What did the Occupy movement accomplish?

Status
Not open for further replies.
To some extent, it diminished the "entitlement generation" rhetoric. Or maybe it strengthened it, I don't know.

Some people thought it was exemplified it. I've spoken to a few black friends, rather left-leaning ones at that, who basically dismissed the whole movement as the actions of white kids who finally realized for a second how bad the rest of the world has always had it.

I don't know how true it is, but it's a perspective that I wasn't aware of before I picked a few people's brains.
 
Some people thought it was exemplary of it. I've spoken to a few black friends, rather left-leaning ones at that, who basically dismissed the whole movement as the actions of white kids who finally realized for a second how bad the rest of the world has always had it.

I don't know how this true it is, but it's a perspective that I wasn't aware of before I picked a few people's brains.
Interesting, I know a few older African Americans who really didn't like comparisons to the Civil Rights movement dismissed it for that reason and finding the comparisons to the stakes of that and risks they faced as offensive.
 
Interesting? I few older African Americans who really didn't like comparisons to the Civil Rights movement dismissed it for that reason and finding the comparisons to the stakes of that and risks they faced as offensive.

Ugh, my typos...

Anyways. I know that the demographics for Occupy seemed to have skewed white throughout. However, I've never read any articles or conversations that really digged into the cultural and ethnic angles behind it all.

I have plenty of black friends to talk to about this but they're not exactly a chorus.
 
Ugh, my typos...

Anyways. I know that the demographics for Occupy seemed to have skewed white throughout. However, I've never read any articles or conversations that really digged into the cultural and ethnic angles behind it all.

I have plenty of black friends to talk to about this but they're not exactly a chorus.

Sorry it should have been Interesting, not a question mark.

It is an interesting point for further examination.
 
No one is saying its a success outright, but to say it was a failure outright is too black and white. They got the wealth inequality discussion more relevant than anytime prior, thats good... no?

If raising awareness about wealth inequality, something everyone has known about for decades, is a measure of a success than the closing credits to Will Ferrell's The Other Guys probably accomplished just as much in a five minute credit scroll than people camping out for months.

If you want to affect actual political change you have to actually become part of the system either by running candidates or gaining meaningful support for an actual third party in the U.S. Look at, for example, the leaders in the Civil Rights movement that went to have political careers.

The Tea Party, as much as I despise their politics, has been a success at not only the national level, but the state and local level when it comes to elections. It's not enough to just raise awareness about wealth inequality and hope that either of the two parties' representatives will listen to you in creating policy when that hasn't been the case for years now.
 
No one is saying its a success outright, but to say it was a failure outright is too black and white. They got the wealth inequality discussion more relevant than anytime prior, thats good... no?

While it was brought up, it didn't stick, due to there being no Occupy Organization to follow up politically. The main talking points for this election and the next four years are as follows:

Jobs: good luck lowering that 8% unemployment with my opponent
Outsourcing: Bain Capital did what?
Balancing the budget: Don't cut my medicare
Teacher pensions: why schools can't have nice thigns
Paul Ryan: too ____ to be a vice president?
Defense spending and foreign policy: something something Iran
NASA: 1 minute "human endeavor" promise

The only thing the occupy movement did was get people to forget there was a huge debt crisis. Neither party wants to go there (the Republican Congress was ineffectual and Obama has overspent these last four years) so I guess they are thankful for the occupy movement. I really don't think the terms "1%" or "wealth inequality" will show up on any debates (both presidential or congressional).
 
The premise of this thread is flawed for two reasons. The first is that it assumes that OWS is over. It isn't, it's just not being covered by corporate media. The second problem is the assumption that revolutionary movements should be judged after their first year. The civil rights movement took at least a decade before the Civil Rights Act was passed, and that was far from the end of discrimination against African-Americans. Most revolutionary movements take years. Sometimes the first mass demonstration is just a dress rehearsal. We won't know where the Occupy tactic fits in to the overall battle against oligarchy until years after the fact.

