ETTM: occupy seattle

amandasw

I promise I'm not trying to be snarky when I say "I don't get it", but I don't really understand what's going on.  I mean, who are they?  How did they decide to just go live downtown?  It's been pretty clear (at least from the news) that none of these groups around the country have defined goals, so I guess I wish they'd figure that out.  I mean, how am I supposed to know if I support them if they don't have an agenda besides (I'm guessing) "we don't have jobs and the economy sucks".  I think we all know that.  But what do they want to accomplish?  I don't know, it just annoys me a little that they are causing problems downtown without a clear end goal.

Temp222512500003295

I have no idea what the goal is. I suspect most of the protesters don't know either.

All I have gathered is that they're against "the man."

dreamwinds

They're protesting a lot of things, not all of which are cohesive.

(http://wearethe99percent.tumblr.com/ - I found this last night which helped with /some/ understanding, but not really.)

At its core, I think, they're protesting the government and Wall Street/banks/big business hand in hand association and how the government (and Obama) have patted banks and big businesses on the back while allowing companies to cut jobs due to losing profits but giving themselves expensive million dollar 'company morale' trips, bonuses, and pay raises that cost more than the salaries of the people they fired.

Some of the other protests are about banks charging people for using their services (thus the whole 5th of November movement to close all your big bank accounts and deposit them in local credit unions).

But what I just wrote is kind of really, not even a sum up. It's more what I have gleaned from reading blogs and the national and some local media outlets (who were actually trying not to give any of this coverage) and other stuff.

It's not a political movement really, and there's no real structure at its core.

FWIW, I don't really get it either. D and I were talking about it in bed last night and I'm still not entirely clear (despite writing all that above).

CDMay2006

I think Dreamwinds explained it pretty well.  While it's obviously liberally-biased, it's not meant to be a politically-affiliated movement.  The message that the Occupy Wall Street movement is trying to convey is the disproportionate representation of corporate interests to public interests in federal policy making.
And while there isn't an overarching organization to it, that kind of seems like part of the message to me -- that "we" don't need to be affiliated with a company, or otherwise have some kind of detailed plan, but can put forth our individual efforts to effect change.

Johlise

Ugh, dumb Wall Street thing has this started everywhere. I'm not exactly sure the in's and out's of it but DH keeps talking about it.

 The short that I've got from what H keeps saying is that it kinda sounds like the hippy movement all over again, just in a slightly different form. 

amandasw

- lol @ hippy movement

- yay credit unions!

- I can see that they are angry at 'the man' and all the bad things going on in the government, I just wish they had a solution with an end goal so they wouldn't be living downtown indefinitely... 

CDMay2006

amandasw:

- lol @ hippy movement

- yay credit unions!

- I can see that they are angry at 'the man' and all the bad things going on in the government, I just wish they had a solution with an end goal so they wouldn't be living downtown indefinitely... 

The goal is to reduce the leverage corporations have in political decision making.  The means to achieve this goal is showing the government that this is something a lot of people care deeply about and to communicate the significance of running a government controlled so heavily (in proportion to public representation) by corporate interests.

amandasw

CDMay2006:

amandasw:

- lol @ hippy movement

- yay credit unions!

- I can see that they are angry at 'the man' and all the bad things going on in the government, I just wish they had a solution with an end goal so they wouldn't be living downtown indefinitely... 

The goal is to reduce the leverage corporations have in political decision making.  The means to achieve this goal is showing the government that this is something a lot of people care deeply about and to communicate the significance of running a government controlled so heavily (in proportion to public representation) by corporate interests.

So are they saying we want X to happen or an agreement of Y by a certain time and then we'll leave?  I'm just wondering how they'll know that things are changed.  (I guess a lot of government things to me seem to take a long time and/or be vague)

CDMay2006

amandasw:

So are they saying we want X to happen or an agreement of Y by a certain time and then we'll leave?  I'm just wondering how they'll know that things are changed.  (I guess a lot of government things to me seem to take a long time and/or be vague)

I see what you mean.  A lot of people are saying there's no point to what they're doing, and i thought that's what you meant (not that the endpoint is unclear, which i think is what you actually meant).

