Support NeoGAF

[elongation]

Show me what they've done that's not a poll or a discussion or a gathering. Show me anything that has had a real impact.

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.

 

[Rentahamster]

You can basically tell exactly how far to the right someone is by who much of a success they considered the Tea Party

What does this even mean? Empirically, you can measure "success" or whatever you want to call it in actual electoral results.

The tea party has the advantage of a head start, of course, but "tea party" candidates have successfully primaried and defeated more than one incumbent Republican.

There have been some primary challenges to Democrats from the left as well, but not many were explicitly OWS-inspired, and I don't believe any of them won, iirc.

The only high-profile OWS-inspired (or maybe that's the other way around) political candidate around is Elizabeth Warren, so far.

 

[dave is ok]

What does this even mean? Empirically, you can measure "success" or whatever you want to call it in actual electoral results.

I meant that a good moderate conservatives didn't like the Tea Party because of it affected the Republican platform nationally. The further right you go the more pleased with the Tea Party the person generally was until you get to the super crazy right wing types who didn't think the Tea Party tried to accomplish enough or are upset it got co-opted by "mainstream" conservatism.

 

[Bulbo Urethral Baggins]

One of my problems with comparing the Tea Party and OWS is that OWS was an actual protest movement and was treated with the resistance one would expect real protest movements to receive, and the Tea Party was a creation of wealthy Republican donors who wanted to speed up the party's rightward trajectory in the wake of 08's wave election. The Tea Party was Republican politics 101, and honestly isn't different from the Moral Majority which predated it.

Not even close. It was funded by Ben & Jerry's

 

[badcrumble]

What does this even mean? Empirically, you can measure "success" or whatever you want to call it in actual electoral results.

The tea party has the advantage of a head start, of course, but "tea party" candidates have successfully primaried and defeated more than one incumbent Republican.

There have been some primary challenges to Democrats from the left as well, but not many were explicitly OWS-inspired, and I don't believe any of them won, iirc.

The only high-profile OWS-inspired (or maybe that's the other way around) political candidate around is Elizabeth Warren, so far.

You can't measure success only in electoral results. You can also measure it in terms of what people are talking about in those elections. The GOP and Democratic Party are extremely consultant-driven and will just about always have a 45-45 split on the country even if the country's opinions change. For example, give it a few decades and the GOP will be supporting same-sex marriage. This is a success of the gay rights movement - mainstreaming their views, not just getting Democrats elected.

 

[ConfusingJazz]

I meant that a good moderate conservatives didn't like the Tea Party because of it affected the Republican platform nationally. The further right you go the more pleased with the Tea Party the person generally was until you get to the super crazy right wing types who didn't think the Tea Party tried to accomplish enough or are upset it got co-opted by "mainstream" conservatism.

But how is recognizing a successful electoral record the same as being pleased with it?

 

[dave is ok]

But how is recognizing a successful electoral record the same as being pleased with it?

In your own eloquent words: wut.

 

[ConfusingJazz]

In your own eloquent words: wut.

I consider the Tea Party to be successful at electoral politics, but I consider their politics to be abhorrent. According to your original post:

You can basically tell exactly how far to the right someone is by who much of a success they considered the Tea Party

I must be to the right?

 

[Rentahamster]

I meant that a good moderate conservatives didn't like the Tea Party because of it affected the Republican platform nationally. The further right you go the more pleased with the Tea Party the person generally was until you get to the super crazy right wing types who didn't think the Tea Party tried to accomplish enough or are upset it got co-opted by "mainstream" conservatism.

OK, well then that's just a difference between someone who measures "success" based on hopes and feelings, vs. someone who measures success based on measurable data.

 

[MC Safety]

Occupation and awareness.

That's about it.

 

[Reuenthal]

They allowed politicians to use the tax redistribution and class warfare issue as a way to avoid responsibility from themselves and from allowing the public to really face the real problems and consequences and issues of the recession. It made one issue the center of attention. So just like the Tea Party it had tangible anti intellectual close minded results. But unlike them their influence on how much policy will differ is little, rather their influence was bigger on the rhetoric of the election as a convenient diversion and election tactic that even gains a little legitimacy in the present due to the different republican plans.

