In Oakland they marched under a banner saying "Death to Capitalism" as seen in the link below
http://www.radarproductions.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/2.jpg
Noam Chomsky is not shy about denouncing Capitalism. Yet OWS protesters cheered him on when giving a speech do just that, denouncing Capitalism.
The video below is touted as hitting the point by OWS.
#OWS Protester Nails It! Federal Reserve : Fractional Banking : FIAT Currency : Wars - YouTube
Micheal Moore was applauded very loudly at Occupy Oakland in his speech that was nothing but Anti-Capitalists.
this link below is a speech from Slavoj Zizek at OWS
Today Liberty Plaza had a visit from Slavoj Zizek | OccupyWallSt.org
"Zizek's got it" You can keep your head in the sand or whatever it is that you assume that you are gaining by denying the obvious, it doesnt really matter to me. But it is a proven fact that OWS = anti-Capitalism, I can go on and get you much more links and quotes if you wish.....
Two presenters at a workshop does not a movement goal make.
That is a small anarchist faction within the OWS movement and does not represent the goals of the OWS group.
You confuse denouncing unregulated capitalism with denouncing capitalism.
Where was the anti-capitalism part????
This is what you call anti-capitalism? Like it was in the 90's???
"We can see that for a long time we allowed our political engagement also to be outsourced. We want it back. We are not communists. If communism means the system which collapsed in 1990, remember that today those communists are the most efficient ruthless capitalists. In China today we have capitalism which is even more dynamic than your American capitalism but doesn’t need democracy. Which means when you criticize capitalism, don’t allow yourselves to be blackmailed that you are against democracy. The marriage between democracy and capitalism is over.
The change is possible. So, what do we consider today possible? Just follow the media. On the one hand in technology and sexuality everything seems to be possible. You can travel to the moon. You can become immortal by biogenetics. You can have sex with animals or whatever. But look at the fields of society and economy. There almost everything is considered impossible. You want to raise taxes a little bit for the rich, they tell you it’s impossible, we lose competitivitiy. You want more money for healthcare: they tell you impossible, this means a totalitarian state. There is something wrong in the world where you are promised to be immortal but cannot spend a little bit more for health care. Maybe that ??? set our priorities straight here. We don’t want higher standards of living. We want better standards of living. The only sense in which we are communists is that we care for the commons. The commons of nature. The commons of what is privatized by intellectual property. The commons of biogenetics. For this and only for this we should fight."
You should save yourself some time and learn the difference between the US in the 90's and anti-capitalism first, because nothing you've presented so far shows the OWS goal is anti-capitalism.
All across the US thousands upon thousands of commercial and residential spaces sit empty while more and more people are forced to sleep in the streets, or driven deep into poverty while trying to pay their rent despite unemployment or poverty wages. We understand that capitalism is a system that has no care for human needs.
you don't speak for the 99%For the last 30 years it has been the unregulated greed of Reaganomics. Not surprising, the Gop is only offering more of the same. The 99% aren't buying it!
. You only speak for those who have conceded they don't have what it takes to be successful
The Occupy movement is born of the simple belief that humanity could meet our common needs if not for the predation and greed of the very few. Nowhere is this disparity of wealth and power more evident than in the struggle to secure the human right to housing.
In a nation that puts the right to housing at the center of its founding dream, millions of people have lost their homes or fear that they soon will because of the foreclosure crisis. Wall Street created this crisis with lies and greed. And Washington, instead of investigating Wall Street and banks, is cutting back room deals to let bankers escape justice for their crimes.
Wall Street turned a fundamental human need into a badly rigged casino game with fraudulent lending practices and corrupt securitization. They destroyed our economy, kicked tens of thousands of people illegally out of their homes, and are now using a small fraction of the money they stole to buy off politicians and settle for far less than they owe.
What is being successful?
Edit: If we stop talking about whether people believe that they are being spoken for within the slogans which are being used and get back to their argument
December 6: Occupy Wall Street
Would you agree that they have a point?
The above is not the 99% speaking it is a group that assumes it can tell their fellow protesters what to do and how to behave. Who gave them that authority? And since they claim to be speaking for the 99% they believe that they can tell us what to do as well. In the park, in the streets and our homes they dictate to us on how we can behave. They have a zero tolerance? What will they do if a protester the 99% breaks their Zero tolerance policy? Oust the 99% from their movement? This shows a authoritarian element already has roots in their movement.OWS has zero tolerance for drugs or alcohol anywhere in Liberty Plaza;
Zero tolerance for violence or verbal abuse towards anyone;
Zero tolerance for abuse of personal or public property.
