text:
General Strike Shuts Down Oakland. Watch Live!
Posted 8 years ago on Nov. 2, 2011, 1:22 p.m. EST by OccupyWallSt
For more info: Occupy Oakland, #occupyoakland
Posted 8 years ago on Nov. 2, 2011, 1:22 p.m. EST by OccupyWallSt
For more info: Occupy Oakland, #occupyoakland
As an educator who has a son (32) and a daughter (36), I support your efforts whole hardily. Since Reagan, Republican policies (smaller taxes on rich), less regulation (lead to Savings and Loan scandal, Enron and the mess in 2008). The only way Republicans can get elected is to lie (say they are going to pass an amendment for same sex marriage 2004) and making voting difficult. I want those that caused this mess to be arrested and punished. I want regulations on the financial market and most of all, I support you. Stay warm. It took us 6 years of protesting to get us out of Vietnam. I hope you obtain results faster. I am writing all Democrats that it is time that they step up and do what is right. Just wanted to say you have a lot of support from "old hippies".
Sorry to dissapoint you, you still seem to believe the US is a democracy and in Santa Claus probably too. Whether you vote republican or democrat you are voting for Wall Street, they are both bought and corrupt. Nobody should vote to legitimate a corrupt system.
It's better than not voting at all. I still believe that occupy wall street should get a realistic goal and take over the democratic party and make it work for the people. The reason that the Republicans got the supreme court to rule that organizations can give as much money as they want to campaigns was to counter Obama's strength from the populace. Check out Arizona, when the people speak the legislature overrules them. It is only idealistic to attempt to change the system. If we want to be heard, we have to (as a population) take over.
You support them in what, exactly? This is in no way equivalent to the Vietnam War protests that I participated in. We wanted the government to pull all troops out of Vietnam. There isn't one clear agenda with the occupations. Everyone who has a gripe has attached themselves. If you want the government to make regulations and punish the people you feel are responsible, say so and go march on Washington. Yes, pressure your legislators. Stop making a mess in our cities. It doesn't impact Congress or the 1%. They are sitting snugly in their mansions.
Advice on how OWS can take over the Democratic Party with "Democratic Egalitarian Clubs": http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/change/science_freshstart.html
That could lead to further electoral form and more diversity eventually.
In some situations, working within the system is necessary. the bipartisan system will not fall over night. perhaps a libertarian persident could start it, but i wont push my Paul stance here. calling someone unintelligent for having a differing opinion is very non productive. lets get past the childishness.
I agree with your general argument and idea, but we really need to break the tradition of following political parties. We need to support those with great ideas and abilities, not blindly follow the ideology of some political party.
Bipartisan politics is killing our nation!
I agree but if we splinter the democratic party, we will have a Republican president and that would only bode well for the 1%.
First of all, politics in the United States has stagnated and become an illusion for all citizens. We are given the illusion that there are numerous checks and balances within our government that serve as protection against corruption. However, if you take a closer look at the structure and administration of the United States it is easily exploitable by elite master bureaucrats. Our American ideals and propaganda fool us into thinking our government is a perfect model for governance.
The idea and spirit of American democracy is perfect, but its administration has been overrun by red and blue bureaucrats. Why only red and blue you ask? Because having two parties makes it a truly multi-party government. We allow others to run for office and form other parties, but they are easily defeated because of campaign restrictions, absence from the ballot, lack of lobbyist support.
Both Parties "Republican and Democrat" are part of a system that limits change. The parties seemingly battle each other over the same issues over and over. If they keep policy going back and forth within the same parameters then nothing can change. People who do not fall in line with the ideology of the regime will never be able to become president. The above creates the illusion that we have a multiparty government while we actually have a single regime putting on a show of politics.
Its a single ruling regime! That is not true democracy!
Contemporary partisan politics executed in America serve to divide and conquer the American public, fooling them to support a single regime disguised as multiple parties.
but then again, a unified ideology and a leadership is needed to put across the idea more, and be more organized, and avoid being a vague movement. if what we are aspiring here is a broad united front, we must set forth a consultation and ge all the opinion of the people of what the demands are, which is kind of hard because of the diverse politics playing here. it is possible, but lack of leadership and direct exact demands is what is lacking. well, that's what i see from an outsider's perspective. from the philippines, peace!
I think the strength of this movement is that it is about not just one demand or rather the point is that there are so many issues at this point that we need to take what we have learned from our mistakes and create something better for all the various people of the world. Perhaps globalization is inevitable with such a large population inhabiting the planet right now we have to take all people and future generations into consideration. The 1% will not do this for us. They never have considered our needs and do not intend to. Those who have ruled over humanity for so long must step down because this system will never be fixed by those who intend to keep it broken. In other words, thieves steal and we can't wait for them to be moved enough by our movement to heal themselves. They thrive on our debt and labor. They squash peoples aspirations for their own gain and, truth be told, with our governments ruled by profit the life of individuals will never be regarded as important by the decision makers.
What do I think we need even more than a leader? Well at least a new set of representatives in government and a new monetary system but in actuality we need even more than that. We need to be able to live our own personal aspirations and passions in life with out oppression by profit hungry figure heads. We need to be able to be ourselves in this lifetime and we must assert that our lives are too important to be wasted slaving away for the profit of the global elite.
The system worked from the 40's to the 80's. We need to change the party to meet our needs rather than splinter any efforts that would result in real changes. There are so many places that need to be changed. Since the court changed how money can be given to political campaigns it allows no disclosure and no limit coming from special interests. That would be a place to go first. The democrats are planning on introducing a bill to do just that.
The republicans are not interested at all in the 99% (except to tell us that we can't make decisions about our own body and finding a coercive way in which to maintain power- what happened in Arizona Wednesday night, for example), we need to find where we can make those changes and make the individuals in political office respond to us. We need to take control of one of the parties. I suspect we would have better luck with the Democratic party.
Since Republicans took over power in 2010 in many states and in the house, they have set an agenda to eliminate choice, disenfranchise voters (voter ID, ) eliminate bargaining rights etc.. Of course once the Tea Party Republican freshmen were sworn in in congress, they voted to work 2 weeks and take the next off- full-pay. Work 2 get paid for 3. So much for cutting government spending.
I really mean no offense here, but this is just not really truthful. Look at a history book. The 70's especially were not so hot economically and hey remember the 60's oh and the segregation ended in the 50's. This system worked as an illusion. I have no value for either party you have mentioned or for politics in general. I want what is right for Earth, all of it. We can have that. I don't believe this. I know this. Please forget about voting as long as profit controls our leaders your vote doesn't count. Democrats are not even the lesser of two evils they are just another part of the same evil. Democrats, republicans, same thing. Its all just kubuki, a big act, both parties have the very same agenda and the show must go on at all costs from their perspective. That agenda keeps us from thinking we have our own unique life path that we should honor in order to keep us enslaved so that they can have a life of luxury and decadence. We say we hired these people. We say they were elected. They stole those positions of power. The wrangled us like wild horses and domesticated us to serve their purposes.
The rich were not getting rich as fast. The growth of their assets chart less than the growth of wages. That changed in the 80's. The New Deal was working.
Im not sure wealth is the issue or how fast individuals receive wealth because many of the 1% were born into wealth. The real issue is certain people are beyond rich, certain people are above the law, certain people have trillions of dollars and when someone has that much they could drop a a few million and their quality of life would not even change. They horde money not to be rich but to be outside of the monetary system and outside the law. Some families have been this way for generations. That is a real problem because they can spend or withdraw a trillion dollars in order to control the world around them. We are like trained seals to them.
yeah the system worked great in the 40s through the 80s unless you were black, brown, gay, or a woman.
I agree as well. The Republicrats are just the two sides of the same piece of flypaper the 1% hang out to catch us flies while they dine on the honey. We need a true democracy with as many flavors as the Ice Cream or yogurt I can buy daily.
You're an educator and you mistakenly use "whole hardily" for wholeheartedly? ; )
Death penalty for corporate CEOs for crimes against society!!!
Mandatory sentencing for CEO's.
lets keep feeding those fat union pension funds...and of course allow tenured educators to keep draining money long past their ability to teach...and dont forget the democrats are now in power...oh thats right..its heresy to complain about them
You might like these links related to John Taylor Gatto about how "schooling" is not the same as "education":
And also:
Of course, you are Absolutely correct. Educators Don't earn their money because they invest their time in our kids, their future, and are an investment in our nation's prosperity. They Especially don't deserve their salaries, or their pensions and healthcare, because you were too foolish to consider an education or a job in which you were included in a union.
Teachers Aren't an investment in our future deserving of their salaries even though they Are college graduates and, most notably, because you've not a Clue what you're freakin talking about.
bloated pension funds are bleeding the system dry. those funds are invested and when the investment fails to pan out, the taxpayer is left holding the bag..which means tax dollars must be diverted from other sources to cover the short fall. stop early retirement, reduce the monthly payout from the pensiions and increase the contributions. then the pensions will be more workable. and tenured teachers, who can no longer teach, make it more difficult for new educators to be hired. oh yes sweetie, let us not forget the corruption that runs rampant in the union system..theres plenty of blame to go around
And if you would really like to discuss Corruption, unions are Minor players; you are a joke.
I'd like to ask how you feel you are qualified to make a judgement about tenured professors. Please, enlighten me. Did you listen to it on Fox News?
And, to go further, pensions are Not bleeding the system dry. Pensions are pre-negotiated plans that are a part of their Retirement System which, oddly enough, pull from Their salaries. Pensions are Not part of a public slush fund. They are managed by separate state agencies that ensure the money will be there when they retire, such as CalPERS and OPERS. Pension funds Aren't to be invested in Anything. When Kasich is on the market playing the lottery with retirees' money, and then it falls out from underneath of him, he has lost Nothing. If they Weren't invested on the open market by politicians, the problem you described wouldn't be a problem.
And I'd like to ask something else: how would You feel if I decided unilaterally that, well, you didn't earn the full breadth of your income? You need taxed more, you are a burden to society, and your education (great or low as it may be) is not worthy of your income.
As it appears to me, maybe you need to go get an education, sweetheart. Maybe Then you can quit making loaded judgements and patronizing other people, and you can learn to punctuate your damn sentences Correctly.
And by the way, a tenure is based on the notion of academic freedom and is one of the few ways to make the profession of teaching more attractive. If you would like a general understanding of it, I'd advise that you go here:
If you would like to actually read more than a summary, here's another.
That's only if you would actually like to Read something rather than repeating the same argument made by every other person who thinks that they understand the "problems."
woot! definitely could get rid of a lot of public employees. Many harass those who earn an honest living to justify their jobs. Lost money in two places, we need reform on both wall street and in Washington, but wall street is NOT TO BLAME. It is upon the shoulders of Washington to change their liberal policies and save this country!
with all the money being funneled anonymously to politicians and various projects and committees by corporations, how and why would congress reform wall street conduct and where would they begin? legislation takes years to get passed and by the time they make it through congress theyve been stripped of anything important.
This is why i disagree with you: you follow political lines. ONLY ignorant people follow political parties completely. If you were intelligent, you would know that at this point in time, BOTH parties are basically worthless and corrupted. The fact that you think "democrats" (im guessing you pro-obama as well?) are good and republicans are bad is the closed-mindedness of an ignorant person.
If you are an educator, you should know that it is not "whole hardily". It is "wholeheartedly".
Not necessarily Nikka...have you really observed the average educator in action? For myself, I know my typing and spelling sucks so I write all this stuff in word and then spell check it and insert it here….'course that might be more than a bleeding heart liberal with minimal critical thinking skills can handle.
Go Oakland!!
Solidarity and Greetings from Norway.
stay strong - keep on fighting, keep on growing
Have you seen the riots and the violence in Oakland this morning.
So you believe that OWS Oakland was justified in their violence? Breaking in to businesses and banks and setting fire in the street?
Absolutely not. Violence never furthers even a just cause.
Then do something about it. Create a NEW article that condemns the violence. Did you not see that the protestors CHEERED on the provocateurs! And allowed them to march with sticks in their hands (later to be used to smash windows and beat fellow protestors). OWS NEEDS to come out and denounce this publicly. Many, many of the 99% are very angry about this, and will refuse to be part of this movement. Vandalism against our small main street businesses (at least one restaurant was attacked) should never, ever happen.
Here is an essay be G. William Domhoff that echoes your point on the need to denounce violence: http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/change/science_nonviolence.html
There have been previous OWS threads on the need to stay non-violent and denounce violence before this event, but I don't think I've seen one denouncing the violence in Oakland? It's a good idea to have such an article, ideally by someone in Oakland.
newrain, I would love to create a new article. I will look into this. In the meantime, I posted several comments denouncing the violence. I believe that the majority of OWSers support nonviolence. Nonviolence is a discipline and participants need training. We can't let hoodlums define the agenda or the message. Youthful rage against the machine can't be allowed its unbridled expression.
Amen! Thank you for that response. But please, do take the time to post the new article because the more time that passes, the worst this looks.
In love and light,
I don´t support vandalization and destruction, nor violence (unless it´s self defense). My statement indicated that I support the initiative of organizing the strike.
But the strike led to violence on the OWS peoples part. No strike,no violence.
just because I support the Oakland Strike doesnt necessarily mean I support every act of every individual participating in it. I just told you where I stand.
"No strike,no violence"
Not true.
Then do something about it. Create a NEW article that condemns the violence. Did you not see that the protestors CHEERED on the provocateurs! And allowed them to march with sticks in their hands (later to be used to smash windows and beat fellow protestors). OWS NEEDS to come out and denounce this publicly. Many, many of the 99% are very angry about this, and will refuse to be part of this movement. Vandalism against our small main street businesses (at least one restaurant was attacked) should never, ever happen.