I'm also disappointed that people want OWS to become part of the crorporate-controlled center-right democrat party. It makes no sense to pour your energy into a dead system. Chris Hedges addresses this issue often:

Our electoral system, already hostage to corporate money and corporate lobbyists, gasped its last two years ago. It died on Jan. 21, 2010, when the Supreme Court in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission granted to corporations the right to spend unlimited amounts on independent political campaigns. The ruling turned politicians into corporate employees. If any politician steps out of line, dares to defy corporate demands, this ruling hands to our corporate overlords the ability to pump massive amounts of anonymous money into campaigns to make sure the wayward are defeated and silenced. Politicians like Obama are hostages. They jump when corporations say jump. They beg when corporations say beg. They hand corporations exemptions, subsidies, trillions in taxpayer money, no-bid contracts and massive loans with virtually no interest, and they abolish any regulations that impede profits and protect the citizen. Corporations like Goldman Sachs, because they own the system, are bailed out by federal dollars and given essentially free government loans to gamble. I am not sure what to call our economic system, but it is not capitalism. And if any elected official so much as murmurs anything that sounds like dissent, the Supreme Court ruling permits corporations to destroy him or her. And they do.

Turn off your televisions. Ignore the Newt-Mitt-Rick-Barack reality show. It is as relevant to your life as the gossip on “Jersey Shore.” The real debate, the debate raised by the Occupy movement about inequality, corporate malfeasance, the destruction of the ecosystem, and the security and surveillance state, is the only debate that matters. You won’t hear it on the corporate-owned airwaves and cable networks, including MSNBC, which has become to the Democratic Party what Fox News is to the lunatic fringe of the Republican Party. You won’t hear it on NPR or PBS. You won’t read about it in our major newspapers. The issues that matter are being debated, however, on “Democracy Now!,” Link TV, The Real News, Occupy websites and Revolution Truth. They are being raised by journalists such as Glenn Greenwald and Matt Taibbi. You can find genuine ideas in corners of the Internet or in books by political philosophers such as Sheldon Wolin. But you have to go looking for them.

Voting will not alter the corporate systems of power. Voting is an act of political theater. Voting in the United States is as futile and sterile as in the elections I covered as a reporter in dictatorships like Syria, Iran and Iraq. There were always opposition candidates offered up by these dictatorships. Give the people the illusion of choice. Throw up the pretense of debate. Let the power elite hold public celebrations to exalt the triumph of popular will. We can vote for Romney or Obama, but Goldman Sachs and ExxonMobil and Bank of America and the defense contractors always win. There is little difference between our electoral charade and the ones endured by the Syrians and Iranians. Do we really believe that Obama has, or ever had, any intention to change the culture in Washington?

In this year’s presidential election I will vote for a third-party candidate, either the Green Party candidate or Rocky Anderson, assuming one of them makes it onto the ballot in New Jersey, but voting is nothing more than a brief chance to register our disgust with the corporate state. It will not alter the configurations of power. The campaign is not worth our emotional, physical or intellectual energy.

Our efforts must be directed toward acts of civil disobedience, to chipping away, through nonviolent protest, at the pillars of established, corporate power. The corporate state is so unfair, so corrupt and so rotten that the institutions tasked with holding it up—the police, the press, the banking system, the civil service and the judiciary—have become vulnerable. It is becoming harder and harder for the corporations to convince its foot soldiers to hold the system in place.​

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/thank_you_for_standing_up_20120123/


The physical eradication of the encampments and efforts by the corporate state to disrupt the movement through surveillance, entrapment, intimidation and infiltration have knocked many off balance. That was the intent. But there continue to be important pockets of resistance. These enclaves will provide fertile ground and direction once mass protests return. It is imperative that, no matter how dispirited we may become, we resist being lured into the dead game of electoral politics.

“The recent election in Wisconsin shows why Occupy should stay out of the elections,” Zeese said. “Many of the people who organized the Wisconsin occupation of the Capitol building became involved in the recall. First, they spent a lot of time and money collecting more than 1 million signatures. Second, they got involved in the primary where the Democrats picked someone who was not very supportive of union rights and who lost to [Gov. Scott] Walker just a couple of years ago. Third, the general election effort was corrupted by billionaire dollars. They lost. Occupy got involved in politics. What did they get? What would they have gotten if they won? They would have gotten a weak, corporate Democrat who in a couple of years would be hated. That would have undermined their credibility and demobilized their movement. Now, they have to restart their resistance movement.

“Would it not have been better if those who organized the occupation of the Capitol continued to organize an independent, mass resistance movement?” Zeese asked. “They already had strong organization in Madison, and in Dane County as well as nearby counties. They could have developed a Montreal-like movement of mass protest that stopped the function of government and built people power. Every time Walker pushed something extreme they could have been out in the streets and in the Legislature disrupting it. They could have organized general and targeted strikes. They would have built their strength. And by the time Walker faced re-election he would have been easily defeated.