OWS will limit drumming on the site to 2 hours per day, between the hours of 11am and 5pm only.
OWS encourages all participants to respect health and sanitary regulations, and will direct all participants to respectfully utilize appropriate off-site sanitary facilities.
OWS will display signage and have community relations and security monitors in Liberty Plaza, in order to ensure awareness of and respect for our guidelines and Good Neighbor Policy.
OWS will at all times have a community relations representative on-site, to monitor and respond to community concerns and complaints.
Occupy Wall Street
October 13, 2011
what exactly it is that OWS officially stands for.
Tell me who exactly is OWS?
Who do I contact to ask them what they represent?
Also explain to me why, the internet sites set up by the actual occupations are full of anti-Capitalist propaganda?
Also explain to me why OWS was started by Anarchists and is ran under Anarchist structure how come you think it is not Anarchy of some form?
Tell me why the General Assemblies (all of the occupy movements General Assemblies that is) use the hand signals developed and used by Anarchists? Tell me why the internet is full of signs that say "death to Capitalism" and "End Capitalism" Etc. and they are at Occupy protests?
DO you know what is meant by the Occupy signs that read "Capitalism has come to its end!" or "Capitalism does not work" or "Capitalism is crisis" or "Capitalism cannot be reformed"? Why are these signs prevalent at all large Occupy protests?
And it is bad form for you to try yet again to put words in my mouth. I asserted that OWS is Anti Capitalist I did not state that it was their ultimate goal. Anti Capitalism is just a part of the equation. You cannot just dismiss the proof that I have shown just because you seem to not want to accept it.
Slavoj Zizek was a featured speaker provided by OWS. As was Micheal Moore.
you don't speak for the 99%
many of those in the top 1% today were in the 99% yesterday. You only speak for those who have conceded they don't have what it takes to be successful
It appears a socialistic revolution to you because are not old enough to have seen (and have not taken the time to learn about) what our other great protest movements were like in history. You are just paranoid. All you have provided is examples of your distorted understanding of anti-capitalism.
Principles of Solidarity | Docs | NYC General Assembly # Occupy Wall Street
• direct, participatory, and transparent democracy and the will of the people to govern;
• a consensus based decision making process;
• valuing people before profits and eliminating the exploitation of labor;
• personal or collective responsibility, as applicable, regarding our actions;
• ending the commercialization of culture and science;
• eliminating all debt and recognizing it as a form of bondage;
We are daring to imagine a new sociopolitical and economic alternative that offers greater possibility of equality. Our success will depend on our solidarity with one another in this occupation and with all other non-violent occupations, active participation in local communities, fairness in our approach to direct democracy, and the maintenance of a nonhierarchical structure, where each of us is empowered to lead, but where no one one person is the leader or voice of the occupation and greater movement.
We are, today, in the midst of an important time in history. We seek enhanced, genuine, and radical democratization. We will amplify each other’s voices! We will be heard! We are revolution!
Yes they do not use the word Capitalism per se, But as I showed you OWS has a committee addressing an alternative economic system. Everyone knows that our American economic system is in fact Capitalism. Ows is seeking an alternative to Capitalism, and you cannot deny that as fact anymore because there it is in black and white on the site of the NYC General Assembly that started and is running the Occupy movement.We are daring to imagine a new socio-political and economic alternative that offers greater possibility of equality. We are consolidating the other proposed principles of solidarity, after which demands will follow. Principles of Solidarity | NYC General Assembly # Occupy Wall Street
Well that isnt accurate at all. You should have said some of the framers were...Our country was started by criminals and slave owners........................
Appeal to authority. It is well documented that your other great protest movements were full of Leftist Socialists, Communists, and Anarchists. Thank you for proving my point.It appears a socialistic revolution to you because are not old enough to have seen (and have not taken the time to learn about) what our other great protest movements were like in history.
It is hard to determine their argument.
As my exchange with Catawba illustrates there is a large disagreement among supporters of the Occupy movement and OWS. The NYC General Assembly assumes control over the movement. The Good neighbor policy expresses their authority is the final word. Good Neighbor Policy | NYC General Assembly # Occupy Wall Street
The above is not the 99% speaking it is a group that assumes it can tell their fellow protesters what to do and how to behave. Who gave them that authority?