I agree with your point about needing to denounce, and in looking at the media, I still don't quite see it; example: http://blog.sfgate.com/nov05election/2011/11/04/occupy-oakland-explains-the-violence-or-doesnt-video/ "As Comrades Bulwa, Berton and myself mentioned in Friday's Chronicle/SFGate, Occupy Oakland and the 99 percenters have ANOTHER 1 percent problem: The 1 percent of its fringe who are responsible for the vandalism and violence that occurs after their demonstrations. Given their insatiable desire for images of fire and tear gas and mayhem, that's what the TV coverage has focused on, and thus has shaped recent coverage of Occupy. (Our 1 percent math: Oakland Police say 7,000 people participated in Wednesday's general strike in Oakland and a little more than 70 were arrested in connection with the mayhem afterwards.) Who's going to take responsibility? Who is going to tell the self-styled anarchists to mellow out? Don't look to Occupy Oakland. Since Occupiers only officially act after reaching a consensus among their peeps, their representatives refused to disavow to the media anything that the anarchist fringe has done — because the Occupy Oakland group has not "consensed" to condemn it. So really — much to the frustration of all parties involved — the Occupy representatives are not representative, since they say they don't really represent the whole group, even when they're leading press conferences to represent what the group's message is. You follow?"
That is terrible publicity for OWS.
Here the publicity was a tiny bit better, but still not a strong condemnation of the violence: http://www.news10.net/news/local/article/161498/2/Occupy-Oakland-Overnight-violence-was-done-by-small-group-of-protesters "OAKLAND, CA - Occupy Oakland distanced itself from the overnight violence, saying it was a splinter group of protesters causing the trouble. When the splinter group vandalized walls with graffiti, lit firebombs and broke into a vacant building, police in riot gear moved in. ... The strike culminated with an impressive march that shut down the Port of Oakland. However, the splinter group decided that wasn't enough, which upset residents and workers. ..."
So, there was a huge success, and then it all got taken away by that "splinter group". Now the media focuses on the violence. Now everyone in other communities perhaps thinks, will their OWS group do the same, maybe we should get rid of them in advance?
As Domhoff suggests, if there is one thing that OWS has to have from the start, it is a commitment to non-violence. All GA's need to reject violence. Vote on it in advance if desired, but a condemnation of any violence needs to be automatic by an GA if OWS is to survive and thrive. There has to be a lesson here for the OWS movement -- one learned really fast.
I was glad to see this article: http://www.occupywallst.org/forum/an-opinion-on-ows-violence/ "The moment a person engages in a violent act, they are no longer part of the movement. They are part of the problem. Even more then that, they are the most important problem."
It's OK to be angry; what matters is what constructive things we do with that emotion. http://pbskids.org/rogers/songLyricsWhatDoYouDo.html
What was the strike meant to accomplish? All it did was hurt Oakland. You weren't sticking it to the big banks or other corporate baddies. Cut up all your ATM and credit cards. Use credit unions. Stop using mobile carriers like AT&T who support politicians who allow tax loopholes for the 1%. Not using your ATM card for one day because you ran there the day before to stock up on cash is pointless.
Stop Facebooking and filling Mark Zuckerberg's bulging pockets. He is the 1%. Hope Michael Moore, who is worth 50 million, is paying his share of taxes.
Hit your foes where it hurts and don't use their services. Stop chewing up city funds with meaningless occupations. It just gives you the illusion of doing something. The 1% isn't impacted by an Oakland strike. The already broke city is.
That is true. If there had not been a strike, then there would not have been violence. Seems like common sense to me.
But I guess that is where you get confused.
No, I think YOU are the one who´s confused. Strike does not automatically mean that violence is going to come. What´s causing violence among certain individuals is not the strike but lots of other things (like for instance that the differneces between the super rich and working class are increasing day by day etc)
"the differneces between the super rich and working class are increasing day by day etc)" And a strik ein only changes that HOW? All it did, along with the occupation in general, was to cost an already hurting city money that could have ben used on schools and libraries. Our books are held together with rubber bands and you trash our lawn. Thanks a bunch.
I understand your stance but by letting people like that be part of your movement you imply endorsement of their actions. Facts are facts and the violence in Oakland was by OWS people. I've found that quite a few OWS people will say that these people are not representative of OWS yet they are still welcomed with open arms. It's all seems very hypocritical to me.
G. William Domhoff would agree with you: http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/change/science_nonviolence.html "The shocking terrorist attacks of September 11th, coming just six weeks after Genoa, add to the likelihood that any type of property destruction or confrontations with police at future demonstrations will be highly counterproductive. Such attacks would anger the overwhelming majority of Americans and meet with strong repression on the part of the government. Reassessment therefore becomes a necessity, providing an opportunity for a new start based on the realization that the property destruction and physical attacks on the police of the previous few years led the movement into a dead end. In democratic countries, social movements need to be based on a commitment to the strategic, nonviolent forms of direct action discussed throughout this document. Such a commitment leaves plenty of room to disrupt routines and get in the way of power without dividing the movement and alienating potential supporters, and it is far more effective in the long run. This commitment should include the principles put forth by advocates of strategic nonviolence for dealing with pro-violence groups. Nonviolent groups should distance themselves from violent groups and strongly condemn their philosophies and actions. Only groups that specifically state that they are completely committed to strategic nonviolence should be allowed to be co-sponsors of marches and participate in their planning. The thought of openly criticizing and then excluding some activists will make most leftists cringe, not only because their basic values are inclusionary, but because such a step would call to mind past battles over excluding Communists. Those who are excluded will say that the nonviolent activists are the equivalent of "red baiters." They will say that the nonviolent activists have violated their inclusionary principles, and are therefore hypocrites. They will say that those who would exclude them are only reformers and liberals. Most leftists thus prefer to deal with those who favor property damage or armed struggle by ignoring them or making deals with them within the privacy of the movement. That's what the nonviolent activists tried at Seattle. That's what the compromise called "diversity of tactics" is all about. But it won't work. At the same time, it is likely that most future activists would accept strategic nonviolence as their only option if they were socialized into a movement that truly believed in and understand this commitment."
It's really just a big joke, and we already knew the answer?
Ok so I support a little capitalism even if there are a few idiots in a bunch.
So i guess we all agree that there are some losers in every every group of wannabes now go home and get a life.
Im glad Oakland was willing to foot the bill for the social experiment of the century "who can act like a bigger fool".
Only a couple of people set fires..... not the whole march.
MSNBC has as its headlines - news of Lindsey Lohan and Kim Kardashian's wedding
Oakland is leading the way! A huge statement is being made. To me it's loud and clear. End police violence!
A huge statement? Rueters said "hundreds of protesters" and "commerce appeared to largely carry on as usual in the morning". I think you boys and girls would do better to go earn a living, live in a comune instead of a park, pool your money and hire a lobbyist, Better yet, go buy yourselves and island off Belize (land is cheap there) and start your very own utopia.
There seems to be some huge misunderstanding.. I am over 60, been working since I was 14. This is not about a utopia, it's real! Too much money in too few hands is destroying our country! When Eisenhower was president the highest tax rate for the super rich was 90%.
This guy with a hammer certainly looks non-violent.
So why bring a hammer to a protest unless you INTEND to get violent? He doesn't look like a carpenter...especially with those pants hanging down. Of course OWS will yell foul when this moron is arrested for vandalism; he will become a political prisoner and another posterboy for a largely impotent movement.
Oh yeah, I forget, he is an FBI plant, paid by the 1% to do this and get his picture taken doing it.
Ain't the internet great? We can all be paranoid and delusional together.
there is always the option of citizens arrest, now would that cure you of your delusion that the movement is supporting violence?
well it's not towards a person right? hehe maybe it's his expression of anger towards Wells Fargo as another multinational financial institution. though yeah, this is not really needed. Would be excited to see an insurrection soon though, but not through this anarchist means.
Oh so you think no one will be paid by agitators in order to try to discredit the movement through illegal action?
It will get much worse in the near future, for if you threaten the 1% you threaten the core of power in the United States. They will fight back somehow, but they do not want to seem openly ruthless.
Let the circus begin!
spoken like a true paranoid
wow, another person who doesn't know, or completely ignores history... color me surprised.
That's why it works...... It seems really absurd to imply anything that goes against what we think of as normal.
Of course your right! No one would ever think of hiring people to commit acts in order to discredit a non-violent movement. Just like no one would ever hire union busters, harass protestors, or even orchestrate an elaborate scheme to defraud Californians through a corporation called Enron. Silly me..... How far fetched.
Wow I like how modest he is by not showing his face. What a brave revolutionist, not scared at all to stand up what he believes in behind a mask. All I see is a punk that took the day of from kicking dogs and is breaking windows while morons stand around cheering , and if you see something else then you are a fool and deserve no ones attention.
i didn't see the other protesters encouraging this guy at all. quite the opposite.
Wasn't Oakland the same place that tried to bring us ebonics as an offical dialect? Do you people have any critical thinking skills what so ever? Guys, I did not make the rules, and I agree that not all of them are perfect, but I would like to know what you expect to accomplish by protesting? You could be out making money that could go to hire lobbists to change the system ....THAT is what the 1%ers do...hire lobbyists...if you guys want change you might think about that one....
You must be kidding me. We should work hard (where are the jobs?) so we can pay lobbyists to stop the 1%. You can not be serious. The 1% has most of the wealth and the power of our country: not by merit, but by pure power. Why you support their power is a question you need to answer.
Create your own job my friend. Start a company. Become a contract laborer. Build an app for iphone and sell it. write a book. Heck, become a preacher and sell Jesus! But produce something...ANYTHING. When you produce a product or a service that people want and need you will also become one of the 1% and then YOU can call to shots. If you cannot do that then I suppose all you can do is bitch and whine about how crappy your life is. OH wait, Thats EXACTLY what you guys are doing....lmao.
The world is closing in on people in the form of hopelessness! Everything cost to much, programs like dental care for the elderly are being shut down. Gas prices, overpopulation, mismanagement of resources, greed, greed, greed, by the powers to be who run the politicians...sure,,stay peaceful,,but I would lay money on the fact that the government will plant people in the crowd to spark a confrontation! So be it! No matter what things will come to a head,,,to much momentum to back down now! Its time to shut down the system and rebuild or it will be done for us...hang in there my friends,,,in the sixties it wasn't all peaceful either,,many died if you count Vietnam, Kent state, riots in the south, assassinations of Bobby. JFK Martin, and others,,,Who said the sixties and seventies were peaceful,,,,a statement has to made,,don't back down ever, and no compromises ever..promises are never kept!
Fabulous. You guys rock!!! Watching livestream now.
hooray...another day with no pay
Yahoo! Keep Up the Good Work. Fair-ness.
Stay strong and stay non violent Oakland! Power to the peaceful!
Listen to the band! Celebrate, celebrate, celebrate! Celebrate hope, celebrate a better life for us all. Celebrate peace! Celebrate the children!
this makes me proud to be an American, not Globalization and Corporate Greed, And Corrupted Justice Stystems ! POWER TO THE PEOPLE
It's taken 60 days for the people to go from 99% to 99 1/2%. Now is the time to shift our consciousness from I to WE www.we.net
WE The People (WE) created three petitions for WE Party Peace Ambassadors to sign.
1) Pass It Forward (http://www.change.org/petitions/pass-it-forward)
2) World Peace Petition (http://www.change.org/petitions/world-peace-petition)
3) Six Pillars of Character (http://www.change.org/petitions/we-party-peace-ambassadors)
It'll just take a minute!
Once you're done, please ask your friends to sign the petition as well. Grassroots movements succeed because people like you are willing to spread the word!
Oh yeah, all of you are peaceful, loving, non-violent people. Evidence seem otherwise. Looks like a bunch of free loaders to me. Wanting something for nothing. The most serious incident was reported in downtown Portland last night -- cops responded to calls of a Molotov cocktail being set off near the city's World Trade Center. Authorities had received unconfirmed information a week earlier that people within the Occupy Portland encampment were constructing the crudely made bomb, which is normally fashioned from a glass bottle filled with gas and a soaked rag or cloth sticking out of the opening as a wick.
At the site of the Occupy San Diego camp, street cart vendors were forced to close up shop Monday when protesters, angry that they stopped receiving free food, ransacked and vandalized the carts.
The angry mob not only scrawled graffiti on the carts, they reportedly splattered them with blood and urine as well.
In addition, the vendors received death threats, according to local radio station KNX 1070.
Last weekend, a man was walking through Zuccotti Park taking pictures of the Occupiers' camp when an unidentified man approached him and struck him in the face, leaving his victim with a laceration to the face, according to law enforcement reports.
Also in lower Manhattan, a business owner made claims that she has been terrorized and her well-being threatened by Occupiers after she prohibited them from using her store's restroom to bathe.
Stacey Tzortzatos, owner of Panini and Co., located across from Zuccotti Park, got fed up two weeks ago when demonstrators broke a bathroom sink causing flooding in the shop and leaving her with a bill of $3,000 in damages, according to the New York Post.
In Boston, homeless protesters were removed from Dewey Square after they were discovered to have knives and stashes of illegal drugs.
In Oakland, we kept them from earning their paycheck that day that they need to feed their children. We did that to THEM. We forced a day of no money on them the same way that the big banks forcibly take away their money. On that day, in Oakland, we were no different. We forcibly took away their money. From the little guy. The 99%.
