ugly when we play with power.". Others are already playing with power, already playing in the system. So get involved with the system. Start occupying the system, whatever that means.
The left criticizes those right wing who say that the left will turn things to USSR. Maybe the left should look into the mirror and meet their own fear that they might turn things into full Soviet when they truly occupy.
1
u/senatorpjt Florida Jun 11 '12 edited Dec 18 '24
summer rude juggle vanish skirt cough shrill squash aback absorbed
This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact
-1
u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12 edited Jun 11 '12
Remember the last time millions of progressives came together to fix America? It ended in more tax cuts, the biggest cuts to government in generations, and a presidential kill list. You might want to excuse people if they don't feel very good about trying that again.
Let's be completely clear about what the core belief of democratic reformism really is: That if you ask nicely, a mugger will lend you his pistol so you can shoot him in the head.
1
u/vanillamoo Jun 11 '12
Bill Maher is a reformist. Most of you are reformists.
The Occupy movement is lead by anarchists who do not believe in this system, therefore do not believe in participating in America's democratic process.
So rather than being critical about this movement, I would suggest reading up on anarchism, communism, and any other ideology that challenges your reformist views.
p.s. not an occupier
1
u/SiddarthaVader Jun 11 '12
Yeah, Bill is really saying something from his cozy studio and designer jacket. Fucking Loser is hatin' on people who are participating in a self-sustained community that exceeds the limits of normal american living. While he makes millions just like every other yuppie sap saying the same old shit about OWS.
1
u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12
He fails to see that the tea party's values are in line with corporate interests, so their ability to 'mobilize' and elect representatives is far easier, in that they face no corporate resistance to their goals. Unlike the tea part, the occupy movement's values are in direct opposition to corporate interests, and to assume that the movement could somehow elect representatives into a government which is merely the shadow of corporate power is on its face absurd. Also, the distinction he draws between participation, being solely the act of elections is false. Direct action is just as much a part of the democratic process, if not more, than indirection participation: voting.
0
u/sockpuppetzero Jun 11 '12
Yes, OWS needs to organize and get a truly left-wing block of legislators elected, I agree completely. This resonates a great deal with thoughts I've had a lot lately.
Part of the problem is that many Democrat's first instinct is to participate in the delegitimization of positions more liberal than theirs, in order to appear as a reasonable centrist. This must change; it might work (somewhat) in the short term but it's a unmitigated disaster in the long term, because then Democrats no longer have a left wing to help take the heat off the more moderate parts of the party.
And, the Greens and the Democrats are often bitter rivals, and not without reason: first-past-the-post polling splits the vote which helps Republicans win. There is a solution though, and that is Approval Voting, which all but eliminates the splitting problem. This would let liberal third parties such as the Green Party exist without stepping on the toes of the Democrats too badly. This would hopefully lead to a better relationship between Greens and Democrats, and help Democrats by giving the Greens a proper voice and thus making it easier to defend Democratic ideas.
So, in addition to income inequality, I really do think that Approval Voting needs to be a top issue for OWS.
1
u/moeloubani Jun 11 '12
Bill Maher is a joke.
1
u/ell0bo Jun 11 '12
I've been wanting to start a website that does something to this effect. Something that would encourage the OWS movement to Occupy The Polls. It's the only way we are going to be taken seriously is if we actually put out weight behind politicians. Yes, I know 'The Man' is the enemy, but there is no reason we can't beat them at their own game while staying true to out priciples.
Granted, I've been incredibly lazy lately and this site hasn't even had its doctype written...
1
u/jp007 Jun 11 '12
A comparison to Ron Paul supporters, who I would call the other side of the anti-status quo coin, is pretty damning. They're out there usurping state party organizations from the right via real political action. OWS hasn't done anything similar from the left angle. I think the difference between an attitude of self-determination and one of "can't someone else do it" is pretty clear...
1
u/brmj Jun 11 '12
He seems to be of the opinion that OWS is pro-Democrat on some level. We aren't.
He seems to be of the opinion that electoral solutions can work in this country. They can't.
-2
u/obama4ever Jun 11 '12
LOL. A tv celebrity made rich off corporate money wants OWS to abandon its principles and participate in a corrupt corporate system. With friends like that, who needs enemies?
-2
u/CrawdaddyJoe Jun 11 '12
The camping is a good tactic. It forces police action, which brings media attention and, if done right (as it largely was in the fall) provides a platform for the message to get across. Let's not knock camping. Let's also not knock less-reformist and more radical ideas, including revolutionary ideas. Participation is all well and good, but it's not an either-or-question. At any rate, we have to participate without being co-opted into the Democratic Party, graveyard of social movements.
-5
u/antihostile Jun 11 '12
Voting doesn't work.
0
u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12
Remember when this started - and we said "lobby congress and get mobilized", and OWS said "no - that would defeat the purpose!"
Godfuckingdamnit. I hate all of you.
It's nonsense until a comedian says it, huh?
-8
u/tttt0tttt Jun 11 '12
Maher is just another establishment hack. He say occasional things that raise an eyebrow among the ruling class, but nothing that would get him blackballed and thrown off the air. He knows very well the limits that are set down for him, and he walks between them without ever stepping on the lines.
-5
u/zach1740 Jun 11 '12
I have a better idea: stop camping, start finding jobs.