Occupy Wall Street's statement

Remove all ads!

What strikes me about this is that it is an essentially anti-capitalist message. All of those things they claim are happening, some completely true others i'm not sure about, are really just natural consequences of the pursuit of the profit motive. Money in politics will always be attempted if the potential gain is higher than cost, along with every other negative consequence. It really goes to show that while we have a democracy, there are seriously undemocratic forces that are basically imposed on us, and this is not due to popular consent or even affected by it very much.

 

^ Sensible.
People feel, that the capitalistic system they lived in, even though i worked some in their favor, worked actually more against them.

A friend of mine argued, that Capitalism just like - back in the day - Communism, faces its ending in its current form.

To what end? None knows.

 

I'm currently bothering myself with the notion that this libertarian capitalism is forcing the US to a 'survival of the fittest' society. The government, as the enforcer of human right and dignity, is minimized and the people who are unable to fend for themselves become victim of those who know how to game the system.

 

But what can these protests possibly achieve?

 

Well, I doubt they expect a full-blown system change (hope for it, perhaps, but not expect it), but if they keep at it and grow they might influence some of the next crop of Congressmen and have the political tug of war game shift a bit in their direction - just as it had moved in the other direction for most of the last several decades due to work by other people.

 

That was nicely put.

 

I agree.

What the US is looking at is capitalism at excess. The proponents of that ignore that capitalism can only prosper within a state that sets rules, and enforces them, because they have, unthinkingly adopted the dogma that regulation is bad. The people funding that like it that way, because such regulation cuts into their profits. I say, it's good when it keeps banksters from ripping you and me off, your air breathable, toxic waste out of the water and trichinae out of my sausages. The market doesn't settle all that, not without first leaving rubble in its wake.

Well, look at the impact the Tea Party had on the GOP.

 

What ever the deeper mechanic behind OWS is, I for one am curious where this will lead.

Seeing how the Movement swapped over the big pond, and how the different groups within the movement try to break the mainstream media, who -even here in Germany- reports things only off and on; or mentions things in passing-.

 

On a tangential point, where's Keith Olbermann doing Countdown these days? I assume it isn't with MSNBC, so where's his new show?

 

I, for one, fully agree with what they are doing and have spent a decent amount of time at my local Occupy Pittsburgh. Popular demonstrations can have a large affect on policy if done correctly with a clear statement of intent.

Oh, and apparently Fox News thinks that these people are "unamerican" for protesting capitalism (sory for the John Stewart clip, I couldn't find the original video of it:

 

Here.

 

That seems like a pretty big step back.

 

Olbermann now has complete editorial freedom. Olbermann made some initial remark in his new place that hinted towards that.

 

So it's now been two months since Occupy Wall Street has started, and it's still going strong in spite of many obstacles. Cities all over the U.S have protested in solidarity, and there have been many reports of police brutality. The best example of this is at the heart of the OWS movement itself, New York. Mayor Bloomburg has admitted to arresting credentialed reporters who have covered the story, and many have come out saying that they were assaulted with little to no reason given. Former Supreme court Justice Karen Smith was there as a legal observer and talked about what she saw:

"I was there to take down the names of people who were arrested," Judge Smith tells Democracy Now on Friday. "As I’m standing there, some African-American woman goes up to a police officer and says, ‘I need to get in. My daughter’s there. I want to know if she’s OK.’ And he said, ‘Move on, lady.’ And they kept pushing with their sticks, pushing back. And she was crying. And all of a sudden, out of nowhere, he throws her to the ground and starts hitting her in the head,” says Smith. “I walk over, and I say, ‘Look, cuff her if she’s done something, but you don’t need to do that.’ And he said, ‘Lady, do you want to get arrested?’ And I said, ‘Do you see my hat? I’m here as a legal observer.’ He said, ‘You want to get arrested?’ And he pushed me up against the wall."

What was NYPD's police commissioner Ray Kelly's response to these allegations of brutality? She said that they "Didn't have a right to be there because there was confusion as to what they were allowed to do". Arrest and brutalize first, ask questions later. One of the more famous examples of this floating around right now is the 80 year old woman who was pepper sprayed. If that is not excessive force I don't know what is.

And after he admitted to waiting to push for eviction because he was afraid he wouldn't get it at first, what did he have to say? "No right is absolute." Except the right of billionaires to operate with impunity, it seems.

 

Unfortunately, when you have such big events that require police presence (if for no other reason, then because thousands of people packed together outside their homes is the perfect environment for pickpockets, muggers and the like) and polarized public opinion, such cases are hardly surprising. Just as how a few anarchists joined in the OWS movement and were responsible for broken shop windows and the like. Every side has bad apples, the question is what the responsible people do about them.

 

It seems the responsible people in this case are pretty much sanctioning it. Bloomberg's nighttime raids and suppression of reporters speaks volumes, even city councilmen Ydanis Rodriguez was injured during that raid. That being said, let's not pretend that the police are really at at every rally and protest arresting people because of a destructive group or two. America has a history of violent reactions to popular protests, though obviously not as bad as some other countries. The people killed at Kent State during the Vietnam protests, Ludlow Massacre, civil rights demonstrations in general, etc. The police are mostly there to intimidate protesters.

 

I still haven't heard a single coherent statement about WHAT they are actually trying to achieve.....

 

As far as I understand, in a nutshell it is "protest against growing inequality and corporate influence over the US", ideally in non-partisan manner (the whole 99% bit is meant to provide an inclusive theme). Of course, the movement is not all that disciplined, so everyone can bring their related pet cause and try to give it air.

What are they trying to achieve? I imagine stressing their agenda for the general public, media and the next crop of congressmen.

 

That's pretty much exactly it, and i'm pretty happy to see such a huge turnout for an issue I feel is one of the most important.

 

And you never will. The media loves to romantacize them, but they are really just a bunch of rich white kids who are in it for the party (and they say the tea party is racist, have you checked these guys out). About the only thing we can learn from this, is that all of the social engineering over the last few decades has bred a generation that expects things to be given to them and the concept of having to actually work at something is anathema. The company "Life is good" has a motto that is "Do what you like, like what you do". They sell a ton of shirts, but to survive in the "real world" you can't really cash in on that "lesbian studies" degree with a minor in "art history"