In our home camp we have told the major and police chief that if violent types take us over, we're out and they can have them. We have our right to peaceably assemble. But that does mean peaceful. When we insist on doing something that breaks another persons rights, its not peaceful assembly anymore. Like for example, if we block a road and it keeps other people from using it. Then we are violating their rights and the police can take back their rights for them. If we take a park and keep the kids from playing in it on the swings, then we are violating their rights and the police can take back their rights that we took. when we blockade a port and close it and keep people from earning their paycheck, we are stealing their rights and the state can come in and take back their rights for them that we took. Just to be clear. peaceful assembly does not equal forceful occupation. We are forcefully occupying. so far the cities are being really good about working with us so we can get the message out by occupying. But in Oakland it went past the fine line, it went into destruction. I'm not going to be part of escalation, and hope that wherever you are occupying, even if you are occupying in spirit, you don't let it happen either.
100 people - that's all?
The protestors cheered on the provocateurs, and allowed them to march with sticks in their hands (later to be used to smash windows and beat fellow protestors). OWS NEEDS to come out and denounce this publicly. Many, many of the 99% are very angry about this, and will refuse to be part of this movement. Vandalism against our small main street businesses (at least one restaurant was attacked) should never, ever be allowed.
How is camping out in my financially devastated city and chewing up much needed public funds with this occupation accomplishing any of your scattered objectives? The 1% doesn't care if you sit in Oakland. Closing the port only hurt the city and, us, the Oakland residents and taxpayers.
I want to know if OWS is planning on condemning the violence that was allowed at this event. I just watched a very disturbing video in which protestors actually cheered on the provocateurs (men garbed in Ninja like outfits with masks).
I know some tried to stop them, but the march should have been shut down immediately. Also, these hooligans were allowed to march alongside the OO protestors, with sticks in their hands no less. This is not the kind of movement I want to support.
Rioting, arson, and vandalism are the tools of terrorists.
Rhetoric, assembly, and votes are the tools of protest.
Guess which OWS is?
Stop the violence or I'm out...www.valleylink1.com/occupy
MattLHolck 0 points 1 hour ago
I heard about on the BBC
US Occupy protesters clash with police at Oakland port
Protests have continued throughout the night in Oakland, California, as police clashed with demonstrators from the Occupy Wall Street group.
Police fired tear gas as a group within the protesters lit a fire and threw stones and bottles at officers.
The late-night clashes followed a day of action against "corporate greed", which saw a mass protest march in central Oakland.
Protesters shut down the city's port, one of the busiest in the US.
Around 30 people were reportedly arrested in the early hours of Thursday, and at least four protesters were brought to hospital.
Protests on Wednesday were largely peaceful until around midnight local time (07:00 GMT), when some of the protesters reportedly lit a barricade on fire.
Afterwards, police fired tear gas and "flash bang" grenades near the
Levels 1 points 57 minutes ago
I wasn't there so who knows but it only would take a couple provocateurs to go in and light some shit on fire to discredit the protest. The protestors have been very peaceful so far. But it is Oakland.
MattLHolck 1 points 54 minutes ago
people should not be lighting stuff on fire
but that did not stop the movement or the message
TechJunkie (Miami Beach, FL) 1 points 39 minutes ago
What message?!? Was shutting down the port supposed to send an anti-globalization message to somebody? Or was it just about creating a disturbance for attention and for fun? "Anarchism", in other words.
MattLHolck 1 points 38 minutes ago
it did
TechJunkie (Miami Beach, FL) 1 points 35 minutes ago
Okay well then when did the Occupy movement become an anti-globalization movement? Last night?
MattLHolck 1 points 31 minutes ago
pretty much since the beginning
OCCUPY IRELAND - "Make Bank Bondholders Pay! If They Didn't Share The Profits, Then We Won't Share The Losses!"
Fronting every police blocade or even terror, we are telling who we are. With this we must tell them who they are and say "we are the %90 and you are the %90" . The situation is slaves are hitting slaves for the lords
I'm currently taking a class on US history and we're learning about the great depression. I see such a similarity between those times and our current situation. 6000 banks failed because of greed and corruption. People began to run on credit and when it finally caught up with them no one could afford anything. The rich could live without living on loans and credit so 1% controlled 36% of the countries wealth. Who knew with greed and corruption we would return to where we were 81 years later?
We're with you Oakland!!!!! Don't give up ! It's working!!
Fronting every police blocade or even terror, we are telling who we are. With this we must tell them who they are and say "we are the %90 and you are the %90" . Slaves is hitting slaves for the lords.
from what i read. everyone took a day off and everything was peacful
No handro, it was not peaceful. Watch this video and you'll see that provocateurs were very, very busy. And, unfortunately, OO did little to stop them (some tried, but some also cheered them on). I am very, very disappointed with the OO movement:
Title should read: "Oakland strike descends into violence, chaos, and riots"
You guys in NY don't understand that you are dealing with a different culture in Oakland. There hasn't been a protest yet that didn't turn into a riot in Oakland. Not as long as I've lived here.... It ain't Zuchotti Park and these aren't hippies. These are full-time anarchist instigators.
Exactly. That's why OWS needs to distance itself from Oakland. The protestors in Oakland were chanting "Oakland does not fuck around." In other words, they don't agree with OWS, and think violence is the answer.
Oakland General Strike distends into complete riot in Oakland... Watch live here: http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/peaceful-occupy-protests-degenerate-chaos-14871717#.TrK4AWBLpD0
I'm trying hard to remain in support of your cause but someone in a leadership position or group of leaders needs to come out and denounce the violence that occurred yesterday in Oakland or this movement is going to disappear very fast.
I understand that the troublemakers were a splinter group with the sole intention of creating havoc and not conducting peaceful protests as the majority have. Whoever is commanding this ship needs to step up the anti-violence message and get it out in the media ASAP.
Yes!!! I agree!
two problems: 1> there are no leaders 2> they were likely agent provocateurs
Have you noticed that throughout history, whenever the common person protests something unjust in a non-violent manner, those in power do the nastiest, ugliest things to try to discredit them? Likely the same thing here.
No real or lasting change will be born out of violence and destruction. Protesters need to be trained in nonviolent protest techniques. People will turn away from this movement if it takes a violent turn. Do not be enslaved by the bonds of violence that have dominated our planet. Break free and create a new world order with love and peace. Violence cannot be condoned.
I just heard that the police are attacking the protesters again.
I support people in the USA, in my own country of the UK, and all around the world, demonstrating for change in the system we live under. It's desperately needed. By coincidence (or are these things fated?), I am already working on two comic books that directly connect to the problem that the #ows movements are highlighting. You can check them out here:
Let's keep at it!
I just heard that the police are attacking the protesters again.
I wonder about the overall wisdom of this. Oakland is an impoverished city that votes Democratic. The protests have cost the city millions already.
Why not instead impose those costs on Republican areas? While both parties are guilty of being captured by the wealthy elite, the Republicans are far worse.
Take Eric Cantor...the poster child for government by and for the 1%. Why not take the protests to Cantor's district?? Why not impose the cost and inconvenience on the people who put him in office?? One thing for sure: They hate taxes. Why not let their tax dollars pay for dealing with the protests, instead of a city like Oakland??
I would really like to see the protests include the Republican areas that so strongly support policies that drive income inequality. Go after Boehner's district and Ryan's -- and incovenience the people who voted for a moron like Michele Bachmann. Protest in Rick Perry's back yard. Let Texas taxpayers eat the expense of dealing with it.
Also, a lot of Repubican strongholds are in the South, and protesting there will be easier in winter. Sarasota FL is supposedly the "meanest city in the USA" for the way they treat the homeless....what a great (and warm) place for a protest.
Dr. King took his protests to the South. Maybe OWS should do the same.
I wonder about the overall wisdom of this. Oakland is an impoverished city that votes Democratic. The protests have cost the city millions already.
Why not instead impose those costs on Republican areas? While both parties are guilty of being captured by the wealthy elite, the Republicans are far worse.
Take Eric Cantor...the poster child for government by and for the 1%. Why not take the protests to Cantor's district?? Why not impose the cost and inconvenience on the people who put him in office?? One thing for sure: They hate taxes. Why not let their tax dollars pay for dealing with the protests, instead of a city like Oakland??
I would really like to see the protests include the Republican areas that so strongly support policies that drive income inequality. Go after Boehner's district and Ryan's -- and incovenience the people who voted for a moron like Michele Bachmann. Protest in Rick Perry's back yard. Let Texas taxpayers eat the expense of dealing with it.
Also, a lot of Repubican strongholds are in the South, and protesting there will be easier in winter. Sarasota FL is supposedly the "meanest city in the USA" for the way they treat the homeless....what a great (and warm) place for a protest.
Dr. King took his protests to the South. Maybe OWS should do the same.
I wonder about the overall wisdom of this. Oakland is an impoverished city that votes Democratic. The protests have cost the city millions already.
Why not instead impose those costs on Republican areas? While both parties are guilty of being captured by the wealthy elite, the Republicans are far worse.
Take Eric Cantor...the poster child for government by and for the 1%. Why not take the protests to Cantor's district?? Why not impose the cost and inconvenience on the people who put him in office?? One thing for sure: They hate taxes. Why not let their tax dollars pay for dealing with the protests, instead of a city like Oakland??
I would really like to see the protests include the Republican areas that so strongly support policies that drive income inequality. Go after Boehner's district and Ryan's -- and incovenience the people who voted for a moron like Michele Bachmann. Protest in Rick Perry's back yard. Let Texas taxpayers eat the expense of dealing with it.
Also, a lot of Repubican strongholds are in the South, and protesting there will be easier in winter. Sarasota FL is supposedly the "meanest city in the USA" for the way they treat the homeless....what a great (and warm) place for a protest.
Dr. King took his protests to the South. Maybe OWS should do the same.
I wonder about the overall wisdom of this. Oakland is an impoverished city that votes Democratic. The protests have cost the city millions already.
Why not instead impose those costs on Republican areas? While both parties are guilty of being captured by the wealthy elite, the Republicans are far worse.
Take Eric Cantor...the poster child for government by and for the 1%. Why not take the protests to Cantor's district?? Why not impose the cost and inconvenience on the people who put him in office?? One thing for sure: They hate taxes. Why not let their tax dollars pay for dealing with the protests, instead of a city like Oakland??
I would really like to see the protests include the Republican areas that so strongly support policies that drive income inequality. Go after Boehner's district and Ryan's -- and incovenience the people who voted for a moron like Michele Bachmann. Protest in Rick Perry's back yard. Let Texas taxpayers eat the expense of dealing with it.
Also, a lot of Repubican strongholds are in the South, and protesting there will be easier in winter. Sarasota FL is supposedly the "meanest city in the USA" for the way they treat the homeless....what a great (and warm) place for a protest.
Dr. King took his protests to the South. Maybe OWS should do the same.
pls send one ngo male-female couple to india in bombay at my home dr kamran khan cell 00919890414448 to boost this public cause from india i shall bear their all expenses in india and will provide them all facilities and security etc
Although I understand the intent, I hope that the American people can take control and regain their power with their priorities and pocket books. They enable this behavior by patronizing the businesses that they object to or by owning stocks and mutual funds in those same companies. We are driven by the media with our consumer oriented mentality.
Although I understand the intent, I hope that the American people can take control and regain their power with their priorities and pocket books. They enable this behavior by patronizing the businesses that they object to or by owning stocks and mutual funds in those same companies. We are driven by the media with our consumer oriented mentality.
Although I understand the intent, I hope that the American people can take control and regain their power with their priorities and pocket books. They enable this behavior by patronizing the businesses that they object to or by owning stocks and mutual funds in those same companies. We are driven by the media with our consumer oriented mentality.
Although I understand the intent, I hope that the American people can take control and regain their power with their priorities and pocket books. They enable this behavior by patronizing the businesses that they object to or by owning stocks and mutual funds in those same companies. We are driven by the media with our consumer oriented mentality.
Although I understand the intent, I hope that the American people can take control and regain their power with their priorities and pocket books. They enable this behavior by patronizing the businesses that they object to or by owning stocks and mutual funds in those same companies. We are driven by the media with our consumer oriented mentality.
Although I understand the intent, I hope that the American people can take control and regain their power with their priorities and pocket books. They enable this behavior by patronizing the businesses that they object to or by owning stocks and mutual funds in those same companies. We are driven by the media with our consumer oriented mentality.
In solidarity Oakland. Hold it down on the west coast brothers and sisters. Come November 17th we shut down the east coasts' largest city down. New York will bow down to the power of the working class. New York's elite will realize if it doesn't start serving its people, its people will stop serving New York.
Power to the people, for the future is in our hands.
Resist. Unite. Occupy
take the power back working class and exploited masses! am glad this non violent general strike is a success! there is strength in numbers!
i can smell the revolution, the insurrection coming to break the chains of capitalism soon. continue building your mass base people, arouse, organize, mobilize! educate na people of what's going on the society!
"freedom in a capitalist society is freedom in chains!" - Vladimir Lenin
Stay safe, stay strong, good luck!
any form of show arms or intent of arm object is unacceptable ,it is desirable object of chaos desire.
The 5 minute montage with V.O. explaining modern slavery (Open Message to the 99%) is excellent. Please keep playing it.
You know what I've been saying this kind of thing isn't productive but I think I'm starting to change my mind about that.
there are over 5k protestors today!
They don't want the "small towns" with their "small minds" understanding what is truly going on in the world. Therefore, it is up to YOU to link up to the dis-informed by commenting in every small-town newspaper that you can find to "wake up" the sleeping masses.
This is our job; both yours and mine...
The Destructionist
who the heck is the 1% anyways? lets have some NAMES?
Last I heard, the top 2% of earners in this country were paying approximately 60% of the total tax.
That is like saying we have 100 people in a room for dinner and the bill for dinner is one hundred bucks. Two guys pay 30 bucks a piece and the rest (98%) pay about 50 cents each...and you guys want to get rid of these dudes at the top? What happens then hmmm? How you plantot pay for critical services like police, fire and ambulance with no tax base? How you plan to drive down the street with no gas for your car cause you got rid of the oil cartel and no money to repair the street itself?