I don't know that a clearly quantifiable result like that has been stated.  Instead it's the same as any protest or true grass-roots social movement (though i'm not convinced it's that big, yet): when enough citizens communication that they feel strongly enough (through sit-ins and protests), then policy makers are "forced" to consider what the protesters are saying.  That's when advocates work with lawmakers to effect the change formally.

amandasw

CDMay2006:

amandasw:

So are they saying we want X to happen or an agreement of Y by a certain time and then we'll leave?  I'm just wondering how they'll know that things are changed.  (I guess a lot of government things to me seem to take a long time and/or be vague)

I see what you mean.  A lot of people are saying there's no point to what they're doing, and i thought that's what you meant (not that the endpoint is unclear, which i think is what you actually meant).

I don't know that a clearly quantifiable result like that has been stated.  Instead it's the same as any protest or true grass-roots social movement (though i'm not convinced it's that big, yet): when enough citizens communication that they feel strongly enough (through sit-ins and protests), then policy makers are "forced" to consider what the protesters are saying.  That's when advocates work with lawmakers to effect the change formally.

oh yes, I just meant 'what exactly do they want', not that it in-and-of-itself is pointless.  See, this is why I stick to science, politics is too confusing, lol.  I feel like I would just be a ball of frustration all the time if that was my job! 

CDMay2006

amandasw:

oh yes, I just meant 'what exactly do they want', not that it in-and-of-itself is pointless.  See, this is why I stick to science, politics is too confusing, lol.  I feel like I would just be a ball of frustration all the time if that was my job!

Yeah, politics has so much... i don't know the words... anyway, it's too veiled and i don't usually get it, either (at least not without putting a lot into getting it).

CDMay2006

These are all from a thread on P&CE, and i think they say it better than i have, or help complete the picture at least.

RedheadBaker:

From what I understand, the Occupiers are anti-corporations who line the re-election campaign coffers of politicians who can further the interests (and bulk up the profits) of said corporations.

kristinrae914:

They're p!ssed off about the fact that Wall Street wrecked the economy three years ago and not one person has been held responsible for that.  They are also PO'd that Wall Street seems to have an unshakable grip on the economic policies of this country and that BOTH parties cater to Wall Street.  Add in the fact that millions of people are unable to find adequate employment or health insurance and then throw in the housing bubble with some credit issues....

cee-jay:

I don't think they are completely anti-corporation.  Of course, we live in a world where there are stores, and firms and all kinds of corporations.

What many of them want is corporate regulation.  Corporations shouldn't have the same rights as people.  Corporations should be run by people that don't get bonuses for f*cking everything up.  Corporations should be punished (not slapped on the wrist) and the people that run them should be tried in court when a major f*ck up is found.  

Lack of regulation is what got us here and it is still with us and we are still in the same position we were in pre-crisis.  Why? Because the corporations themselves lobby politicians not to regulate them.  That is what people are upset about.

sugrfrejaz:

I've not heard anyone saying they are "anti-corporations" in the sense that they shouldn't exist at all. Wanting congress to remove personhood as a legal status from corporations is not being anti-corporations' existence.

Oh and "voting with your dollars"* is exactly the part of the problem they are against. Democracy means each person has one vote - not that rich people get more say.

*This comment was in response to someone saying that people should vote with their dollars instead of protesting, because it would be more effective.

cee-jay:

How is everyone not upset about this?  Like I honestly thought this would be a unity issue.  No one was punished for the crisis. Corporations are citizens.  Why are we disagreeing on this stuff?

Here's the official website if you want to check it out (though it's a little hard to wade through): http://occupywallst.org/

And worth noting is that OWS is a wholly international effort now.  I thought it was just BC that was participating, but i looked at the map and people are participating/actively supporting (though i'm sure in different capacities, and not all are organized efforts) the movement on every continent: http://occupywallst.org/attendees/

amandasw

interesting!