Why did Occupy Wall Street fail?
- Thread starter Bronx-Man
- Start date
- Status
Because socialism
Mangoverboard
Banned
Indifference
SliceSabre
Banned
Change requires work and those college kids were just in it to look cool and be a part of something, not to actually change anything.
EatinOlives
Member
I don't think it failed outright. I mean it wasn't a "revolution" and it didn't directly elect people into office as a result but discussions about income disparity have definitely increased since then.
We don't vote because it doesn't change anything. Nothing changes cause we don't vote.
What do!?
Sadly, this is probably a large part.
The primary goal of raising awareness about and attempting to limit money in politics became muddied by hundreds of other agendas as more people got in on it, forming an incoherent mess that dissipated much of the directed anger towards America's current political system into aimless anger and confusion, followed by a return to indifference.
entremet
Member
That's factually incorrect. It's really impatience.
Look at the Obama Adminstration. His first term you had many people complaining he wasn't doing anything, yet when you put his record through a microscope, he accomplished a lot, especially under the limitation of the Executive Branch.
Gotta think marathon not sprint.
The GOP got their asses kicked in 2008, but then they got back to work.
apocalidiot
Banned
The media did a good job trivializing the whole thing.
The Tea Party has been co-opted, or always was, by two of the world's wealthiest individuals, and one of America's largest media conglomerates. That's not odd. It's intentional. Occupy Wall Street never had such powerful benefactors manipulating the narrative from the shadows.
dave is ok
aztek is ok
They had no clear goals or objectives and didn't endorse anything really.
They wouldn't even get behind Elizabeth Warren because they were a leaderless group
They wouldn't even get behind Elizabeth Warren because they were a leaderless group
luckygodzilla
Member
This, it was just a lot of angry unfocused energy. With some decent leadership and a solid plan occupy might have actually led to some real change, rather than being written off as a bunch of dirty hippies stinking up central park.
SmackDaddy
Member
I had a couple passionate debates between people who were on both sides of the fence.
She argued against all of the points stated above- lack of leadership, unified message, etc.
She said the movement was successful because people came together without any of these things- they just knew shit with our government and financial system was lacking and poisonous to a majority of our country.
It raised awareness about all of these things, but unfortunately, without a leadership and unified message, nothing is going to change without action items. Rich people keep getting richer and poor people stand around pissed with no visibility into or wisdom regarding the system they want to dismantle.
She argued against all of the points stated above- lack of leadership, unified message, etc.
She said the movement was successful because people came together without any of these things- they just knew shit with our government and financial system was lacking and poisonous to a majority of our country.
It raised awareness about all of these things, but unfortunately, without a leadership and unified message, nothing is going to change without action items. Rich people keep getting richer and poor people stand around pissed with no visibility into or wisdom regarding the system they want to dismantle.
strikeselect
You like me, you really really like me!
Because they were mostly stoners.
This pretty much explains why they failed. There was no coherent platform or demands. Interviews with occupiers always showed a wide range of grievances (or lack thereof), with no real unifying theme.
Nastrodamous
Member
Because people weren't actually willing to lose anything.
I hear that so often and then everyone is SHOCKED when republicans win local votes with a margin of a few hundred or a few thousand (in bigger cities) votes. Go vote, it matters.
LegendofLex
Member
Can you name a single material policy goal and/or position of Occupy Wall Street?
Can you name a specific bad policy that Occupy Wall Street identified as the target of its protests?
If you look at Occupy Wall Street's goals as "better income equality" and their target as "policies that produce income inequality," then you need only look at the issues of the 2016 election cycle to see that they've at least succeeded at getting those broad issues recognized at the national election level.
But without specific policy goals and without calling out specific bad policies that should be ended, I'd say the movement failed because it never mobilized in any kind of actual direction.
Can you name a specific bad policy that Occupy Wall Street identified as the target of its protests?
If you look at Occupy Wall Street's goals as "better income equality" and their target as "policies that produce income inequality," then you need only look at the issues of the 2016 election cycle to see that they've at least succeeded at getting those broad issues recognized at the national election level.