And since they claim to be speaking for the 99% they believe that they can tell us what to do as well. In the park, in the streets and our homes they dictate to us on how we can behave. They have a zero tolerance? What will they do if a protester the 99% breaks their Zero tolerance policy? Oust the 99% from their movement? This shows a authoritarian element already has roots in their movement.
I believe that there is a large Liberal support that does not understand the workings of NYC General Assembly and have the misunderstanding that OWS is actually ran by the people. NYC General Assembly believe that they are a new model of society and Government that will be the replacement of our Government. In fact they believe that they have already started the replacement Government. I really doubt that most Liberals would actually sign on to that premise knowingly.
"I think there is a huge dissatisfaction with the way that some political parties and big business have been happy to see gains privatised and I think people are now just sick and tired of seeing losses socialised. We're all bearing the brunt of the mistakes that were made, and there doesn't seem to be any solution or any attempt to make sure this doesn't happen again.
"We're in a desperate rush to get back to the same old model with no new ideas. I think these people are just calling us to take a better, wider look at things."
During the meeting Labour Councillor Gordon Munro spoke passionately in favour of the Occupy Edinburgh group, backing one of the causes championed by the movement - a Robin Hood Tax.
Speaking after the debate he said: "I think the Occupy voice has not been heard within the city chambers, and I think it's up to us as elected politicians to provide a vehicle for them to come in and say who we are and what we're about so that they can counter the deliberately misconcieved perceptions that are put through the received media for this group."
NYC general Assembly believe that the OWS protesters are backing them that is why they put so much effort into the General Assemblies. They are engaged in a Revolution they have no desire to pursue reform.
What you asking us to do is to ignore that reality and just talk about the issues instead.
Honest question ... if some officials decided they wanted to have a sit-down and talk with OWS, who do they address? The mob? Or is there an officially recognized council?
Pope and fellow Occupy Memphis protester Tristan Tran had a lively, sometimes strained and confrontational, but mostly civil discussion with members of the Mid-South Tea Party at a municipal meeting hall outside Memphis.
The factions saw eye-to-eye on some issues and clashed on others. And, while the young speakers didn't change many minds, they did earn praise from the tea party members for their passion, honesty and courage.
The 21-year-old University of Memphis students had been invited by the tea party group to talk about the goals of the Occupy movement. The invitation was extended after a discussion between members of both groups on the tea party's website, meeting organizer Jim Tomasik said.
Well I imagine they would simply arrange it as these tea partiers did
The Associated Press: Occupy Memphis, tea party members meet
Again, I hate when the real answer is not a choice.
How about F) - Yes and No.
It's a point of discussion, not meant as a debate tactic. If you don't like my phrasing, feel free to correct it, but please expound on your statement.
Bah, it's a large crowd of largely disorganized people. That is a mob.
I would have been willing to rephrase it to crowd if I knew it was somehow off-putting.
and what would make you think that you would have anything to say which they would wish on mass to stop and listen to? When they are interested however they have developed a way of responding so that their feelings and position can be understood in a very un mob mannerThe main point was that addressing such a large crowd doesn't typically make for good dialogue.
And I have been to the two largest encampments in my area, but I didn't learn much. Both are tiny and either had a few people giving speeches or no one around at the time.
I'm not going to travel to NY to ask a simple question. It seems perfectly reasonable to ask people who sympathize with them on a discussion board.
Look, I'm not trying to make some huge point here. There is no need to argue.
I wondered if there was an answer. If you don't feel like you can speak for them or you don't have an answer for me, that is acceptable, too.
This illustrates that you are flaiming or baiting, not genuinely wanting to know anything which was pretty obvious from your first question on this. I should have gone with my intuition and ignored you.
I think you presented your opinion quite accurately
and what would make you think that you would have anything to say which they would wish on mass to stop and listen to? When they are interested however they have developed a way of responding so that their feelings and position can be understood in a very un mob manner
General Assembly Guide | NYC General Assembly # Occupy Wall Street
I was at a couple of the downtown areas where they get together and thought I would stop and see first-hand what was going on. Turns out I'm not narrow-minded as you would like to paint me. I didn't learn much for the reasons I already stated, but that is hardly a strike against them.You have already been to visit them? Why was that? What did you hope to learn and failed to learn?