Geez you boys and girls need a lesson in economics.
What is the tax rate for the top 2% of earners? Its not the amount that is a problem. The big problem is that the guy with 60,000 dollars has to use 30% of it to pay his taxes, but the guy with 500,000,000 is paying a considerably smaller percentage. However, each depends on the other for survival. Why is the one with less money taxed at a higher rate? More money fewer taxes? That does not seem very sensible. Make them pay their damn taxes. If they want wars then let them fund them out of their own pockets! If they commit fraud then let them go to jail!
Please give me an economics lesson Hughmann. Its simple math from what I can see. It has been simple from the beginning. More for them and that's the sum of it all. There is no other answer for the privileged.
your are right lets just take them all put bullets in their heads.
Guys, this footage is REALLY not gonna help you....It shows like 10 peole walking down a four lane...hardly impressive.
Go Oakland! Granpa Marx would be might proud with your general strike! Socialist revolution now! Democracy now! Long live international solidarity!
I appreciate what's going on in Oakland, Wall Street and throughout the United States. I admire the fact that these protesters are willing to sacrifice themselves in order to re-establish that long-lost power of "The 99%".
Hopefully, such LIVE streams will continue, so that I can present my readers with abject reality...
The Destructionist
To protest the behavior of big banks, thousands have pledged to switch to small credit unions on November 5. Follow these steps to simplify the process. http://www.yesmagazine.org/new-economy/a-field-guide-to-closing-your-bank-account
now THAT is the first good idea I have heard out of you guys. Doesn't even have to be a credit union, it could be a small regional bank. You want an entity out of power...quit using their product.
Think bus strike of the 60'sand you will be on the right track because this stuff you guys are doing at the moment is pretty impotent and laughable.
just keep walking
Anyone thinking that shutting down Oakland did any harm to big business must still believe in Santa Claus. The only ones harmed by shutting down Oakland were small business owners and the people who work in them.
Anyone thinking that shutting down Oakland did any harm to big business must still believe in Santa Claus. The only ones harmed by shutting down Oakland were small business owners and the people who work in them.
But it makes them feel so powerful when they smash in windows and attack the police! They could care less about the small business owners-ask the ones that have had to let people go in NewYork because of their protests.
What are you doing to stop Wall Street's looting of our public treasury? Answer that question.
I guess you are doing a lot to stop the looting of the public treasury by the Wall Street "banks". I guess you think its ok for the top 1% to rob us through their power. If you do not like OWS, what are you doing to stop Wall Street?
Wall Street doesn't have to loot the public treasury-the people in charge of it just write them big fat checks! As far as I know, Wall Street hasn't robbed me of anything that was mine. I don't give people or organizations the "power" to do that.
Do you know why they can repossess your house? Because it BELONGS TO THEM until you pay them for it. Do you know why you have to repay student loans-(the word LOAN should be a big tip off-they don't call them student gifts ya know)-because you BORROWED something that was THEIRS from them with the promise to PAY IT BACK to them.
Technically, you want to ROB them-using the "power" of force and pressure and public outcry. You're the ones hoping to loot the public treasury for your own interests.
Actually justthefacts, the house does not belong to them. You the owner have the deed, therefore YOU own it...HOWEVER, when you borrowed the money, you signed (in that humongous pile of papers) two documents...A promissory note and a mortgage.
The promissory note is your legally binding promise to pay back the house note under certain terms that you and the bank agree on; like interest, payment, time, etc.
The mortgage which you also sign is a legal instrument that allows the bank to repossess your home if you fail to live up to the terms of the promissory note. This is the document banks use to foreclose on a home.
Sorry to have to correct you as you and I normally agree on this forum, but if we are going to educate these OWS morons, we want to give them all the most correct information we can.
( I am a real estate investor for a living and have bought or sold so many homes that I have now lost count so I know the paperwork pretty well at this point.)
I agree with you, but in my mind, if the property is the collateral involved in the transaction, then it does not become fully MINE until my obligation to the mortgagee is fulfilled. It's just how I operate. :-)
Cool. I can live with that...
However, the point about who owns what is an important one. There are homeowners in Georgia and Florida who have used the fact that many banks do not keep the original documents or the originals get lost in the shuffle of banks selling off notes to other banks to keep their homes even through a foreclosure because the bank cannot produce the documents to properly foreclose. It does not stop the process permanently, but has bought the homeowners more time (like bankruptcy does) to get their finances together in order to keep their home.
Take care and keep helping me educate the 99%..lol :)
where are they marching too
You are there because I can't be. For everyone of that is there at OO General Strike there are hundreds more supporting you! Keep strong and nonviolent!
OK, So for those of us who cannot join forces in person, what kinds of things can we do? Boycotts? Any suggestions?
A stain on an otherwise fantastic event today as "anarchists" attack:
http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/131194619/Getty-Images-News http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/131194311/Getty-Images-News
These guys are either agent provocatuers or complete idiots. Either way, I hope the General Assemblies in Oakland and OWS issue some strong consensus against this kind of behavior -- ASAP-- because if it we don't speak out against this loud and clear it's just more fodder for the anti-occupy crowd to try to discredit the movement and keep peaceful 99 percenters (the vast majority now) from joining, not to mention giving police and excuse for more brutality.
To agree with the need for OWS General Assemblies to condemn violence, see: http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/change/science_nonviolence.html "The shocking terrorist attacks of September 11th, coming just six weeks after Genoa, add to the likelihood that any type of property destruction or confrontations with police at future demonstrations will be highly counterproductive. Such attacks would anger the overwhelming majority of Americans and meet with strong repression on the part of the government. Reassessment therefore becomes a necessity, providing an opportunity for a new start based on the realization that the property destruction and physical attacks on the police of the previous few years led the movement into a dead end. In democratic countries, social movements need to be based on a commitment to the strategic, nonviolent forms of direct action discussed throughout this document. Such a commitment leaves plenty of room to disrupt routines and get in the way of power without dividing the movement and alienating potential supporters, and it is far more effective in the long run. This commitment should include the principles put forth by advocates of strategic nonviolence for dealing with pro-violence groups. Nonviolent groups should distance themselves from violent groups and strongly condemn their philosophies and actions. Only groups that specifically state that they are completely committed to strategic nonviolence should be allowed to be co-sponsors of marches and participate in their planning. ... Most leftists thus prefer to deal with those who favor property damage or armed struggle by ignoring them or making deals with them within the privacy of the movement. That's what the nonviolent activists tried at Seattle. That's what the compromise called "diversity of tactics" is all about. But it won't work. At the same time, it is likely that most future activists would accept strategic nonviolence as their only option if they were socialized into a movement that truly believed in and understand this commitment."
i agree completely, this movement must proceed by non-violent means or else it has already failed. it is important that the OWS stand in solidarity denouncing the destruction and violence toward the police that happened in Oakland.
Oh Yes, a "strong consensus" will certainly stop criminal minds from committing crimes....wow, I wish I could be that cool...You guys walk on water too? If you can I have some water I would like turned into wine so we can all party a bit.
can't believe i bit before... 9/10 very nice troll
The REAL 99% of this country IS forming a very strong consensus about OWS....and it's not in their favor. A lot of them are planning to use footage like this at their next city council meetings to form tougher laws and create tougher actions AGAINST allowing this to ever happen again. Way to go!
Amen my brother! Perhaps we can kill all the welfare programs first and then these guys can go get jobs and contribute to society like the rest of us!
Aha! I now see that the crowd stopped the anarchists from going further (wish the photographer had mentioned that in his captions). AWESOME! Still, a statement against this ought to come, as well as statements before any more strikes (let there be lots to come!) that violence against people or property will not be tolerated.
But they also CHEERED them on! And allowed them to march with sticks in their hands (later to be used to smash windows and beat fellow protestors). OWS NEEDS to come out and denounce this publicly. Many, many of the 99% are very angry about this, and will refuse to be part of this movement. Vandalism against our small main street businesses (at least one restaurant was attacked) should never, ever happen.
A Little Bit of Tax History
The Path Not Taken: How New York State Increased the Tax Burden on the Middle Class and Cut Taxes for its Highest Income Taxpayers by Over $8 Billion a Year
In 1972, New York State had a personal income tax with 14 brackets, ranging from a low of 2% to a high of 15%.
Since that time the state government has significantly restructured the state personal income tax in a variety of ways. Among the changes that have been made since 1972 has been a move to something that is much closer to a flat tax. This has been done by eliminating brackets from both the bottom and the top of the old structure.
For example, the lowest rate in the old structure was 2%. But the 2% and 3% brackets have been eliminated, so the lowest rate is now 4%.
At the other end of the spectrum, even more brackets have been eliminated. The 15%, 14%, 13%, 12%, 11%, 10% 9%, 8%, and 7% brackets are all gone.
New York now has a 5-bracket/5-rate system, with both the 5 rates and the 5 brackets in very tight ranges.
All five of New York's current rates are between 4% (the current lowest rate) and 6.85% (the current highest rate).
Where's the DRUMMER?! "Stop and Frisk has got to go. We say NO to the new Jim Crow!"
NOW FINALLY feeling proud to be an American. Go OWS Oakland!
The story of 99% and 1% in America: http://forthetimebeing.persianblog.ir/post/57
OAKLAND, Calif (Reuters) - Hundreds of protesters took to the streets of downtown Oakland on Wednesday, blocking a major intersection in what they called a general strike to protest economic conditions and police brutality in the city.
But despite appeals by Occupy Oakland organizers to "shut down" the Bay Area city, commerce appeared to largely carry on as usual in the morning, with most businesses remaining open and workers going off to their jobs.
"I don't really feel striking is necessary. I work for a small company, I don't work for Bank of America," said Rebecca Leung, 33, who was headed to her job at an architectural lighting sales company.
Wow, HUNDREDS! Can you just imagine the humanity. It's like the line at a movie theater . . . it's that huge. This will go down in history.
Under the constitution we are supposedly guaranteed the right to life, liberty and protection, we are not guaranteed any of this under a capitalist system.
Even if you are willing to work 40, 50, 60 hours per week in exchange for equal access and equal treatment, food, housing and good health you will not get it.
Capitalism requires cheap labor, capitalism in America thrived at the expense of slavery and oppression that continues today.
Every American that does not have food, housing, good health and protection can file a lawsuit against the federal government for not upholding the constitution.
When the economy is "poor" we are left homeless and without food (life) we are then forced to do what we can to survive and loose (liberty) the conditions under which we are forced to live are damaging to people (protection).
Capitalism is Unconstitutional
establish a true democracy, equal rights and world peace - http://wesower.org
no more lies and bombing of foreign nations to steal resources and impose our failed system of government.
join the discussion -- http://occupywallst.org/forum/capitalism-is-unconstitutional/
Have we stormed the Winter Palace yet?
"AGENTS PROVOCATEURS" posing as "the Oakland Liberation Front"
The "Oakland Tribune" published this morning an article on the city-wide general strike which may bring thousands to downtown Oakland.
The last two paragraphs tell me that there are rogue elements in Occupy Oakland or "AGENTS PROVOCATEURS" who may do untold harm to the "Occupy" Movement as a whole :
"Some demonstrators, calling themselves the Oakland Liberation Front, have distributed fliers condemning pacifism and calling for "the complete annihilation of capitalism." "Are you a pacifist?" the flier headline says. It goes on, "How dare you even ask for nonviolence, when violence has already been used by the police?"
This call to violence is madness and would NOT serve the Movement at all but, on the contrary, only play ito the hands of the 1%!!!!!!!!!
DON'T FALL FOR THIS, OWS!!! This is an obvious PLOY. Please condemn in the strongest possible terms this phony group and tell the media that they have NOTHING to do with OWS.
NOTE : The full text of the article may be found here :
This is exactly what happened 40 years ago in the socialist revolutionary and antiwar movements, attempts to turn the movement violent. These extremists were often FBI and police agents who wanted to destroy the movement. That's why the group I was in continued to fight for for legal, peaceful mobilizations against the war in Vietnam, because millions could join a peaceful movement but wouldn't risk arrest or getting caught in violent confrontations. It was those mass mobilizations along with the heroic Vietnamese struggle that finally ended the war.
A successful lawsuit against COINTELPRO, a government covert program against the left and anyone who made a so much as a peep against inequality,forced the government to end lot of the infiltrations, which had gone on for DECADES, although not all. Although some genuine activists then and now, who support the cause of working people, don't understand why we have to involve the majority, the 99%, by calling for violence they'll only succeed in isolating the movement. Also, they'll confuse people about the real cause of violence in our society. Violence is evicting people from their homes; dumping them from their jobs; stealing education and hospital funds through budget cuts; no safe, affordable childcare and eldercare, and all the other inequities we are protesting.
Please keep up the great work!
To support your point about the importance of non-violence: http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/change/science_nonviolence.html "For current-day egalitarians, a commitment to the freedoms and democratic procedures won by past egalitarians can provide the primary foundation for the practice of nonviolence, although some of them also draw upon their religious values as well. This democratic commitment has the added virtue of narrowing the gap between egalitarians and mainstream liberals. In addition, a nonviolence orientation can be sustained by the knowledge that it helps to keep the egalitarian movement itself more democratic; it ensures that violence-prone dominators will not take over the movement and subvert its democratic aims. As many historical cases suggest, the most violent people soon rise to the top once the possibility of violence is introduced, and they often use their loyal followers to intimidate or kill rivals. ... [Given] the freedoms, civil liberties, and voting rights achieved by a long line of American egalitarians and liberals, there is no end that could be justified by violence, property destruction, or armed struggle in this country. Such actions undercut the democratic rights won by past egalitarians and play into the hands of the government, which has the power to isolate and defeat any violent movement. Furthermore, property damage and armed struggle of any kind are overwhelmingly rejected by the vast majority of the American people. Due to their appreciation of the freedoms they do enjoy, and despite the economic unfairness they recognize and experience, average Americans are repelled by violent political acts, whether by right wingers or left wingers. If the goal is to build a larger movement that connects to a strategy to take over and transform the Democratic Party, not just to force the authorities to react to one or another provocation with slight reforms, then violence makes no sense. It is therefore both immoral and counterproductive for American egalitarians to employ violent strategies. Or, as Cesar Chavez used to say about violence when he was leading the farm worker's movement, it's wrong and it's stupid."