“Elections are something that Occupy needs to continue to avoid,” Zeese said. “The Obama-Romney debate is not a discussion of the concerns of the American people. Obama sometimes uses Occupy language, but he puts forth virtually no job creation, nothing to end the wealth divide and no real tax reform. On tax reform, the Buffett rule—that the secretary should pay the same tax rate as the boss—is totally insufficient. We should be debating whether to go back to the Eisenhower tax rates of 91 percent, the Nixon tax rate of 70 percent or the Reagan tax rate of 50 percent for the top income earners—not whether secretaries and CEOs should be taxed at the same rate!”

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/occupy_will_be_back_20120618/
 
Not too much, other than bringing an inkling of class consciousness into the public and making people want to tax the rich again. That's a good start, but nowhere near far enough.

It failed due to its complete disorganization and lack of any kind of theory or program. But it was/is? an important jumping off point for progressives/anarchists/socialists and other social justice-minded folk as it led to a lot of us becoming more involved or gaining a deeper understanding of the system.

edit: to clarify, the real main cause for its lack of success is the media and state's use of propaganda and power against it, but the inability of Occupy to come to agreement on much makes it easy to keep from gaining steam
 
The premise of this thread is flawed for two reasons. The first is that it assumes that OWS is over. It isn't, it's just not being covered by corporate media. The second problem is the assumption that revolutionary movements should be judged after their first year. The civil rights movement took at least a decade before the Civil Rights Act was passed, and that was far from the end of discrimination against African-Americans. Most revolutionary movements take years. Sometimes the first mass demonstration is just a dress rehearsal. We won't know where the Occupy tactic fits in to the overall battle against oligarchy until years after the fact.
1. Truthdig. lol
2. Stop insulting people who actually risked their lives and safety during the civil Rights movement by comparing them to the dead joke that was Occupy.
3. Man that essay is a real bitter denial of reality.
4. Excuses and more excuses for failure and the rejection by the American people.
 
Some people thought it was exemplified it. I've spoken to a few black friends, rather left-leaning ones at that, who basically dismissed the whole movement as the actions of white kids who finally realized for a second how bad the rest of the world has always had it.

I don't know how true it is, but it's a perspective that I wasn't aware of before I picked a few people's brains.

OWS was mostly white people, but even among a community of idealists, issues of racism and segregation still pop up. One of the examples of that is how the OWS area was eventually segregated into an "uptown" and a "ghetto".

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-november-16-2011/occupy-wall-street-divided

The contentions with the drummers also hinted at division amongst OWS members.

http://thegrio.com/2011/10/28/drummers-are-beating-heart-of-occupy-wall-street/

On Monday, when the drummers were asked to limit their playing time from 10 hours a day to four, which is more in line with the community board’s request some cried foul. “I think it’s unfair what they are asking of them. Ninety percent of the drummers are people of color. I know that there is a lot of racism going on right now within this camp,” said Nan, who identified herself as the treasurer for the drummers, and also declined to provide a last name. “We thought we were fighting a system together. Yet we find out that not only do we have to fight the system, but we have to fight against racism.”

John Eustor, 46, purported leader of the drummers, was also dissatisfied with the General Assembly’s ruling that the drummers should only play four hours per day. He disagreed that there were racial motivations to the request. “The thing about drumming for four hours alone is that you are limiting people from coming in and joining the circle. Being a part of the energy and being attached,” said Eustor.

Eustor thought the lack of appreciation for the drum circle had more to do with changing demographics within the park, rather than racial tension. “A lot of activists ended up leaving because it is not the type of activism that they were looking for.”

Interviewer asking where all the black and latino faces are VIDEO: http://thegrio.com/2011/10/10/post-25/#s:occupywallstreet_tstarr_11_resized_4x3-jpg

http://www.salon.com/2011/11/11/is_occupy_wall_street_too_white/

There is some truth to the contention that the nationwide Occupy Wall Street is largely a white-led movement, as indicated in a recent Maynard Institute article by Nadra Kareem Nittle. But claiming there are “few people of color among the participants,” as Nittle does, is simply not true.

One last caveat: Do not judge a movement by its numbers. It’s still about the politics. The base of the Democratic Party is around 40 percent people of color, perhaps even more. Nonetheless, the Obama administration’s policies have devastated people of color, and the Democratic Party has been hostile to the plight of the poor for 20 years, who are disproportionately black and Latino.

Which is an interesting comment to make because Tea Party events have been often implied to be racist just because of the low number of non-white people in attendance.
 