(No it was not too low tax rate or too high tax rate the problem)

 

[dave is ok]

Ah. I guess shouldn't have used the word success without specifying electorally versus general accomplishment as a movement. I thought my intention was clear. Hard to tell what your problem with my statement is when you only give me three letter responses. Carry on

 

[ConfusingJazz]

Ah. I guess shouldn't have used the word success without specifying electorally versus general accomplishment as a movement. I thought my intention was clear. Hard to tell what your problem with my statement is when you only give me three letter responses. Carry on

Yeah, I finally gathered that. Internet and intonation and shit.

 

[Baraka in the White House]

...that was caught in the endzone for a touchdown. OWS was a three and out with a punt.

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.

 

[victreeb3l]

if anything, more public hostility towards protestors

union square still has a table with a few OWS people selling cookies or someshit. otherwise, its like it never happened.

 

[CharlieDigital]

A.) lol hippies

B.) ...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.

A. And LMAO at B. Two of the richest men on the face of the Earth -- Bill Gates and Warren Buffett have come out in support of more liberal policies on progressive taxation and the role of government. Not to mention many wealthy folks in the entertainment industry and other wealthy folks like George Soros.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

if anything, more public hostility towards protestors

union square still has a table with a few OWS people selling cookies or someshit. otherwise, its like it never happened.

Yeah I saw some old beat up Water Jug for donations, I don't think it had anything in there. lol

Reminded me of that homeless "charity" you would see around in New York City till they got in trouble over where money went (or at least I haven't seen them anymore). I forget the name, but if you were ever near Penn Station or other hubs in NYC you might know what I'm talking about.

 

[victreeb3l]

Yeah I saw some old beat up Water Jug for donations, I don't think it had anything in there. lol

Reminded me of that homeless "charity" you would see around in New York City till they got in trouble over where money went (or at least I haven't seen them anymore). I forget the name, but if you were ever near Penn Station or other hubs in NYC you might know what I'm talking about.

UHO? i just noticed why i dont see them anymore. apparently they were disbanded after coming out as a fraud. its a pity since it creates even more mistrust and legitimate organizations suffer because of people like UHO

 

[codhand]

How many people criticizing OWS actually went down and talked to people? And no, not your state's local version of it, but the NYC one. Why does it matter? Well, there's an awful lot of judgement happening here.

*Cricket*

 

[Baraka in the White House]

A. And LMAO at B. Two of the richest men on the face of the Earth -- Bill Gates and Warren Buffett have come out in support of more liberal policies on progressive taxation and the role of government. Not to mention many wealthy folks in the entertainment industry and other wealthy folks like George Soros.

I must have missed the coverage when Gates and Buffett and Soros bused a bunch of people to Zucotti Park from across the country, set up a stage and booked some musical acts and speakers for the protest.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

UHO? i just noticed why i dont see them anymore. apparently they were disbanded after coming out as a fraud. its a pity since it creates even more mistrust and legitimate organizations suffer because of people like UHO

Yep, that is them! I agree with you about the mistrust since it always reeked of scam at worst and ineffective (and broadcasting that) at best.

 

[ConfusingJazz]

*Cricket*

Because it's not my job to do outreach. They are supposed to be busting their ass calling people on the phone, going door to door, and stuffing mailers.

 

[water_wendi]

It proved without a doubt that non-violence is useless.

 

[pigeon]

That is partially my point. OWS was ineffective because I do not believe that it shifted the voting demographics.

That makes sense. From my perspective, I'm not sure you can really judge, at least until after November and possibly not for a few more years, but obviously the demographics are moving that way anyway, so it'd be hard to tell.

It proved without a doubt that non-violence is useless.

tag quote

 

[NervousXtian]

Considering the movement never really started with an actual achievable goal, they accomplished that. Which is nothing.