Actually, it was, but you are the one who got upset here. I furthered the question because it had relevance. Somehow, I don't think that's trolling.You wanted to know how it was possible for an official to meet them. I told you, just arrange. That wasn't what you were wanting though, was it.
My point was to ask how they would get past being a mob so they could be addressed when taken seriously by an official. I didn't say it was impossible, nor do I think it.Your point was that it would be impossible for any 'official' to speak to them because they are a 'mob'
It has been answered. If you want to know their opinions then they are freely available on their websites. Look under resources here and you can find them
OK, done I think.
It illustrates that the word was correctly used. mob - definition of mob by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.
I'm checking and not finding where I said I think they want to listen to me. I was asking (as you said later in your own post) how would an official address them.
I was at a couple of the downtown areas where they get together and thought I would stop and see first-hand what was going on. Turns out I'm not narrow-minded as you would like to paint me. I didn't learn much for the reasons I already stated, but that is hardly a strike against them.
Then why was my example not acceptable to youActually, it was, but you are the one who got upset here.
I furthered the question because it had relevance. Somehow, I don't think that's trolling.
Still just questioning.. I see that they invited a couple students to the meeting, which is cool on both sides because the students showed up to discuss. However, we are regularly told that we can't hold OWS to any specific item because they are grass roots. So, if they called a few of the more intelligent and eloquent members up to discuss, would they really be addressing OWS as a whole?
My point was to ask how they would get past being a mob so they could be addressed when taken seriously by an official. I didn't say it was impossible, nor do I think it.
Okay, I actually did find that guide somewhat helpful, in that they have found a less vocal way to speak as a group. I see an address there for sending stuff to them.
I still honestly don't see a way for someone to have a sit-down, back and forth with a grass-roots movement spread across the country.
I get that you are defensive.
OWS has been the subject of much debate and it's not a secret that I don't support them.
However, putting words in my mouth and getting upset at me accomplishes nothing. This is not an attack. It's a simple question that I would think OWS, as a group, would like to answer. I do see an issue, but that doesn't mean there isn't an answer, so I was looking for more information. That is not a crime.
Maybe depending on your choice. The way in which you used it made me believe you were deliberately using it in one of it's denigrating forms
then I may have misunderstood you.
You being confrontational is what gives me the opinion I have created of you. You have still not said what you wanted to learn and what you failed to learn.
Then why was my example not acceptable to you
On one hand I accept this. Somehow I took your reply to someone else so replied to that, thinking it was to me, rather than the one which was to me. Here is the reply you gave
I still see this as patronising and simply being argumentative. You are not going to find any group of any people who share 100%\ the same ideas.
You have made a strong value ridden collective judgement on these people. They are 'a mob'.
and now you are beginning to find out about them and can see they have found a way of communicating which presents their view even when in intensive meetings of people.
I think you need to come out directly with what you are wanting to discuss and who you are wanting to discuss it. The internet allows for the sharing of information in ways previously unheard of.
I have nothing to be defensive about. Irritated maybe. I just tire of getting involved in posts which are just....tiring, draining. You have however been aggressive as you just now are being.
and guess what? This is the first time I have met you or read any of your posts and what you now say is obvious. But what has the rest of this post been about. Your attempt to suggest you are open when now you are admitting that my judgement of you was correct.
and what now are you talking about????? Of course this is yet another attack. My irritation is that I am trying to keep out of these posts which are about absolutely nothing except to flame.
thought the similarity of this might be found somewhat intriguing:Honest question ... if some officials decided they wanted to have a sit-down and talk with OWS, who do they address? The mob? Or is there an officially recognized council?
Rap on Rainbow DisorganizationThere are no official organizers or leaders at ... . All work, including all management of the work of others, is done by volunteers. Even the gathering council, which makes (a very few) important decisions affecting the whole gathering, does not generally appoint or establish roles at gatherings. There is no centralized management of any of the major operations that keep the gathering functioning. All tasks are handled by individual (self-selected) volunteers or small groups of such volunteers. These smaller groups organize themselves using the same consensus-based decision-making mechanism as the gathering council.
There is no organization behind ..., nor an infrastructure. The system of individual cooperation is sufficient to make it all work. After the gathering is over there is no remaining social or legal entity until the following annual gathering. The closest thing to a permanent entity associated with gatherings it probably this usenet newsgroup ... on which you are reading this message.