Voting is the least effective political act one can do. OWS was (and continues to be) 1000 times more effectively than all electoral votes you've ever made combined. Actual votes determine very little about what public policy will look like, especially in an era of corruption where money is so influential. Public movements (which are interpreted as threats to votes) influence politicians immensely. If a public movement were big enough, it could make even a politician like Mitt Romney happily sign a bill enacting widespread wealth redistribution while smiling for the cameras.

Agreed. The problem with this discussion is that most people don't understand how protest works. They don't understand how democracy works. People are accustomed to the idea that voting once every four years is the beginning and the end of their political engagement. Protest is about wielding the power of the public against the power elite. It is a long process, but it's the most effective way to enact change.
 
As Kame stated, the "Occupy" movement isn't over. Such things are, indeed, often/usually just a prelude to the actual effort, or a trial run. People are using the fact that the first Occupy display was disorganized to sneer "dirty hippies" and look the other way, safe, secure in the knowledge that it really meant nothing.

And that is one other remark about the whole situation I do put stock in: that a large amount of the negative reaction to OWS came from people who ordinarily might pay lip service to more vague notions of 'change', but when faced when the prospect of an actual uprising, however remote, became very defensive.

The comparison to the civil rights movement is apt in that for the decade until some measure of victory was achieved, you could pretty much find no end of attacks and dismissive hand waves about civil rights. All just a bunch of nonsense from trouble makers who don't know their place. It's not about how much any particular group involved in such a movement has suffered - that in itself is a game people get tricked into, playing the "my people's suffering is greater than yours, so our movement is more legitimate" card. The point is how such social revolutions are always treated by the majority and status quo, however large they are, small they are, or even legitimate they are.

Whether anyone likes it or not, the initial appearance of OWS did insert a new intellectual framework into the mainstream; a good old fashioned mind virus. What happens next as the worm turns remains to be seen.
 
Let me know when some OWS people start being murdered by the KKK or having their homes and churches firebombed. Maybe then you can try and make comparisons to the Civil Rights movement. Having trouble finding an iPad charger doesn't cut it.
 
They spurred right-wing media into another sadly effective smear campaign to demonize and marginalize any attempts to have a national discussion about a serious problem.
 
Some people thought it was exemplified it. I've spoken to a few black friends, rather left-leaning ones at that, who basically dismissed the whole movement as the actions of white kids who finally realized for a second how bad the rest of the world has always had it.

I don't know how true it is, but it's a perspective that I wasn't aware of before I picked a few people's brains.

HA! My father said that same exact thing actually. Welcome to our world were his exact words I believe. I kind of thought that was just a a sentiment amongst he and his friends.
 
Occupy is bigger than the US election cycle, it is a worldwide movement.

The impact is there, but it is more subtle and widespread than being about a candidate or policy in a US election (ie. what the Tea Party is doing). It is foremost about raising consciousness about wealth disparity, the ruling class and the futility of so-called democracy under such a system. And it has achieved this, and will continue to do so as the movement grows and changes, regardless of whether it fits into your criteria for "impact".

Tell me, what is wrong with a poll or a discussion or a gathering? This is only the beginning of a movement.

Soooooooooo... nothing.

It's been a full year; tell me anything that Obama or Romney have said in the last month that they wouldn't have said if OWS had never happened. Just one thing.

People keep saying it's not over and that it's just the beginning but OWS has less mindshare today than they have had at any point of their entire existence even though, as I stated before, we're at the point in our election cycle at which they SHOULD be the most vocal and visible. This is exactly the time when they should be making the next big push but they're completely invisible.

Which is completely beside the point. We know that the Tea Party was successful at the Congressional level and OWS was not. The nuance is in the why. What did the Tea Party have that OWS didn't? Support. Money. Direction. Now you can take a hard look at each movement's genesis and come to two conclusions as to why the Tea Party caught fire and OWS petered out:

A.) lol hippies

B.) The Tea Party had a message and membership that was much more palatable to establishment interests than OWS. Cutting taxes and killing regulations and generally being a dick in Obama's eye were all things that a lot of rich and powerful people in the country could get behind, and so a lot of them did. A movement with themes of wealth inequality and the problems it poses to society and government isn't going to find as many friends in high places. For better or for worse, OWS was about as grassroots as it gets; it received little to no funding or support from establishment figures.
At no point have I made a "lol hippies" argument and I don't really see how B is in disagreement with what I'm saying. Providing a reason for why they don't have financial or political support doesn't contradict my point that they have no financial or political support and, in fact, don't seem to want it. OWS supporters also justify it by saying they're intentionally opting out of a corrupt system; that they're not as financially successful as the Tea Party because they are taking the higher ground. The lack of financial support is practically a point of pride for many OWS supporters. You're not going to get anything accomplished that way; you have to stay visible somehow and if you're not going to do it the old fashioned way you're going to have to find a new way to do it and OWS simply hasn't done that.

