If you think the OWS message is too complicated and that they need a leader

[lunatica]

it's evident that you're dismissing what is a real strength of the human race. The ability to grasp complicated issues and understand them. There are a few here who insist that OWS needs to make their message much more concise in order to get people to understand it and that they need to have a leader. But there's another way to see it. Three points:


1. Their message is very clear. Crystal clear if you bother to look at the forest instead of each individual tree. Concepts are things the human brain is quite capable of grasping in their entirety. That's why concepts can be named and in this case the concept is named Occupy Wall Street, or even shorter, OWS or the 99%. It's that simple. Say those words and voila, everyone knows exactly what you're talking about because that concept is a very personal misery in our daily lives.

2. The 1% and their supporters are having a hell of time attacking the concept because it doesn't have the face of a leader who they can destroy. It's like trying to hold sand. It just won't stop leaking through your fingers. There is no target they can focus their sound bites at or find dirt on or discredit. Their recourse so far seems to be to barricade themselves on the 8th floor and throw up signs on the windows taunting the crowd. I noticed there were no faces peering out of those windows, and I assume it's so the 99% won't recognize them. Maybe they're really being brave to taunt. I happen to think it's cowardly behavior.

3. You can't kill or destroy an idea whose time has come.

[mdmc]

1. anti - capitalist // communist // circus

so far this is all the opposition has got against ows

[Enthusiast]

33. You again.

[seabeyond]

2. i think it is pretty damn clear too, and i dont get why people "pretend" they dont get it. jobs,

living wage, ability to survive, for all of us, even it is pulling self up by bootstraps. cant tell someone to take care of themselves when there are not jobs, or the wage is so low one cant survive.

[newspeak]

54. don't forget the greed and corruption

when corporations offered 401k's, some in lieu of pensions. How's that working out? Look what enron did, those employees lost everything, some (if they can find a job) will have to work into their golden (or should I call it rusted metal) years.

If corporations have increased profits to a tune of 88% and workers only increased .01%, then they have too much power, too much greed. Looking at the graph of CEO's pay in other countries, our CEO's pay are obscene. They even get rewarded for doing a shitty job.

The media wants the movement to have a leader. A leader, a focal point, that they can rip to shreds.

[TBF]

3. Capitalists just can't wrap their head around "no leader" and "no goals" and "no profit" -

it is the opposite of everything they have been taught.

But they are watching out their windows and know what is going on. What they really want to know is how much support we have and how much it is going to cost them.

[Scuba]

5. Too broad a brush. Not all capitalists are evil 1%ers....

... there are many of us who support both OWS and capitalism, with appropriate regulation for the latter.

[TBF]

6. I know many of you still support capitalism -

at least you will until the next crash. Band-aids are not working.

[Scuba]

7. What do you recommend in lieu of capitalism? Sincere question.

[TBF]

8. I'd love a complete overthrow of the system -

but knowing that would involve substantial violence I would at the very least advocate the type of economy we are seeing in the Scandanavian countries. I'm partial to socialism. I think we need to nationalize many industries to get the profit out, and that's at the very minimum (I posted a list of demands in another OP, that's sort of a wish list).

[HughBeaumont]

9. I pick Scandanavia. Well-regulated capitalism, no CEOs at a 475:1 ratio, strong social safety net.

[johnd83]

15. We already knew the answer...

We had a stable social democracy that worked fairly well until OPEC and Reaganomics came along. There are some very simple solutions that will solve our problems without completely restructuring our society:

1. Energy independence
2. Tax the rich heavily to pay for social projects, research, environmental cleanup, etc
3. Protectionist trade practices

Capitalism is not inherently bad, it is just unstable. It tends to lead to a concentration of wealth with money flowing from the poor to the rich. It also doesn't work with a massive trade deficit caused by energy and manufactured goods imports. The thing that really confuses me is we already knew all this as a society, we just chose to forget it about 30 years ago...

[lunatica]

20. I'd like to see a Democratic Socialism which includes capitalism

Then those who make the most have have their wealth and pay their corresponding share of taxes. To have wealthy people pay taxes which are shared in Socialist ways (free medical care, free education in schools and college, free housing for the elderly who need it and free food for those who need it) would actually raise everyone's life higher than if there were no rich people.

[Scuba]

21. I agree fully, but will recommend you consider....

...not using "free" which a) these services are not, and b) gives the right another talking point.


Thanks.

[lunatica]

22. What else are they?

Sure our taxes would pay for these services, but there's a huge number of the population who don't work. Children, some retirees, the elderly, some handicapped people, mentally ill people, and convicts. For them the services would be free.

[Scuba]

23. While the recipient may not bear the full cost, the services are not free....

... but paid by someone else.


It's a matter of semantics, and how the message is received.

When you use free, the right responds with "see how ignorant these libs are? They think money grows on trees!"



It's really part of the "social contract" that those with more help those with less, and those with less may receive something at no cost to them, but it isn't "free".

[lunatica]

24. I'm getting to the point where I don't care what they think.

We waste too much time explaining things to them that they already know. They only act stupid to get us tied in knots. They get their talking points by fax every morning, and I suspect the sender is Karl Rove or one of his minions.

[Scuba]

27. I hear ya, but I'm not trying to change KKKarl Rove's mind, but my neighbor's. n/t

[newspeak]

53. last night, I thing it was O'Rourke complaining about

how many taxes americans pay. Well, look at those countries who also pay taxes and get more bang for their buck. We pay to bolster a bloated MIC and allow corporate subsidies and the wealthy to gain more wealth. Their taxes get them great public transit, health care and in some countries day care.

If we are paying almost the same, then why don't we have these services. Maybe because it goes for corporate interest expansion instead of the well being of the country's citizens.