Darned, I just lost my reply when I clicked on the website, which I really want to read--isn't Domhoff the author of Who Rules America?
I mentioned a comment in the post that just evaporated, that "the Democratic Party has been the graveyard of every progressive movement in the 20th century"--now we can include the 21st.
I agree, who in their right mind would champion violence, but the violence comes from the rulers, who won't give up their power without a struggle. But that's why the Trotskyist group I was in long ago always used what they called a defensive formulation--to never allow yourself to be characterized as the aggressor, that you were just defending your democratic right--to organize, strike; vote; etc. It's important to point out that the violence is perpetrated against the working class, and to combat the idea that we're causing the violence.
When reporters asked Malcolm X, do you believe in violence, he replied no, he didn't, but when the Americans turned their guns on the British in 1776, was that violence? He was talking about the the need for armed self defense in the Black community, where police brutality, including murder, was even worse than it is today. But he was still careful not to allow himself to be characterized as the aggressor.
I do agree with what you've written about the American people rejecting violence. And that democratic principles are important within the movement organizations themselves (although I don't agree with OWS's position of allowing one person to exercise a Block--for all we know, they could be a police or FBI infiltrator).
In fact, what you describe about progressive groups getting taken over from within is exactly why the group I belonged to in 1969 and the early 70's, the Socialist Workers Party, self-destructed, although it wasn't from physical violence against the membership. A certain faction in the SWP national office instigated expulsions of a number of long-time leaders who had different opinions, and came up with so-called Leninist reasons these leaders were not allowed to organize as a faction around their point of view within the party. As a result, the SWP no longer exists as a viable force, and what remains over over 2000 people in its heyday is now a small, insignificant group that abstains from actively supporting a number of important struggles (including opposition to deportations of Haitian refugees by the US government in the early 1990's--in fact, it took a wealthy, liberal capitalist law firm to spearhead the struggle, which shows things aren't always black and white, excuse a pun . And, unfortunately, today the SWP virtually ignoring OWS, even though I've begged them to get involved.
Thanks again for your terrific reply, and I'm going to check out that website.
BTW, on moving beyond addiction in a society, which would free up a lot of energy for OWS:
Thanks for the reply, and yes, Domhoff wrote "Who Rules America".
On violence, the bottom line is the state is good at using violence against citizens (think, endless well-trained police and SWAT teams, many just itching to have a justified excuse to be a "hero"). Almost any excuse to use violence by the state is not going to be passed up, because one of the big things that justifies the state is a monopoly on violence. For people within the state, any excuse to be violent is useful (as in, "see, you really do need us to protect you from those violent radicals..."). So, violence is a losing game, both because the state has the physical resources and the legal monopoly on violence, but also because, as another poster said, it's probably easy to get violence started in a country with 250+ million small arms in homes, but how do you stop it? And a power vacuum can lead to even more violence. It is easy for people in the USA to not think about how bad things could get; see, for example, what happened in Argentina as a result of neoliberal economics: http://www.survival-spot.com/survival-blog/argentina-collapse/
The situation you mention reminds me of another thing Domhoff wrote about "left" and "right": http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/change/left_and_right.html "But these similarities in moral fervor and in the narrative structure of the Left and Right's views of history do not fully explain how Leftists often end up in very rigid parties and perhaps eventually willing to call for revolutionary violence or engage in physical attacks on property and/or persons. A larger theory is therefore needed."
Reading that, where he essentially says the Right is very rule-oriented but the Left is very human-need-oriented, I realized that a major reason rules and well-respected leaders working in effective hierarchies are useful is to prevent "parasitism" as well as internal conflict. Rules to prevent parasitism gets to be a problem when the parasites manipulate the rules of course (we see that a lot now in the USA with the foxes regulating fox behavior around the chickens).
But, when movements tried to be "leaderless" or always redefining themselves and spending endless time on process and related conflicts, there are probably lots of chances for some parasites to get into control of the system. (To be clear, even people called parasites or acting that way may mean well or be good people in other ways, but essentially still destroy the host for whatever reasons.)
Your example of a law firm spearheading a struggle is another example of why I agree with Manuel De Landa that all real systems are mixes of meshworks and hierarchies: http://www.t0.or.at/delanda/meshwork.htm
The US Greens have had some similar wheel spinning struggles. One also needs to build a movement assuming you'll have active disruption by the establishment and "agent provocateurs" and so on it seems. And one way to cope with the threat of disruptive elements planted by any establishment is to be transparent and to reject any proposal for violence. It is harder for disruptive elements to function consistently in transparent organizations built on strong moral principles; it's kind of like how anaerobic bacteria can't function in the presence of oxygen. Build the kind of movement where a police officer or FBI agent would be proud to be part of it, and it will most likely succeed.
What would such a movement look like? Much of OWS? But that is a big challenge, of course, to stay within the law (or, at most, skirt it with principled non-violent civil disobedience) while still being effective in a world that is so busy consuming and being addicted, with the movement still getting attention and recruits and helping make healthy change. But it is the only viable option. And non-violence is the only moral option even if violent options were viable too, given once violence starts there is no telling where it ends, or how much any movement would be corrupted by it as the most violent people rise to the top (like Stalin in the USSR), or who would get hurt in the process. Our weapons have gotten so powerful, we truly need "A New Way Of Thinking": http://www.anwot.org/
If 50% of working people in a community just did a legal strike, deciding just not to cooperate, that would sure wake people up. And stuff like that happens in Western Europe all the time still (and is one reason governments in Europe seem somewhat more accountable). If people take their money out of the big banks and put it in credit unions, that sends a message. If people decide to stop buying junky food, that sends a message. If people help each other learn how to stay healthy without so much doctoring, that sends a message. And so on. There are lessons OWS can learn from both the environmental movement and from the civil rights movement (as different as both of them were).
Hi, Derek, this is a lot of information, and I'm going to take a look at those websites. Thanks for a lot of intriguing ideas, which I want to think about more. I'm don't know, though, if the issue is police itching to carry out violence, but I haven't figured out the police issue enough--although I agree they represent the 1%. They seems to be an insulated culture with a long history of racism, even though there are individual police who are very nice people and you can tell they see their job as protecting the people, not the 1%. But I just read something good on the Socialist Action website, that said that even though their pay ranks the police with the 99%, their job and loyalties ally them with the 1%.
I love OWS, but it's got to get so much more tough and structured. But, wow, in the meantime, another great action called, take your money out of banks day, This momentum's unbelievable. I looked at the video footage on the New Yorker website and here of Oakland on Nov 2, and kept saying to myself, "Oh, my God. Oh, my God. Oh, my God. Oh, my God." You could feel that energy. This movement is already HUGE. But it really will depend on concerned, solid radical citizens like us to keep nipping at the movement's legs so it doesn't go off in the wrong direction. I'm reading about what happened in Zucotti Park with the rapes, and for lack of a clear program, OWS seems to have made some very serious mistakes, with legal repercussions (not turning over a rapist to the police, just getting him out of the park, which allowed him to return and rape a second woman a couple days later).
Did you see the new statements on the website? OWS is doing such a phenomenal job, and finding its way as it goes, but you can see what happens without a revolutionary program (or any program). Did you get a chance to look at the Socialist Action website? I think I'm going to try to reach them on the phone.
After being really pissed that what's left of the SWP is essentially abstaining from OWS, I changed my mind and decided I'm glad they're staying out! They really self-destructed beginning in the 1970's when they lost all pretense of internal democracy and expelled some of their best, long-time members. Sorry, I'm getting a little off track, so I'll take a look at those website, and let me get back to you. I've got a couple deadlines looming, and I don't want to just dash something off in the meantime because these are very important ideas to consider.
Thanks, Derek, and have a great weekend. I'll be in touch.
Judy in Lower Manhattan
Thanks again and more later.
Interesting SWP history on Wikipedia -- is it reasonably accurate? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_Workers_Party_%28United_States%29#1970s_and_new_leadership
I was not sure which new statements you were referring to on the website?
Interesting sheepdog / cattledog metaphor. :-)
It seems the police may have caught the (alleged) attacker: http://gothamist.com/2011/11/02/occupy_wall_street_kitchen_worker_a.php
And there is this: http://occupywallst.org/forum/transforming-harm-building-safety/
Now if only that official sentiment decrying sexual violence could be extended to decrying physical violence and property damage by anyone claiming connection to OWS... Perhaps our society is progressing one step at a time?
Socialist Action mentions "permanent revolution": http://www.socialistaction.org/nutshell.htm
Bob Black suggests "permanent revelry" instead: :-) http://idlenest.freehostia.com/mirror/www.whywork.org/rethinking/whywork/abolition.html "Liberals say we should end employment discrimination. I say we should end employment. Conservatives support right-to-work laws. Following Karl Marx's wayward son-in-law Paul Lafargue, I support the right to be lazy. Leftists favor full employment. Like the surrealists -- except that I'm not kidding -- I favor full unemployment. Trotskyists agitate for permanent revolution. I agitate for permanent revelry. But if all the ideologues (as they do) advocate work -- and not only because they plan to make other people do theirs -- they are strangely reluctant to say so. They will carry on endlessly about wages, hours, working conditions, exploitation, productivity, profitability. They'll gladly talk about anything but work itself. These experts who offer to do our thinking for us rarely share their conclusions about work, for all its saliency in the lives of all of us. Among themselves they quibble over the details. Unions and management agree that we ought to sell the time of our lives in exchange for survival, although they haggle over the price. Marxists think we should be bossed by bureaucrats. Libertarians think we should be bossed by businessmen. Feminists don't care which form bossing takes, so long as the bosses are women. Clearly these ideology-mongers have serious differences over how to divvy up the spoils of power. Just as clearly, none of them have any objection to power as such and all of them want to keep us working."
Not to agree with everything he says, but he has a deep point about rethinking "work" that seems often missed by many movements that take our infrastructure and means of production as a given, not something that reflects our political values.
Why is a "basic income" not on this program? http://www.socialistaction.org/actionprogram.htm
I think mandating limited working hours as suggested at the socialist action misses the point of how much our economy is changing and how the nature of work can change (as much as I would support it for factory work or any unpleasant work). This is the deeper issue these days about motivation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc
And about a 21st century society: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AC7ANGMy0yo
So, some of the Socialist Action stuff just feels a little out of date to me (as well meaning as it is or as much it might be progressive from where we are).
Basically, more and more work is being automated. If you raise wages or cut hours, you make it more likely companies to automate faster. So ultimately we need something like a basic income as social security for all from birth as a right of citizenship (or an even deeper rethink of society) to deal with that.
Thanks for the thoughful reply. On the issue of the police and their loyalties, you mgiht find this by Howard Zinn of interest: http://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon1/zinncomrev24.html
From there: "However, the unexpected victories-even temporary ones-of insurgents show the vulnerability of the supposedly powerful. In a highly developed society, the Establishment cannot survive without the obedience and loyalty of millions of people who are given small rewards to keep the system going: the soldiers and police, teachers and ministers, administrators and social workers, technicians and production workers, doctors, lawyers, nurses, transport and communications workers, garbage men and firemen. These people-the employed, the somewhat privileged-are drawn into alliance with the elite. They become the guards of the system, buffers between the upper and lower classes. If they stop obeying, the system falls. That will happen, I think, only when all of us who are slightly privileged and slightly uneasy begin to see that we are like the guards in the prison uprising at Attica—expendable; that the Establishment, whatever rewards it gives us, will also, if necessary to maintain its control, kill us. Certain new facts may, in our time, emerge so clearly as to lead to general withdrawal of loyalty from the system. The new conditions of technology, economics, and war, in the atomic age, make it less and less possible for the guards of the system-the intellectuals, the home owners, the taxpayers, the skilled workers, the professionals, the servants of government-to remain immune from the violence (physical and psychic) inflicted on the black, the poor, the criminal, the enemy overseas. The internationalization of the economy, the movement of refugees and illegal immigrants across borders, both make it more difficult for the people of the industrial countries to be oblivious to hunger and disease in the poor countries of the world. All of us have become hostages in the new conditions of doomsday technology, runaway economics, global poisoning, uncontainable war. The atomic weapons, the invisible radiations, the economic anarchy, do not distinguish prisoners from guards, and those in charge will not be scrupulous in making distinctions. There is the unforgettable response of the U.S. high command to the news that American prisoners of war might be near Nagasaki: "Targets previously assigned for Centerboard remain unchanged." There is evidence of growing dissatisfaction among the guards. We have known for some time that the poor and ignored were the nonvoters, alienated from a political system they felt didn't care about them, and about which they could do little. Now alienation has spread upward into families above the poverty line. These are white workers, neither rich nor poor, but angry over economic insecurity, unhappy with their work, worried about their neighborhoods, hostile to government- combining elements of racism with elements of class consciousness, contempt for the lower classes along with distrust for the elite, and thus open to solutions from any direction, right or left."
Still, a big worry of that the USA might end up like Argentina or Columbia if things get out of hand. Example from Columbia related to the news today about a leader of FARC being killed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Violencia
I am disappointed that the main page of this side says only "encourage" as in: "We are using the revolutionary Arab Spring tactic to achieve our ends and encourage the use of nonviolence to maximize the safety of all participants."
It should say "insist on", and not just to maximize safety, but to ensure the OWS is effective. As it is now, OWS seems heading for more problems until that changes.
And it better change fast, as stuff like this is destroying OWS credibiilty: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57319036/is-black-bloc-hijacking-occupy-oakland/ ""I see Black Bloc as a tactic, not really as a movement," said Ryan Andreola, an Occupy demonstrator. He said he believes in non-violence but is not ready to condemn the tactics of the Black Bloc. "As individuals," said Andreola, "we respect people's freedom to act they way that they feel they have to act to make the changes they wish to see.""
This shows a failure of OWS to educate its own demonstrators about the principles on non-violent social change and why violence is a non-started in the USA and will only hurt OWS (let alone anyone else as it can quickly get out of hand).
Still, there is concern, so maybe it will improve: http://occupywallst.org/forum/if-it-has-not-been-done-already-the-ows-needs-to-p/
Hi, Derek, thank you, and its going to take me a while to catch up with all the great links you've provided. I was very interested in your thoughts on Socialist Action.
In the meantime, I remembered, we're facing a catastrophic assault against the 99%, and, with your permission, would like to take advantage of these reply spaces to send out the following request:
URGENT PROPOSAL: OWS to call for a massive EMERGENCY national action including all our union support, to oppose Congress's upcoming attempt to impose--is it a trillion dollars?--in cutbacks to social programs that the 99% depend on. Obama will prove useless in opposing the cuts, so WE HAVE TO STOP THEM! I'm referring to the virtual dismantling of essential social programs, using the deficit as an excuse. In an hour-long talk on YouTube to Occupy Boston, Noam Chomsky describes this projected assault on the 99% as a dagger aimed straight at the heart of the country.
Thank you, everyone.
Thanks for the reply and the call to action.
I don't understand why more people just don't get that cutbacks are the exact same thing that extended the Great Depression until the government finally (with WWII) started printing and spending a lot of money that it could have just spent years earlier on social programs. How can any even decently intelligent Republican not see that? For example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Hoover#Great_Depression "Calls for greater government assistance increased as the U.S. economy continued to decline. Hoover rejected direct federal relief payments to individuals, as he believed that a dole would be addictive, and reduce the incentive to work. He was also a firm believer in balanced budgets, and was unwilling to run a budget deficit to fund welfare programs."
Sounds just like the Republicans today. Though to his credit, Hoover at least did a lot more than Obama or the Republicans (like raising taxes on the wealthy).
Why do people need incentives to work now anyway when there is so much automation, and when creative work is done better if not for material rewards? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc
Even some mild inflation from the government creating money either by printing or borrowing is mostly just a tax on people who are hoarding cash, anyway. Our money supply is the amount of money time the velocity of money. If money stops flowing, then you need to put more into play to keep an economy working. And you can pull new money back out again through taxes later if you want to.
But if people are going to mobilize, why keep fighting fires? Why not demand a basic income for all? How much harder could it really be to get a basic income put in place (say Social Security of $1000 per person per month for everyone from birth instead of needs-based stuff like welfare or unemployment insurance) than to just stop one big cut? One of the problems the USA has is reverse ageism (because old people tend to vote) -- why should old people get a basic income and health insurance right now on the backs of the young who don't get the same?
Why not just go for Social Security and Medicare for all? It is easy to explain. Those two would make a much bigger difference than electoral reform or getting the money out of politics, because suddenly everyone who wanted to could have the time to get involved in politics, same as older people today. And many in the USA already benefit from these programs. Many young people might have trouble at first with knowing what to do with themselves (although many are jobless already, but stuck at home), but ultimately, especially with the internet, people could work out meaningful lives, just like hunter/gatherers did thousands of years before. Wage labor is a fairly recent idea. http://www.eco-action.org/dt/affluent.html
Personally, I feel we could try having half the US GDP go to a basic income ($2000 per month per person) and that money should also replace compulsory public schooling (with a basic income, parents can then afford to homeschool or send their kids to private school or hire tutors if they don't want to homeschool, and current laws about child neglect would handle the pathological families with judges ordering the money go to some private school). The other half of the GDP (about the size of the mid 1990s GDP) could then motivate people to work who needed monetary motivation.
If you take all social security, unemployment, disability, and school-related payments, the US is already paying out on average about $700 per person per month. So, we are not that far from being able to do a significant basic income for all.
Why not aim higher than staving off another round of cutbacks when the status quo already has so many people suffering in so many ways? Especially when things will only get worse with more automation? http://marshallbrain.com/robotic-freedom.htm
There was zero net job growth over the past decade even as the population grew and the GDP rose something like 25%. That is the new "normal". We are not going back to the old 20th century economic patterns IMHO.
That's the biggest problem I have with the Socialist Workers action plan. There is some implicit assumption that we can get back to the 1950s of US labor relations and benefits from jobs with strong unions etc.. We can't because the jobs are not there and there will be less of them as we continue to automate.
We need to move forward as a society. A basic income could be part of moving forward, and could satisfy many (not all) of the concerns raised by similar groups.
Hi, Derek, what you've said about Hoover's mistakes is pretty scary--I've read something like that somewhere else--maybe it was in some other comments.
I've got to tell you something I remember from the SWP, which is in the same vein as your perfectly reasonable suggestion to just give people money to live on (I thought the first $800M TARP money should have been used to create a WPA and/or pay off people's mortgages instead of bailing out banks.--was it 800 million or billion?)
The late Peter Camajo, one of the greatest speakers I've ever heard, a former SWPer, once said at a talk (I may be forgetting some of this):
Most jobs aren't necessary, they don't produce anything. Just get rid of them. Like cashiers in supermarkets. Instead of having cashiers, you could give away the food. If you got rid of all the jobs in the country that don't produce anything and gave people jobs producing something, you could cut the workweek in half right there.
Someone asked, but wouldn't some people take all the food? And Camejo answered, in some parts of the world water's very scarce. But nobody in America's hoarding tap water.
I'm glad I saved my SWP notes, they're in storage, but when I can I'm going to look for some of these gems. I found out that Peter Camejo, who ran for Vice President with Ralph Nader for the Green Party, wrote his memoirs.
There was something I just read by Alan Wald on the website of an English Trotskyist group, about the history of the SWP and its tragic self-dstruction. Wald tells a story about Camejo:
(this isn't a direct quote, just from what I remember reading the other day)
Here's how to find out if you're in the working class. Take a luxury cruise for six months, and at the end of it pay with a check. If the check bounces, you're in the working class.
LOL on knowing if your working class. :-)
Bob Black said something similar to Peter Camajo's other comment: http://idlenest.freehostia.com/mirror/www.whywork.org/rethinking/whywork/abolition.html "I don't suggest that most work is salvageable in this way. But then most work isn't worth trying to save. Only a small and diminishing fraction of work serves any useful purpose independent of the defense and reproduction of the work-system and its political and legal appendages. Twenty years ago, Paul and Percival Goodman estimated that just five percent of the work then being done -- presumably the figure, if accurate, is lower now -- would satisfy our minimal needs for food, clothing and shelter. Theirs was only an educated guess but the main point is quite clear: directly or indirectly, most work serves the unproductive purposes of commerce or social control. Right off the bat we can liberate tens of millions of salesmen, soldiers, managers, cops, stockbrokers, clergymen, bankers, lawyers, teachers, landlords, security guards, ad-men and everyone who works for them. There is a snowball effect since every time you idle some bigshot you liberate his flunkies and underlings also. Thus the economy implodes."
And that's part of the problem. As long as the right to consume rests on an income-through-jobs link, people need jobs. That link is breaking through increased productivity and a law of diminsihng returns for more goods and services. So, we either have to invent a lot of makework (including war that may doom us all, or endless bureaucracy, or endless sickness, or endless schooling, or endless addictions, etc.), or we need something like a basic income,
Related from something sent to President Johnson in 1964: http://www.educationanddemocracy.org/FSCfiles/C_CC2a_TripleRevolution.htm "The fundamental problem posed by the cybernation revolution in the U.S. is that it invalidates the general mechanism so far employed to undergird people's rights as consumers. Up to this time economic resources have been distributed on the basis of contributions to production, with machines and men competing for employment on somewhat equal terms. In the developing cybernated system, potentially unlimited output can be achieved by systems of machines which will require little cooperation from human beings. As machines take over production from men, they absorb an increasing proportion of resources while the men who are displaced become dependent on minimal and unrelated government measures—unemployment insurance, social security, welfare payments. These measures are less and less able to disguise a historic paradox: That a substantial proportion of the population is subsisting on minimal incomes, often below the poverty line, at a time when sufficient productive potential is available to supply the needs of everyone in the U.S. The existence of this paradox is denied or ignored by conventional economic analysis. The general economic approach argues that potential demand, which if filled would raise the number of jobs and provide incomes to those holding them, is underestimated. Most contemporary economic analysis states that all of the available labor force and industrial capacity is required to meet the needs of consumers and industry and to provide adequate public services: Schools, parks, roads, homes, decent cities, and clean water and air. It is further argued that demand could be increased, by a variety of standard techniques, to any desired extent by providing money and machines to improve the conditions of the billions of impoverished people elsewhere in the world, who need food and shelter, clothes and machinery and everything else the industrial nations take for granted. There is no question that cybernation does increase the potential for the provision of funds to neglected public sectors. Nor is there any question that cybernation would make possible the abolition of poverty at home and abroad. But the industrial system does not possess any adequate mechanisms to permit these potentials to become realities. The industrial system was designed to produce an ever-increasing quantity of goods as efficiently as possible, and it was assumed that the distribution of the power to purchase these goods would occur almost automatically. The continuance of the income-through-jobs link as the only major mechanism for distributing effective demand — for granting the right to consume — now acts as the main brake on the almost unlimited capacity of a cybernated productive system."
Or, more recently: http://knol.google.com/k/beyond-a-jobless-recovery
Dear Derek,
How can I mark or save your comments to read later? I'm having a lot of trouble with keeping up with some other stuff right now, and you can't search for comments here. I really appreciate your wonderful ideas.
Thanks so much.
PS In the meantime, I'm trying to get out my plea to oppose the massive budget cuts demanded by Republicans, supposedly to reduce the deficit.
Thanks, Derek!
I don't know how to get all the comments someone posted, sorry. You could save the web page in your browser? Nice chatting with you.
but then again, the need for an armed struggle should be pondered upon and not totally dismissed. Don't expect genuine peace and egalitarianism to be handed down to you on a silver platter completely from legal struggle. that's reformism. yes let's support this non-violent means, but then again it pays to ask deeper "what is to be done" to overhaul the system.
There are an estimated 270 MILLION FIREARMS in American homes, my friend.
It's easy to START shooting, the hard part is knowing how to STOP.
Thanks for your reply, and actually I agree with you--not that it has to be a bloody transformation but that the capitalists themselves won't willingly give up their power and we'll have to take it from them. And the lessons of past struggles prove that at some point the revolutionaries have to, as the classic Marxists say, smash the existing apparatus of the state--especially the army and police of the former regime, which will regroup to smash the revolution.
I was in a, sadly, now long defunct group called the Socialist Workers Party, the one that successfully sued the government for its illegal COINTELPRO program (please note that the SWP used a reformist means, a lawsuit under the capitalist laws). Some brilliant, long-time "comrades," as they were called, in the leadership who had studied Marxism and Trotskyism on a level equivalent to (or even beyond) what you'd find in a Ph.D. program. They'd participated in major class struggles as far back as the thirties. The party sought to inculcate in the members an understanding of Trotskyism and even gave extensive classes (like the one on Marxist economics that, pointedly, used to meet on Sunday mornings).
I remember attending a class by a party-member George Novak, a Harvard-educated scholar, entitled "Reform and Revolution' (I believe the SWP printed a book or pamphlet by him of the same name). One of his key points was that there was no contradiction between fighting for reforms and fighting for the revolution.
Regarding reforms, he said that many struggles for civil rights, unions, and other liberties were aimed straight at the capitalist system, and that it was important to mobilize masses of people in support of their own interests. But that, ultimately, the system could not grant what the 99% demanded, and at that point it would be necessary to have a revolution.
He said that even the leaders of the American Revolution were just trying to get the British to grant reforms, and they only went over to the idea of revolution A FEW MONTHS before it started, when it became clear they could never win their reforms under England.
However, we were faced with many groups in the radical movement at the time I was a member in the late sixties-early seventies, who had good intentions but would have derailed the movement if they had had succeeded in replacing the call to "Bring The Troops Home Now!" with demands to overthrow capitalism as the antiwar movement's central demand.
The SWP cited Lenin's pamphlet, "Ultraleftism: An Infantile Disorder," against this tendency. (I'm just now for the first time reading the text, available on the internet, and was surprised that Lenin talks about both legal AND ILLEGAL struggles.) In another SWP class, the speaker talked about ultraleftism, and that Lenin had said to the ultraleftists who claimed that they were more revolutionary than the Bolsheviks, "You're right--and you're WRONG."
Thanks again.
If Socialism is so great, then why is a former Soviet a member of the Tea Party, and feel people are crazy for wanting Socialism. I will take the word of someone who has lived that life and bailed for the US. This country isn't perfect, but everyone wants to come here to make a better life. If it is so terrible, why do we have so many people continuing to flock here. http://www.breitbart.tv/meet-former-soviet-citizen-who-confronted-occupy-wall-street-socialists/
I want to give a simple but not simplistic reply to your very, very important question, which historically is one of the absolutely most critical issues facing the revolutionary movement. You're absolutely right to abhor what most people consider socialism, which was in fact a ruthless dictatorship under Stalin that had nothing to do with true Marxism. I was taught in the Trotskyist movement that what passed for socialism in Russia was actually a complete betrayal of socialism, a distortion or perversion, under the dictatorship of Stalin.