Past the financial support stuff OWS is simply not visible anymore. I don't hear about them on TV, on the radio, on social media, in normal social circles, at bars, at the gym, anywhere. Conservative talk radio doesn't even bother bringing OWS up long enough to insult it anymore. The May Day protests had decent media buildup but vanished with barely a whimper once the day came around. They've got no candidates; no bills in process; nothing but vague assertions that "it's a worldwide movement!" and "we have people going to assemblies!" without any votes to show for it.

Again, even if you accept the position that it's just getting started and the best is yet to come, after a full year of preparation for the biggest election cycle our country has OWS should have a lot more to show for themselves than they do.
 
JQAiy.jpg



"There is no money here for you to steal"

"Really? So why are you people here?"
*slow clap to standing ovation*
 
So.... Twitter handed over user data from Occupy protestors.

Twitter handed over a sealed document containing the tweets and data from an Occupy Wall Street protester's Twitter account to a New York criminal court today. The company was subpoenaed for defendant Malcolm Harris' information after Harris was arrested along with 700 others during an Occupy Wall Street protest last year. Harris has been charged with disorderly conduct.

While Twitter and Harris filed motions to kill the subpoena, the New York criminal court judge denied both motions earlier this year. Twitter was forced to hand over Harris' tweets from the period between September 15, 2011 to December 15, 2011 by today, or be fined and found in contempt of court, Bloomberg noted. And to add insult to injury, the judge ordered that if Twitter did not comply with the subpoena, it would have to make its financial information available to the court—according to All Things D, this information would be used to determine the amount of the fine.

The prosecutors in the case are interested not just in Harris' tweets but also information such as the "IP address he logged in from, direct messages, deleted messages, how long each login lasted, dates, time, and possible location information," as Ars reported in July.

Twitter is currently seeking a separate finding in a higher court to show that it is not responsible for its users' posts and should not be subpoenaed for them. In its May motion, Twitter's attorneys wrote that, "If the order stands, Twitter will be put in the untenable position of either providing user communications and account information in response to all subpoenas or attempting to vindicate its users' rights by moving to quash these subpoenas itself—even though Twitter will often know little or nothing about the underlying facts necessary to support their users' argument that the subpoenas may be improper."



http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/09/twitter-hands-over-occupy-wall-street-protesters-tweets/
 
Well, they're back. I got heckled for being a greedy bankster walking to work. Never mind that I work for the government on a fellowship and sympathize with their cause, regardless of views on the efficacy of the movement.

This will be a fun couple days or weeks.
 
As Kame stated, the "Occupy" movement isn't over. Such things are, indeed, often/usually just a prelude to the actual effort, or a trial run. People are using the fact that the first Occupy display was disorganized to sneer "dirty hippies" and look the other way, safe, secure in the knowledge that it really meant nothing.

And that is one other remark about the whole situation I do put stock in: that a large amount of the negative reaction to OWS came from people who ordinarily might pay lip service to more vague notions of 'change', but when faced when the prospect of an actual uprising, however remote, became very defensive.

The comparison to the civil rights movement is apt in that for the decade until some measure of victory was achieved, you could pretty much find no end of attacks and dismissive hand waves about civil rights. All just a bunch of nonsense from trouble makers who don't know their place. It's not about how much any particular group involved in such a movement has suffered - that in itself is a game people get tricked into, playing the "my people's suffering is greater than yours, so our movement is more legitimate" card. The point is how such social revolutions are always treated by the majority and status quo, however large they are, small they are, or even legitimate they are.

Whether anyone likes it or not, the initial appearance of OWS did insert a new intellectual framework into the mainstream; a good old fashioned mind virus. What happens next as the worm turns remains to be seen.

This pretty much sums up my thoughts. Great post.
 
It's been said hundreds of times in this thread, but getting class consciousness into mainstream discourse was a pretty nice achievement.

In spite of that, I consider OWS to have been a massive waste of potential. They should have focused on a few key issues: inequality, soaring corporate profits at the expense of workers, ridiculous compensation in the financial sector, and campaign finance and lobbyist reform. It should have been a progressive movement. Trying to make OWS into something all-encompassing was doomed to failure, because the message got watered down by idiotic "End the Fed" Ron Paul fans.

If OWS had made it clear early on that libertarians were not welcome, it might have gone farther.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom