- Conor Corrigan
- New York, NY
- United States
This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
Does the "occupy Wall Street" "movement" really make a difference? What purpose does the "movement" serve?
There are many different ways that ideas can spark a movement towards action and change. It is unclear what the "occupy" movement expects to accomplish. What are the ideas that the occupy Wall Street movement share? The people participating in the "occupy Wall Street" protests, stagings, and sit-ins commonly compare their movement to the "Tea Party"... Is this a fair comparison? Are the "occupiers" making any progress whatsoever?
Robert Winner 50+
Xavier Belvemont said: The problem with OWS is that, unlike their degenerate counterparts on the other side of the spectrum --The Tea Party, OWS was never organized and didn't attempt to change anything beyond a sit-in in a location where it really didn't matter
Sorry but it was well organized.
OWS was initiated by Kalle Lasn and Micah White of Adbusters, a Canadian anti-consumerist publication, who conceived of a September 17 occupation in lower Manhattan. Lasn registered the OccupyWallStreet.org web address on June 9. That same month, Adbusters emailed its subscribers saying “America needs its own Tahrir”. In a blog post on July 13 of 2011, Adbusters proposed a peaceful occupation of Wall Street to protest corporate influence on democracy, the lack of legal consequences for those who brought about the global crisis of monetary insolvency, and an increasing disparity in wealth. The protest was promoted with an image featuring a dancer atop Wall Street's iconic Charging Bull statue.
This was a spin doctors dream for the Democrats who were facing real questions that needed real answers. So the administration approved the 1% movement and the focus become that the wealthy were the cause of all problems large and small. Much like a magician draws attention away.
Even though it was well organized and got a lot of attention it became a media circus.
All the best. Bob.
Andres Aullet 10+
OWS had a million idealistic objectives, although no strategy or organization to get them started. I think however, that a grassroots movement does not need to wait until it has a strategy or organization to begin its activities.
As far as i could grasp the only concrete objective that OWS had was to raise awareness about how money runs the political system. And I consider that they actually did pretty good in that regard
cheers
Xavier Belvemont 30+
There was...
1. No attempt to get celebrity Recognition
2. No attempt to attract the liberal spokespeople to their cause (atleast 2 potentially would)
3. No attempt to get a congressman/senator on their side
4. No contacting of Independent and/or libertarian political parties for added weight
5. No attempt to have their point illustrated by a representative in Congress/Mainstream media
6. No request for donations to fund legal representation / lawsuit
7. No anarchy against those they had an issue with (a last resort, ofcourse)
8. No attempt to stage a mass 'no work day' or anything of that nature
9. No mass boycott of any relevant corporations/ financial interests
10. No petition to have their point discussed by policy makers and legislators.
To name a few..
pat gilbert 50+
The Tea Party on the other hand have PURPOSE, that is as rock solid as the Constitution.
Xavier Belvemont 30+
Luckily no one of political value sees the Teaparty as anything legitimate and note-worthy for legislation, so America is safe, atleast for another day..
pat gilbert 50+
Have a nice day.
Gabo Murcia
David Hamilton 50+
They can't make progress however... because the American people secretly love corporate socialism, the federal reserve, and passing the bill on to their children.
Theodore A. Hoppe 200+
The basic problem with Occupy was that never actually became representative of the 99% it reached out to. It never represented even 51% of the 99%. Occupy became increasingly progressive in its focus, and this alienated many of the people that were initially attracted to the protest. But this block of middle aged, middle class voters, who were angry about the erosion of their lifestyle, merely wanted the Democratic Party and the president to demonstrate more concern about their plight in the recession. They wanted their job security, lower interest rates on student loans for their children, and to feel secure that they would not lose their homes.
On the other help, Occupy Wall St. wanted a revolution, and had a laundry list of complains that even they could not agree on. This was there downfall.
OWS, R.I P.
Conor Corrigan
Fritzie Reisner 100+
Separately, is part of the ambiguity related to the proliferation of different Occupies around the country that may have a character different from Occupy Wall Street? It is natural for people to form an impression that is heavily influenced by their local operation.
Rhona Pavis 50+
POWER TO THE POSITIVE!
Conor Corrigan
Rhona Pavis 50+
Conor Corrigan
If the "movement" is truly meaningful, you'd state the clear principles of the group, and move on. All you've done is said that the group is focused on "important issues" (no "issues" listed), told me that I don't understand because I'm not listening, and questioned my own contributions to society. Not quite answering the question.
If you can answer the original question, let's try to stick to the answers:
1.) What are the main principles of the "movement"?
2.) What impacts have they made?
3.) Are the comparisons between the "occupiers" and the "tea party" justified? Why?
Rhona Pavis 50+
The main principles are purely positive....peace, truth, harmony, respect, equity, decency.
They are raising the conscious of people such as you and me to the fact that things are not right and we can make them right with our words and actions. Comparisons irrelevant. Seek positive, find positive. You do not need to sit on the sidewalk and smoke cigarettes to find out what the OCCUPY WALLSTREET MOVEMENT is all about. You can go there and listen and speak and listen. That's a good way to find the answers you seek. I hope you go with an open mind. Seek positive/Find positive.
pat gilbert 50+
The Tea Party and OWS are at the opposite end of the spectrum.
One want liberty one wants equality.
Imo OWS will fade the Tea Party is of the same ilk as the founders which indicates staying power.
John Smith 30+
pat gilbert 50+
Your conjecture that the Tea Party's only issue is entitlements is ignorant.
In both cases funding is hard to prove. But since one is advocating non tangible goals and the other the equality meme. I would say that their motivation is clear.
John Smith 30+
OWS had no funding, people paid for themselves, there were no podia, no facilities, no fancy websites, no conventions. The teaparty has a lot of funding and organization behind it, with entire think tanks and SUPER-PCAs working to further its goals. It has been proven that Billionaires such as David Koch funded it.
pat gilbert 50+
Spontaneous my ass, sell it to some one who doesn't know which way is up.
The funding is apparently coming from Soros, Acorn, Left wing nuts like Ben & Jerry, etc Point is it is instigated by someone.
Super Pacs are irrelevant to the demonstrations as it has to do with campaign contributions to candidates and are left and right wing. The Koch brothers support the Kato institute and no doubt other organizations and are very high quality people.
The only purpose of OWS is as a collective to get attention to further socialist purposes against the Tea Party.
Gail . 50+
Occupy began with introducing people the the degree of financial disparity that exists. It began trying to educate people about our unsustainable economy. It has had some effect there. It wants people to be aware of how their own political power has been sold out from under them by greedy and selfish politicians. It has had a lot of effect there.
It has not come up with solutions, however. I can't really do that. What works for someone in New York may not work for someone in a small rural village. It is really about helping people get in touch with their own power, not about telling people what to do.
John Smith 30+
Rhona Pavis 50+
Fritzie Reisner 100+
His answer was that it introduced the phrasing 1% and 99% and that anyone who now hears that phrasing recognizes a message about income distribution.
Krisztián Pintér 200+
Rhona Pavis 50+
Scott Koenraadt
Conor Corrigan