I believe it was after Lenin died in--1923?--that Stalin succeeded in taking over the Communist Party sometime in the 1920's, and eventually succeeded in murdering all of the original party leaders.
I'd appreciate it if you'd read a much better description than I can give here on revolutionary socialism on the website for Socialist Action, which I've just discovered.
To try to be concise, what we've been told is socialism is not what I and like-minded socialists believe in. Mao was also a Stalinist, and we're all appalled at what passes for socialism in China. It's pretty frightening.
People have asked for decades that all-important question, why did the Russian Revolution turn into almost the exact opposite of what Marxists say they're fighting for. In fact, the revolution wasn't supposed to even happen at all in a backward country, like Russia at the beginning of the 20th century. According to classic Marxism, it was supposed to take place first in the advanced countries.
The best explanation I've heard for why the Russian Revolution degenerated was that it took place in a country and time where provisions were very scarce, a war was going on, and if you could get even so much as an extra loaf of bread by being in the Communist Party, it was a way to survive. So people who had no interest in the ideals of socialism scrambled to get into the party, and it became a bureaucracy of opportunists, who cared only for their narrow self-interests.
Forgive my being out of touch with the specifics a bit, but I believe both Lenin and Trotsky thought that the Russia Revolution would not have been able to survive without other countries going socialist, which didn't happen for various reasons, including Stalin's betrayals of Marxism consistent with his interest in preserving the privileges of the Communist Party bureaucracy.
There's a lot more to this, and I don't want to brush off your very valuable opinions, which I'm sure you know are shared by many others. I don't agree with them, but it takes a lot of background to explain why.
Finally, there was a book published by Pathfinder Press, by Leon Trotsky, I still have it, called The Revolution Betrayed. It was the theoretical foundation for so much of the SWP's program that I remember comrades not even bothering to use the book's full name and referring to it simply as "the Rev Betrayed." It was also understood within the SWP that Stalinism was the greatest obstacle to a genuine revolution, and was even responsible, through its opportunist politics, of allowing Nazism to come to power in Germany.
This is really the short answer to possibly the most important question of our time, so I'm not expecting you to agree with me on the basis of this fairly brief reply. Please do, though, take a look at some of the information on the Socialist Action website. It reads just like what I remember from when I was an activist and still sounds right to me.
Thank you.
Despite the explanation, I do not believe in Socialism. I think it does not allow a person to become the best they can be. If someone has a greater ability, skill, knowledge, etc and they can use that and WORK their way to the top. Then that is fine. They should have that ability to provide more and even become wealthy. So people are smarter, harder workers, or have other skill over some people. I have worked hard my entire life to provide for my family.
We are not wealthy, my wife is a school teacher, but we have a nice, middle class, life. I have been fired, laid off, so I have experienced unemployment. I have had no insurance and bad insurance. Yet, I have never relied, nor do I intend on, relying on any government programs. I personally feel the government is the least efficient and economical organization in this country. They spend more and accomplish less than any company I have ever worked for.
Government systems allow for too much fraud or abuse. My mother worked for over 30 years as a pediatric nurse. I heard her on many occasions talk about single mothers, who came in on Medicaid, talking about how they needed to have more babies to get more government aid. There should be a cut-off. Ok, someone makes a mistake, they can get government aid, but after that, they should be responsible for their own actions.
The idea that tax money should be taken out of my pay to provide insurance, pay rent, etc for other people (some of who chose not to work) just rubs me the wrong way. Too many people take advantage of the system. Things like unions just make things worse. My father worked in a textile mill that became unionized in the 90's (rare in the south). In his opinion, all it did was protect the worst and laziest workers. People did things they should have been fired for, yet the union fought for them to keep their jobs. A former co-worked told me his father worked for UPS moving trucks. Per the agreement, a full days work consisted of moving X number of trucks. He told me his dad was done with that in about 4 hours. Then, he went home with a full days pay. Things like that are ridiculous, which is why I am anti-union.
All of the above is why I am against any form of Socialism and why I am more in support of the Tea Party. I want less government spending, lower taxes, and fewer government programs. We do not have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem. There have already been trillions spent on "job training programs" that have not been proven to help someone get a job after completing the programs. Other efforts to protect jobs for teachers, like providing stimulus funds to school systems. Many didn't use the money to help prevent laying off teachers. In CA, they added the money to help prop up the teacher pension fund. In some other states, like the one I live in, they held onto the funds to help protect "future teacher jobs".
Capitalism works when the government stays out. Like Netflix and their recent attempt to split their services, or BofA's attempt to add fees to debit card transactions, when the "customers" cry foul and bail, the company reverses their decisions. Market forces can work, and the government should not be in the business of picking winners and losers, or we all lose. Just like the government trying to "prop" up Solyndra. Socialism is not the answer. Even European counties are talking about more privatizing of industry.
See "The Mythology of Wealth": http://www.conceptualguerilla.com/?q=node/402 "Many cheap-labor conservatives don't want to help out the destitute at all. They say government assistance to people will make them "dependent". They say it breeds "inefficiency" and "laziness". They say that a harsh "got mine, get yours" social environment breeds "market discipline" by rewarding the most resourceful and competitive. Some extreme cheap-labor conservatives don't even believe in public education. They say it is the family's responsibility. If your family can't afford to send you to school, well, that's not their problem. Of course, wealthy elites shower their own with benefits – and enjoy a plethora of government benefits and services. They know the value of education, that's why they keep expensive private schools like Andover in business. In fact, they do everything they can to give their own children every advantage money can buy, because they absolutely understand the value of a "head start" in the fiercely competitive social jungle they have created. They talk about "competition", but they actually fear it, and do what they can to make the playing field as unequal as they can. Then they tell the wage earner that his position is "his fault", and that he just needs to work harder – in their factory. He needs to more "disciplined" and "thrifty" if we wants to "get ahead"."
Right now in the USA we have the worst form of socialism -- privatizing profits but socializing costs and risks (like pollution or bank failures or nuclear meltdowns).
Jobs are going away. There was zero net job growth in the USA during the past decade while productivity grew about 25% and all the wealth went to the 1% who then loaned it out instead of it going a wages. http://www.capitalismhitsthefan.com/
What are you going to do when no one wants your labor (or the labor of your children)? And when land is too expensive for you to grow your own food?
Do you know how much of the US middle class life was created by those unions and decades of activists fighting against the concentration of wealth? Look at places that still hold to the better parts of US ideals from the 1940s: "Germany's workers have higher productivity, shorter hours and greater quality of life. How did we get it so wrong?" http://www.salon.com/2010/08/25/german_usa_working_life_ext2010/singleton/ "How did Germany become such a great place to work in the first place? The Allies did it. This whole European model came, to some extent, from the New Deal. Our real history and tradition is what we created in Europe. Occupying Germany after WWII, the 1945 European constitutions, the UN Charter of Human Rights all came from Eleanor Roosevelt and the New Dealers. All of it got worked into the constitutions of Europe and helped shape their social democracies. It came from us. The papal encyclicals on labor, it came from the Americans."
Raising kids is hard work. (And all too often our society just takes those kids and makes them cannon fodder in wars-of-choice-for-profits-for-the-1%.) Why should women who want to raise children in our society not get support for all the hard work they are going to put in? If women like having babies and raising them, what is wrong with that? The populations of industrialized countries are starting to decline (except for immigration in some places like the USA).
On how most schools contribute to the dumbing down of society, btw, no matter how well intentioned most school teachers are: http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/chapters/16a.htm
Why not just give the money that goes to schools directly to families to spend in the market on private school, or to homeschool, or to hire someone like your wife as a tutor?
Would you feel differently if the USA had a basic income for all (say, $2000 per month per person) rather that just specific programs for the "needy"? http://www.basicincome.org/bien/aboutbasicincome.html
Then you would get a share of the fruits of industrialization too as a human right related to our collective cultural inheritance: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Credit "Douglas disagreed with classical economists who divided the factors of production into only land, labour and capital. While Douglas did not deny these factors in production, he believed the "cultural inheritance of society" was the primary factor."
By what justification do most of the 1% inherit all the wealth (including an investment in their schooling)? You can probably list some, but then why do those not apply to our collective cultural inheritance of all humanity?
With a basic income, women who wanted to have kids would have support, people who wanted to get an education could do so, people would not need unions and minimum wage to protect them from jobs they are forced to take just to survive (so work quality would be improved), we would not need to worry about robotics and other automation and better design taking away jobs, and we would be planning through the market. http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/change/science_market.html
Yes, but that basic income would come out of my pocket in the form of taxes. I take care of my own friends and family. People should have the option to help other people, donate to charity, etc. Not have it TAKEN from them and redistributed in the form of taxes.
Also, fine if people want to be in a union, but in many places, employees have NO CHOICE. They have to join a union for the job. People in a work place should individually decide if they want to be part of a union. Not be forced to join and pay dues.
More than US$600 is already redistributed per person per month in the USA for social security, public schooling, welfare, and unemployment insurance. So, we are close to that now.
It's actually fairer and less paperwork to just evenly distribute the money as a basic income as a safety net regardless of age or whether they are looking for a job or are employed. Then there is no disincentive to work because of loss of benefits. It is also as a claim of some of the fruits of industry based on citizenship and our common cultural heritage on which all industrial productivity is based. There is also a lot of work done in this society by volunteers or by mainly women in child-rearing and care of relatives that goes unpaid, which a basic income would acknowledge.
A big problem with unions in the 21st century is that they create private welfare states within individual companies, where the higher the wages, the greater the incentive to automate to eliminate jobs. So they can become self-defeating given globalization and rapidly advancing technology. But, then we see a race to the bottom in wages, benefits, and working conditions if people don't have a basic income so they can say "no" to bad jobs.
Charity is a nice idea, but it does not scale well past small local groups. Cities don't have the same social dynamics as small villages of mostly kinfolk, otherwise we would not need police, sanitation, and other formal services. Taxes are the price of civilization at our current level of development.
Yes, your taxes may go up for earned income with a basic income, but if you get $1000 a month or whatever tax-free as a base, then you'd probably break even on the first few thousand (depending on how progressive the tax structure was). A family of three would start with $3000 per month. You can think about what the tax rate would have to be for someone of moderate income to break even on this.
And as a plus, then we would not need things like a minimum wage law anymore or some other employment protections, since people would always have the basic income. The basic income would smooth out boom and bust business cycles too, by having more predictable demand.
As robots and other automation and better design remove the need for more and more jobs, a basic income can scale with that change. Do you have a better idea for dealing with increasing unemployment from rising industrial productivity?
Thank you for such a beautiful piece about your own family, and for such a wonderful response to my ideas. What's happened with me is that all these discussions have motivated me to read over some of my socialist library (a lot of which I'd never read completely), and what I find over and over are predictions of catastrophic economic crisis--that are coming true.
It seems to be a pretty universal analysis by a variety of thinkers I'm reading, including Trotsky, and SWPer Jack Barnes and the rest that the capitalist system has no choice but to continue on a course of economic disaster for the 99%. You've mentioned a lot of interesting material, and I hope you won't mind if I don't try to reply to all of it here.
In the meantime, with your permission, I'm including the following now in all my reply comments, because I agree with what Noam Chomsky recently said at Occupy Boston.
Thanks again!
URGENT PROPOSAL: OWS to call for a massive EMERGENCY national action including all our union support, to oppose Congress's upcoming attempt to impose--is it a trillion dollars?--in cutbacks to social programs that the 99% depend on. Obama will prove useless in opposing the cuts, so WE HAVE TO STOP THEM! I'm referring to the virtual dismantling of essential social programs, using the deficit as an excuse. In an hour-long talk on YouTube to Occupy Boston, Noam Chomsky describes this projected assault on the 99% as a dagger aimed straight at the heart of the country.
Thank you, everyone.
Thanks for your important comments. I just found a great article elsewhere on the OWS website describing COINTELPRO (Counter Intelligence Program), the campaign of many years to infiltrate and lead the movement astray.
I'm trying to find my earlier comments (could anyone please tell me if you can search for specific comments on the OWS website), where I described some of the battles we fought in the anti Vietnam war movement against exactly the same kind of agents provocateurs in Oakland this week. Their violent tactics, if successful, would have kept the movement frightening, tiny, and isolated from the only group that was large and powerful enough to stop the war (along with the heroic people of Vietnam): the 99%--the American people.
Thanks again.
Then do something about it. Create a NEW article that condemns the violence. Did you not see that the protestors CHEERED on the provocateurs! And allowed them to march with sticks in their hands (later to be used to smash windows and beat fellow protestors). OWS NEEDS to come out and denounce this publicly. Many, many of the 99% are very angry about this, and will refuse to be part of this movement. Vandalism against our small main street businesses (at least one restaurant was attacked) should never, ever happen.
I agree with you, but unfortunately I can't become the kind of full-time activist it takes to help organize and lead a movement. I tried when I was an art student, and I was one of two leaders of a great anti Vietnam war committee, but as a result I didn't have time to do much else. And now I have more responsibilities, and I'm having a hard time as it is trying to limit the time I'm spending related to OWS. And it's really difficult not to do more, especially since I think that OWS is the most important movement in a generation--and these questions of tactics and politics will determine its ultimate success.
It takes a tremendous commitment in time, energy, and money (plus study of politics) to free you up from other work to do what you've asked. I'd have to research a lot of information to write a well-informed article. Someone here--was it you--directed me to an excellent website for Domhoff, author of Who Rules America. I think his website has the same name. He goes into great detail, with footnotes, on the history of violence as a tactic in the radical movements over the last 50 years, and makes a great case against it. He states unequivocally that the main result of violence as a tactic (rather than by provocateurs who want to destroy the movement) is that workers will not join a moement that's based on movement.
In one of my comments, I didn't use the full quote I remembered attributed to Lenin against the sincere but misguided revolutionaries in Russia who thought violence was effective. He wrote about that in Ultraleftism: An Infantile Disorder. He said to these revolutionaries, you're RIGHT, you are to the left of us--and you're WRONG.
I didn't know that the protestors cheered the provocateurs, and thanks for the information.
BreadLandPeace, thank you for your reply. I just read the article OWS put out about violence on the 4th, and my faith in this movement has been restored.
Hi, by the way, I have to double-check, but I think the name of the Lenin pamphlet is Left Wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder (not Ultraleftism: An Infantile Disorder).
Yes, it really does confuse the very people we're trying to reach if every time they see a picture of an OWS action, people are getting arrested and fighting with the police. Once it gets violent, it hard to tell who's doing what to whom. Psychology is hugely important, because you have to WIN people's support. That's why the slogan, "We are the 99%" is pure genius. It isolates THEM, the 1%. But allowing ourselves to look violent does just the opposite--it makes us, and by extension our ideas for changing society, look out-of-control crazy.
Thanks for your reply!
Thank you so much for the info!
I had kept a copy of your important earlier comments:
"This is exactly what happened 40 years ago in the socialist revolutionary and antiwar movements, attempts to turn the movement violent. These extremists were often FBI and police agents who wanted to destroy the movement. That's why the group I was in continued to fight for for legal, peaceful mobilizations against the war in Vietnam, because millions could join a peaceful movement but wouldn't risk arrest or getting caught in violent confrontations. It was those mass mobilizations along with the heroic Vietnamese struggle that finally ended the war. A successful lawsuit against COINTELPRO, a government covert program against the left and anyone who made a so much as a peep against inequality,forced the government to end lot of the infiltrations, which had gone on for DECADES, although not all. Although some genuine activists then and now, who support the cause of working people, don't understand why we have to involve the majority, the 99%, by calling for violence they'll only succeed in isolating the movement. Also, they'll confuse people about the real cause of violence in our society. Violence is evicting people from their homes; dumping them from their jobs; stealing education and hospital funds through budget cuts; no safe, affordable childcare and eldercare, and all the other inequities we are protesting. Please keep up the great work!"
As for the other "great article elsewhere on the OWS website describing COINTELPRO", do you have the text or the url for it, as I would like to read it?
Hi, THANK YOU SO MUCH! Wow-somebody saving my posts! That's a real honor, thank you.
Would you possibly know how I can search for my and other people's comments on this website? The article on COINTELPRO that I just saw this morning was in reply to a new action. It was fantastic, and went into far greater detail than I knew about.
Maybe if you searched for COINTELPRO it might come up here. I haven't seen it mentioned anywhere else here except in my and the other person's comments.
I have to tell you that I'm just sharing ideas that I learned from long-time revolutionaries who'd devoted most of their lives to studying Trotskyism and real-life struggles, including in the union movement, under McCarthyism, and later civil rights, where they, unlike many others, embraced Malcolm X.
My own experience in the Socialist Workers Party in the late 60's and early '70s was a front-row seat on the power of Trotskyist ideas, and I saw in action how a "correct" political line was the critical factor in the United States in ending the war in Vietnam, through mass mobilizations.
Someone in the SWP once made a comment about how you organize (the 99%): you call a meeting (in the local area where you're organizing) and when people show up you form a committee or organization to fight for the particular cause The SWP was amazing at carrying out this strategy on campuses during the anti Vietnam war movement.
In fact, the repository of revolutionary ideas that were kept alive for decades and taught in the Trotskyist movement show exactly why we have to have a revolutionary party to succeed. People who haven't been steeped in Marxist study and experience--i.e., most of the 99%--will not know what to do to defeat a power as strong as the ruling class when the time comes, at critical junctures in the class struggle.
I was assigned to organize a Student Mobilization Committee (against the war) when I was an art student, and was very successful--partly because I and the math professor who co-organized the actions weren't heavy-handed in how we treated the students and faculty who joined us.
Sadly, the SWP I went astray in the '70s and later, and now it's essentially defunct. It's done virtually nothing to support OWS, for example, other than two articles in its paper, The Militant, a couple weeks ago. The group self-destructed because it abandoned its own principles and program, and even expelled some of its finest, most experienced leaders.
I'm glad to see that some other groups (one is Socialist Action, which was started by expelled SWPers) and another group in England (I think it's the International Socialists) have carried on the tradition, although I don't know all their positions and whether they're "correct."
I know, this PC attitude sounds impossibly arrogant, and at its worst reminds me of a comment by Steve Jobs to an employee, "That's a bozo idea!") Contrast with Lenin, "patiently explain." I'm not sure I agree with these current Trotskyist groups, but they're doing the right thing in what they practice.
So I do agree that you can't win a revolution without a rigidly disciplined organization and understanding of Marxism, updated for the 21st century. OWS doesn't have those, but it's doing amazingly well and it's on the right track with an important action--one almost every day!
Thanks again!
On the right track for what?
That's a good point. It's amazing that, with no stated in-depth ideology (although commenters are stating that OWS does have an ideology--anarchism), OWS has targeted one important target after another: the health care industry; banks and foreclosures; police brutality; cutbacks in education (in NYC at a meeting of the Department of Education); racism. It's called for a general strike, which even though it didn't bring Oakland to a standstill (according to the group I'm following now, Socialist Action, that was because not enough unions participated), nevertheless got over 7000 people out in the streets.
See, I do agree with the revolutionary socialists that it takes a revolutionary party to get rid of capitalism and replace it with a democratic, humane, and socialist society. I guess I'm thinking that OWS has the right intentions, they're on the right track in targeting at least the symptoms of a bankrupt system. But I certainly don't think they've got the leadership or structure to be able to make the changes without a revolutionary party. I think these spontaneous uprising across the country are educating and focusing people--and that if the revolutionaries get involved in supporting OWS they may be able to lead the movement so it's really the right track--i.e., overthrowing capitalism. I'm sorry for being verbose, and maybe it's because it's hard to answer your excellent question.
I was very happy to discover on the internet a couple days ago that there's a Trotskyist group in Oakland called Socialist Action, that was formed in 1983 when some long-time members of the Socialist Workers Party were expelled. (This and a series of other expulsions eventually led to the demise of the SWP as any kind of viable force.) I really like what I've read on the Socialist Action website, including two articles from the past couple days, one directly in support of the occupy movement.
I'm going to defer from now on to Socialist Action, because I'm having a lot of trouble taking care of my own work at home with all the time I'm spending on internet related to OWS. But, you know, it's really hard not to get more involved, if you believe, as I do, that OWS is the most important movement in a generation (one of the Socialist Action articles said pretty much the same thing). I do believe we're living in a historical moment, and that what happens now will matter for years to come. I just hope that OWS doesn't get derailed by the many forces that could destroy it, like the ultralefts, the Men In Black, who instigated all the violence in Oakland, even David Graeber's anarchist philosophy and belief in "consensus" to solve the problems of capitalism.
Thanks again!
These "spontaneous uprisings" are anything but . They have been well orchestrated and well planned. Overthrow capitalism? For what? A totalitarian state? No thanks , I prefer capitalism, it's the best form of government .Not perfect , but still, the best.
I don't agree with you, I don't think Occupy groups in how many cities--900 so far? were well planned or even planned at all before the Occupy movement caught on. I thought the original Adbusters campaign was expected, by the organizers themselves, to only last two months.
No, I don't want a totalitarian state either, and maybe you're thinking of the Stalinist Soviet Union, which had nothing in common with what I'd consider socialism and which I completely opposed. In fact, as I'm sure you know, Trotsky gave his life attempting to reverse the degeneration of the Russian Revolution, finally being murdered in Mexico by Stalinist agents.
As Marx said, democracy under capitalism is everybody's free right to sleep under the bridges of Paris.
ows didn't catch on , it was set up.
Well, you're right about that regarding New York City, but I don't agree that the hundreds of Occupy protests that OWS has inspired all over the country were orchestrated from NY. Please let me know if you have any information about the process.
All the best.
remember the black panthers, they were relatively peaceful folks and exercised legal forms of struggle , but then again they believed only a revolution would give way to a more just society. heck even malcolm x and martin luther (latter) believed so.
Martin Luther King later believed in a violent revolution???? I've read almost everything there is to read about MLK and have NEVER come across anything of the sort. As for Malcolm X, he is a different man and a different story.
MLK later on before he died advocated and understood the need for socialism and a revolution. though yeah he was famous for his non-violent activism. :)
You are trying to muddle the issue here. Yes, he did believe in "revolution", that is REAL , FUNDAMENTAL CHANGE in America's VALUES, strictly through NON-VIOLENT action. It is irresponsible to TOY with the idea of "armed struggle" and intellectually dishonest to attribute it to Martin Luther King without any sort of documents, quotations to back up such outlandish allegations. Good day, Sir, I have no more to say to you.
but then again, the need for an armed struggle should be pondered upon and not totally dismissed. Don't expect genuine peace and egalitarianism to be handed down to you on a silver platter completely from legal struggle. that's reformism. yes let's support this non-violent means, but then again it pays to ask deeper "what is to be done" to overhaul the system.
violence is never the answer
There are an estimated 270 MILLION FIREARMS in American homes, my friend.
It's easy to START shooting, the hard part is knowing how to STOP.
HUELGA!!!!.................translation in english: STRIKE!!!!.................142
ALLRIGHT! We brought Oakland to it's knees!
What's that? Everything is back to normal? Everyone went home..or is jail..or got their asses kicked?
Stop the violence guys or I'm out, and that means no more financial donations to occupy
You must be so proud of the vandalism.... you people have no point.. just an unruly mob out to rob, rape and steal. Time for the police to put an end to it.
stay strong oakland! we love you!
Worst protestors ever. You guys need to go back and watch some game films or something.
Oh yeah, the ridiculous Mr. Microphone thing has to go. lmao
Capitalism = The rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
"Illusory provocateurs" be damned! On with the revolution of what is GOOD and JUST in this world!
ANother monumental failure for OWS btw what did you take the viseo with a camera?
everyone go down there, a lot of hot girls and guys here, yay, freedom
It ain't going to work, unfortunately. Even so, could OWS use funds to get mics so the broken sentences of speakers don't need to be repeated? It's Jim Jones spooky. And, how about more financial education? Wondering if you think this guy is a patriot: http://bicandmac.blogspot.com/2011/10/chapter-one.html
is the port really shut down?
No. San Jose Mercury News, report about a half hour old now, says 'hundreds of protesters', 40 of 370 longshoremen didn't report today, port is open as usual. Cranes, ships, trucks. A suit store and a theater didn't open.
The 40 longshoremen took the day off to visit the pub and do a spot of fishing. They missed the demonstration...lol
boycott capitalism, boycott christmas -- instead of presents give love and hope for world peace and a true global democracy..
boycott gasoline
I get my presents from a magical elf that uses unionized labor that is paid a very handsome living wage along with free housing and medical care that drive a zero emissions vehicle (well, beside the poo)
Step 1 is to liberate politics from money. The US was not meant to be a country where you can buy laws or own your own personal politician. Everyone making laws will need to have their accounts frozen. If you are in congress your only income should be your salary, which is plenty large already. Any accepting of money or gifts should be a serious crime. For campaigns, each candidate should get a certain (small!) amount to run their campaign. This should come from taxes, not donations from corporations. Don't like taxes? Well, you are already paying for the campaigns, every one of you, because I doubt there are many of you who are living without any of the following: car, gasoline, phone, electricity, internet, bank account and so on. The corporations which manage those things are funneling your money to the politicians. Only when politics is separated from money can we move on to tackling the myriad other problems such as: creating a healthcare system which allows even normal people to see a f*ing doctor, dismantling the enormous corporations and banks which use their money and power to take away liberty from citizens, ending the constant wars, and creating an actually-free press.
OCCUPY WALL STREET Pinback Buttons! - only 99 cents
A portion of proceeds will go toward the local movement in the form of food and water. If you have a few extra bucks, drop off a box of apples or anything you can to the folks outside in your community!
Free Shipping Offer! http://buttonbasket.com/index.php?main_page=index&cPath=25
OCCUPY WALL STREET Pinback Buttons!
A portion of proceeds will go toward the local movement in the form of food and water. If you have a few extra bucks, drop off a box of apples or anything you can to the folks outside in your community!
Free Shipping Offer! http://buttonbasket.com/index.php?main_page=index&cPath=25
What's that horrid screeching??
It looks like someone is attempting to superimpose noise on the video. The transmission is interrupted with white noise all the time.
I swear to F'n God, I have never in my fairly long life seen so many white people in Oakland.
now THAT is funny!
It must be a curious thing tonsee ;-)
LOL! More like General Strike slightly inconveniences a few in Oakland. Shuts down... that is hilarious!
Holy shit that racket is gawd awful.
Funny been watching MSNBC for 3 hours not one word about this.
We can change the system within the current system. The current system is unfair - it is tilted towards the one percent. We have seen this before. During Vietnam the poor were sent to war while the wealthy stayed home. Many songs were written about the disparity but no song told the story better than; "Stairway to Heaven." There are two paths we all can go on as a human being: One path is the path of the neoconservatives (neocons) where money is everything, the other path is where you are a decent human being treating others with respect. The song applies to then and now. Right on brothers and sisters of the OWS - keep up the great work. Love you all! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9TGj2jrJk8&feature=related
the revolution will not be televised
I have not been impressed with msnbc reporting
San Jose Mercury News, report about a half hour old now, says 'hundreds of protesters', 40 of 370 longshoremen didn't report today, port is open as usual. Cranes, ships, trucks. A suit store and a theater didn't open.
Anyone clicking on this link can now see the story was updated to reflect a "massive" protest. Are you by chance posting under other names on this board or being paid for your comments?