 

[GungHo]

It proved without a doubt that non-violence is useless.

You can Gandhi it, but you have to be willing to take the beating.

You could also do work stoppage, but that would require millions to do more than just annoy. Would also help if it's more than just the people who clean the bathrooms or serve lunch. You would have to get the people that drive the business to lay down.

 

[Rentahamster]

It proved without a doubt that non-violence is useless.

No, this is terrible. This is the kind of disillusionment nonsense that motivated those idiot Occupy Cleveland guys to attempt a bombing.

 

[CharlieDigital]

I must have missed the coverage when Gates and Buffett and Soros bused a bunch of people to Zucotti Park from across the country, set up a stage and booked some musical acts and speakers for the protest.

Look again at your own statement:

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.

Easily disproved by the fact that there are many wealthy folks in high places that support more liberal, more progressive policies.

 

[Karma Kramer]

Look again at your own statement:

Easily disproved by the fact that there are many wealthy folks in high places that support more liberal, more progressive policies.

Care to give some examples of financial backing of progressive politicians?

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

No, this is terrible. This is the kind of disillusionment nonsense that motivated those idiot Occupy Cleveland guys to attempt a bombing.

Or the one guy to take a shot at the White House, granted he may have just been good old fashioned non-partisan crazy.

 

[VALIS]

For me, the biggest thing it accomplished was giving millions of people a taste of activism, protesting, and realizing millions like them share similar mindsets. Very important for 20-somethings as well to realize they can set the narrative as well as any other citizens.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

For me, the biggest thing it accomplished was giving millions of people a taste of activism, protesting, and realizing millions like them share similar mindsets. Very important for 20-somethings as well to realize they can set the narrative as well as any other citizens.

Millions?

 

[Rentahamster]

Care to give some examples of financial backing of progressive politicians?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/nov/12/uselections2004.usa

George Soros, one of the world's wealthiest financiers and philanthropists, has declared that getting George Bush out of the White House has become the "central focus" of his life, and he has put more than $15m (£9m) of his own money where his mouth is.

Mr Soros argues that the Bush White House is guided by a "supremacist ideology" that is leading it to abuse US power in its dealings with the rest of the world, and creating a state of permanent warfare.

...

"It is the central focus of my life," he told the Washington Post in an interview published yesterday, after announcing a donation of $5m to a liberal activist organisation called MoveOn.org. The gift brings the total amount in donations to groups dedicated to Mr Bush's removal to $15.5m.

Other pledges of cash have gone to America Coming Together (ACT), an anti-Bush group that proposes to mobilise voters against the president in 17 battleground states. Mr Soros and a friend, Peter Lewis, the chairman of a car insurance company, promised $10m.

 

[VALIS]

Millions?

I seem to remember there more than 250 cities involved at the height, including big protests in several major European cities.

 

[Something Wicked]

For me, the biggest thing it accomplished was giving millions of people a taste of activism, protesting, and realizing millions like them share similar mindsets. Very important for 20-somethings as well to realize they can set the narrative as well as any other citizens.

Yep, it's sure a hell of a resume builder. Companies were having trouble before OWS at finding quality candidates that can camp out in a city park for a couple months, while protesting companies making money.

 

[Karma Kramer]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/nov/12/uselections2004.usa

I mean third party/progressive candidates, not Democrats or just anti-GOP. Backing Obama/Dems =/ supporting progressive policies similar to OWS ideals

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

I seem to remember there more than 250 cities involved at the height, including big protests in several major European cities.

I once again say, millions?

Heck you'd have a hard time arguing for 100K in the US. That's not forgetting that most of the places were ghost towns with hardly anyone there. Occupy Philly was a good example of hardly anyone being there.

I mean third party/progressive candidates, not Democrats or just anti-GOP. Backing Obama/Dems =/ supporting progressive policies similar to OWS ideals

That don't want to waste their money on crap with no ROI?

 

[ConfusingJazz]

For me, the biggest thing it accomplished was giving millions of people a taste of activism, protesting, and realizing millions like them share similar mindsets. Very important for 20-somethings as well to realize they can set the narrative as well as any other citizens.

The anti war movement was way bigger, as were the immigration protests in 2006.

In major cities, both of those movements attracted six figure crowds. That didn't exactly happen with any of the Occupy movements.

 

[Baraka in the White House]

Look again at your own statement:



Easily disproved by the fact that there are many wealthy folks in high places that support more liberal, more progressive policies.

Did they come out in support of OWS? Did they bankroll it? Did they provide logistics and consulting for getting the movement off the ground? For putting it on TV and keeping it there?

A few rich guys going, "Yeah I like those liberals, man" ain't the kind of support I'm talking about. I suspect you know this.

 

[teruterubozu]

For me, the biggest thing it accomplished was giving millions of people a taste of activism, protesting, and realizing millions like them share similar mindsets. Very important for 20-somethings as well to realize they can set the narrative as well as any other citizens.

Everyone should have the right to relive the 60s. It's a right of passage. Make those Baby Boomers proud.

 

[Karma Kramer]

That don't want to waste their money on crap with no ROI?

Yet you see wealthy individuals throwing money at Gingrich... who was that one guy who gave a ton of money to him? Just seems odd that there is tremendous financial support for the two parties but really only grassroots for liberal/progressive candidates.

 

[Slayven]

Everyone should have the right to relive the 60s. It's a right of passage.

As a black man, I would say nuts to that.

 

[CharlieDigital]

Did they come out in support of OWS? Did they bankroll it? Did they provide logistics and consulting for getting the movement off the ground? For putting it on TV and keeping it there?

A few rich guys going, "Yeah I like those liberals, man" ain't the kind of support I'm talking about. I suspect you know this.

They are fundamentally in agreement with the OWS message of income inequality. Both Gates and Buffett have repeatedly called for higher tax brackets and more progressive tax policies.

“There has been class warfare going on,” Buffett, 81, said in a Sept. 30 interview with Charlie Rose on PBS. “It’s just that my class is winning. And my class isn’t just winning, I mean we’re killing them.”

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

Yet you see wealthy individuals throwing money at Gingrich... who was that one guy who gave a ton of money to him? Just seems odd that there is tremendous financial support for the two parties but really only grassroots for liberal/progressive candidates.

Maybe he wanted to rent Newts wife?

 

[HollovVpo1nt]

I know they got at least one person to run for office in New York in a congressional district. I have no idea how it turned out or is going to turn out.

Any movement that is going to make an impact needs to fight for years.

With emphasis on fight.

 

[CharlieDigital]

Face it, OWS was an unorganized mess of a movement that achieved no tangible outcome for anything because they had no goal or mission in the first place. 0 x 100000000 is still 0.

I'm a liberal -- I support gay marriage, higher tax brackets, decreased defense spending, increased education spending, infrastructure spending, universal healthcare, etc. -- but I'm not going to defend this type of stupid waste of energy, resources, and time as a "success" when it was clearly a failure of grass roots organization (with an emphasis on "organization").

 

[Karma Kramer]

Face it, OWS was an unorganized mess of a movement that achieved no tangible outcome for anything because they had no goal or mission in the first place. 0 x 100000000 is still 0.

I'm a liberal but I'm not going to defend this type of stupid waste of energy, resources, and time as a "success" when it was clearly a failure of grass roots organization (with an emphasis on "organization").

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?

 

[teruterubozu]

To some extent, it diminished the "entitlement generation" rhetoric. Or maybe it strengthened it, I don't know.

 

[Rentahamster]

I mean third party/progressive candidates, not Democrats or just anti-GOP. Backing Obama/Dems =/ supporting progressive policies similar to OWS ideals

moveon.org isn't progressive enough?

There's only so much an individual can donate to a political campaign before hitting the cap, not that any of Soros' top campaign donations are third party, though.

The vast majority of the money goes to third parties.

 

[Rentahamster]

With emphasis on fight.

Much more emphasis. That dude who ran in NY got absolutely decimated in the primaries.