But without specific policy goals and without calling out specific bad policies that should be ended, I'd say the movement failed because it never mobilized in any kind of actual direction.
This is it from my perspective also. It's hard to rally behind something that is so vaguely defined and loosely organized. Plus, very little in the way of actionable change was proposed, if any.
It is very easy to say "I don't like X thing."
It is very difficult to propose a workable alternative.
The Republican party thanks you greatly for your support.
It is very difficult to propose a workable alternative.
The Republican party thanks you greatly for your support.
Fotheringay
Member
There just weren't enough UpTwinkles
Muppet of a Man
Member
This. The core take away should have been campaign finance reform and further regulating the activity of lobbyists and corporations. Instead, the movement never solidified around these talking points.
If people carried signs that read:
1. Institute Campaign Finance Reform.
2. Further Regulate Lobbyists.
3. Limit the Rights of Corporations.
4. Reinstate the Glass-Steagall Act.
People would get it and the media wouldn't have been able to write it off so easily (as they wanted to because it conflicted with their own corporate interests).
GustyGardens
Banned
That had a noble cause, but I think that a lot of it was lost for the sake of looking the part. My bet is that a lot of the people that participated in this weren't in it for the long haul, they just got caught up in the next craze and quickly got over it when they realized it wasn't going to be an overnight success. On top of that, there were no clear leaders and a general disorganization. The group didn't seem to have any plans beyond hanging out for a long period of time. What's the next step?
There are some big leaders in our country that support financial equality, but they didn't seem to have anything to do with the movement.
There are some big leaders in our country that support financial equality, but they didn't seem to have anything to do with the movement.
Lack of clear goals and organizational structure.
I mean, what was OWS' goal? "Reducing income disparity"? That's pretty vague. "Tax the fucking rich" may have catched on properly.
And let's not count that a good chunk of the entire thing seemed to care for "Legalize pot" more than anything else.
I mean, what was OWS' goal? "Reducing income disparity"? That's pretty vague. "Tax the fucking rich" may have catched on properly.
And let's not count that a good chunk of the entire thing seemed to care for "Legalize pot" more than anything else.
Dr. Pavel, I'm OWS.
OrlanisWorks
Banned
Now that I've discovered that its a myth that voting means you'll be in the pool for jury duty. You're up for jury duty one way or another. This coming election, I'm voting.
Failed since they didn't have any power and a lot people gave up pretty fast. All the wealth had to do was simply wait for those people to need to go back to work or look for a job. Eh, I dunno.
Let's vote, kids. Get the mailed ballot, so then you don't have to go anywhere. Vote from home!
Failed since they didn't have any power and a lot people gave up pretty fast. All the wealth had to do was simply wait for those people to need to go back to work or look for a job. Eh, I dunno.
Let's vote, kids. Get the mailed ballot, so then you don't have to go anywhere. Vote from home!
dehydratedbabies
Member
This basically.
However, I've been volunteering for Bernie Sanders in my state for the last several months and through that work I've met at lest one former Occupy person who was active in NY that's doing a ton of really good work in support of Bernie Sanders, so despite my disappointment with that movement in general I must admit that it did plant some good seeds.
Abinash117
Member
Some people tend to think that if you just shout things will magical happen for them. OWS ain't going to do crap unless you get organized. Being loud only goes so far.
Yep. I didn't dig into it too much, but the message seemed to be "I don't like Wall Street." Captivating.
entremet
Member
This is why leadership is essential. To motivate, inspire, clarify vision and goals.
~Devil Trigger~
In favor of setting Muslim women on fire
They succeeded at changing the narrative in terms of the economy debate. Thats all
I wouldn't say it failed, we just haven't solved the problem. It made people aware though. Most people are aware of the problems they proposed and politicians even propose solutions as campaign points. Even outside of the United States, people talk about income inequality far more than they did before Occupy I'd say.
- Status