[Enthusiast]

36. Good suggestion. nt

[Enthusiast]

35. Most of us here agree.

The greedy 1% is working the media full time so the American people never understand this. They will kill us before this concept can be shared.

[Enthusiast]

34. See answer on post #9.

[pscot]

51. Regulated capitalism

Which was where we seemed to be headed until Reagan and the 3rd way Democrats emerged.

[Scuba]

10. I'm pretty much with Hugh (above). I do support nationalization of ...

... energy and other extraction industries plus banking.

[TBF]

12. So do I - I would accept that as a good start. nt

[tama]

14. Some people

support some ideal/ideological form or variety of capitalism and that's theme for purely theoretical discussion. But only very few ("banksters") support real life capitalism as we know it.

[Avalux]

17. It's not just capitalists, it's the structure of our political system as well.

No catchy soundbytes and clear goals spouted by a leader. It's like the internet; OWS is an internet of people....geared more for sustainibility than results (like politics).

It's a good thing too because OWS isn't going anywhere anytime soon.

[lunatica]

25. Will you admit it if it turns out you're wrong?

[nichomachus]

31. Capitalism is not bad -- corporatist capitalism is bad

If I raise some capital, start a small business, and hire some people, that's capitalism. And it's a good thing.

Once it became the game of out-of-control corporations acting as if they were real people with no concern about anything but profit, profit, and more profit, everything went to hell.

[Lorien]

32. Lawless corporate fascism is bad, and that's the point of OWS

There's been a separate set of laws for the wealthy and another set for us. The corporate elite have turned money and control of the air waves into "free speech" for themselves and themselves alone; they occupy our government. They take away our homes, keep us from accessing affordable health care, and send our jobs to China. They poison our air and water and destroy the biodiversity that keeps the planet functioning...all in the name of their own greed. We demand DEMOCRACY, NOT CORPORATE FASCISM. NEED OVER GREED. It's that simple.

[Abq_Sarah]

47. Corporatism and crony capitalism can't exist

Without politicians passing out favors and rewards.

Politicians on the right AND on the left.

[TBF]

50. Wrong - by definition capitalism is unequal, barbaric, and destroying our planet. nt

[nichomachus]

55. It would be nice if you had some kind of argument to support that overly broad assertion

[Blue_In_AK]

46. A quote from a Wall Streeter I saw last week:

"People, not profits -- what does it MEAN?" They are completely clueless -- or at least pretending to be.

[smokey nj]

52. They're being deliberately obtuse.

They know damn well what it means.

[RKP5637]

4. Also, IMO, authoritarians look for a leader to tell them what to do, to parrot, to

fall in behind. Whereas with OWS, it is more collective and spontaneous. OWS is about sharing, whereas to me the TB'er crowd, for example, plays "king of the mountain." Hence, the authoritarian aspect in terms of TPTB/MSM looks for a leader, a focal point commanding the others what to do. It's not there, hence TPTB/MSM are perplexed.

[Scuba]

11. Good observation. n/t

[Enthusiast]

37. "It's not there, hence TPTB/MSM are perplexed."

It's a beautiful thing. The need a Mao, a Castro or a Chavez to focus corporate generated anger on.

[Edweird]

13. "not understanding" is a RW tactic.

[lunatica]

26. Yup.

The Big Pretend.

[Enthusiast]

38. And it is becoming all too common.

[lunatica]

41. I just stole your gif

I hope that's OK. :hi:

[Enthusiast]

44. You are welcome to it.

:fistbump:

[Pithlet]

16. Couldn't agree more.

K&R

[KharmaTrain]

18. Focus Yes...Leader No...

Leaders will emerge as the focus does. The frustration needs to be channeled into real action...political muscle that trumps the corporate money. This movement needs to make politicians feel shamed for the large amounts they are currently raking in...as they won't "disarm" on their own and as long as the corporates can throw money the 99% will always get the short shrift.

There are those who want to emulate the teabaggers or "join forces". The only thing they do that is of merit is the amount of pressure they can put on a candidate. It's a lesson Democrats need to learn if they're going to build the majorities needed to bring true democratic reforms to this country and society.

[dmosh42]

19. They speak for me-don't need any teabag a-holes or media people!

[Lucian]

28. Well, our elected leaders are supposed to be the voice of the people...

but look where that got us.

I like that there is no one leader of OWS.

[lunatica]

29. I think it makes the 99% stronger to not have a leader

Because it's the cause that's important. Otherwise it would again be the cult of personality. We don't need that anymore.

I can see a few dozen of the OWS crowd running for office in the near or far future. I would certainly feel pretty good about supporting them simply on the grounds of having been the OWS.

[nichomachus]

30. Something to think about

One of the most constant complaints one hears about #OccupyWallStreet is that the group has no demands. Its message isn’t tight. It has no leaders. It has no policy agenda. Well, neither did the Stonewall protestors. No demands, no "tight message," no leaders, and no policy agenda. It was just a bunch of people who were being oppressed and who weren't going to take it any more. They changed the world.

[lunatica]

39. Who are the Stonewall protesters?

[nichomachus]

45. *Face palm*

[lunatica]

49. Somebody was nice enough to start a thread on it

They were much more helpful than you.

I learned something I'm glad to know.

[rustydog]

40. Excellent post...I do not need some appointed spokesman to tell me

what OWS is all about! Local and National news tried to downplay this protest that has now grown into a movement.
The message is loud and clear..Those asking why? what are they trying to say? have to be living in a cocoon.

[L. Coyote]

42. Remember the Kennedys? MLK? Allende?

Politics was a lot like whack-a-mole, except the game was called whack-a-liberal!

[lunatica]

43. You're right. Leaders get killed

Thanks for including that.

[lunatica]

48. kick