There is unanimous resistance to any attempt to organize the gathering by defining official roles, especially roles of representation or leadership, as these would usurp the principle of individual equality, freedom and autonomy that is the organizational basis of the gathering. There is also resistance to defining any organization that would represent the gathering, as this would also violate the most fundamental principles of the gathering.
There is no payment or official reward system for work done at the ... . The main incentive for volunteers is the personal satisfaction of assisting others at the gathering. In addition there is no funding apart from donations collected during the gathering, and all of the funds are spent by the end of the gathering.
There is no official belief system or political ideology (apart from populism) common to participants at the ... .
thought the similarity of this might be found somewhat intriguing:
Rap on Rainbow Disorganization
if you are familiar with the rainbow gathering of tribes, then you probably are aware how difficult it is for government to control their activities
without a formal organization or officers, there is no person or entity to bring before the court and/or prosecute
that amorphous nature of both the occupy and rainbow activities appears to serve them well
I tried to make it simpler by referring to one key element.
I noticed Edinburgh Occupy had similar set of rules - why? They are living together. You simply cannot live together without some basic rules.
Maybe they had a meeting and voted on it.
This I so don't understand. Do you believe that just because some people state their view and say their focus is the position of 99% of the population, that you need to agree with everything they say? That certainly is a totalitarian belief. You should never feel that about any group, person or organisation you become involved in. You always have the right to agree with some things and disagree with others.
The things however you have given are not about political views but about living together harmoniously in a difficult situation. You would prefer chaos and insanitary conditions? That would certainly set people against them.
I admit I do not know about the NYC General Assembly and will take time to find out when I can. However occupy movements are worldwide now and nowhere have any power. It can only be a 'government of ideas'.
I see the occupy movement as starting a conversation. They will evolve and they look like they will effect society but it is a conversation. Edinburgh Council has given it's support to Occupy Edinburgh/Scotland and indeed to the whole occupy movement while both noting their belief that policy change is best dealt with through the usual route of elected officials and recognising the frustration felt because those elected are allowing the situation which got us into the mess we are in now to continue.
Occupy Edinburgh gains backing from Edinburgh Council | Edinburgh News | STV Local
Here the elected body is beginning to be in conversation with the Occupy movement.
I am not asking you to do anything. I believe profoundly in allowing each person to come to their own informed decisions. Indeed I find it childish to assume I would be wanting to act like a parent towards you and tell you what to think/say - I took the time to make sure my daughter learned to think for herself.
However - I believe that change is needed. Both the US and the UK have become far more unequal countries in the past 30 years and we are now seeing the result of allowing greed is good to continue. We have lost our social conscience. Our well being now seems to be dependent on 0.1% of the population who have no regard except to make ridiculous sums of money and the power which that gives them to control. We are heading towards greater and greater inequality. We do not offer equality of opportunity. Social mobility has ended and indeed is going in the wrong direction. In the UK in the last 30 years CEO's pay has increased 4000% and they are now paid on average 157 times more than the average worker. In the US it is even worse. They are paid at around 500 times the average worker. All this has been done without conscience and the people who are paying for it are not the people who created it.....so I want change. I want change so that my grandchildren can grow up in a world which offers equal opportunity and is just and has social responsibility. I judge a person having a conscience as more successful than a person having billions earned through ruthlessness.
But I do not see the occupy movement as anything other than a movement. I believe they are a much needed movement. Apart from them, all we are hearing about in the UK is the cutting of jobs, making harsher laws, cutting benefits to the disabled, throwing people out of their homes and the removal of human rights. Yes I believe something is needed and the Occupy people are providing that.
But that is a conversation. Edinburgh council have opened the conversation by acknowledging them and that they are talking about genuine issues which need addressing and which are not being addressed.
This rule caused great harm to the occupation movement across the country. It divided and caused splintering of occupations to develop. Those groups are fighting each other for the public recognition as the real occupiers. The dividing line in most cases being that the occupation organizers do not process the authority to dictate to the protesters on what they can and cannot do. They deny any authority to impose zero tolerances policies pertaining to the actions and behavior of the 99%. Remember the claim is that the protesters are the 99%, that it is us not them speaking for the 99% but it is the 99% speaking against the 1%.OWS has zero tolerance for drugs or alcohol anywhere in Liberty Plaza;
Answer this question: Is the Occupy movement a Liberal movement in your opinion or?
I'm interested in how they further their goals when they are trying to influence an existing system than how they avoid control or prosecution.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?