Forum Post: Plans of Action?
Posted 12 years ago on Feb. 5, 2012, 1:12 a.m. EST by dmitriy167
(6)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
The last protest/march I attended was a week ago, starting from Washington Square in NYC, rallying against the police brutality committed against our fellow OWSers in Oakland. I was with the march from about 7pm to the very end in Tompkins Square, and went over quite a distance as we zig-zagged through downtown and midtown, attempting (but failing) to stay clear of the police. I saw about five of us getting arrested, two for a good reason (throwing bottles at the police is one of the dumbest actions we can take). The others were just grabbed from the crowd, seemingly without provocation. My question is: what did we accomplish?
This question also goes for other recent protests and demonstrations where the power of the corporate elite was not directly affected. This movement is unlike the civil rights movement of the 60s or the Indian liberation movement for which Gandhi is famous because we are completely economically unnecessary--the elite don't derive their profits from us, so they won't care if we boycott them in every way imaginable. What, then, can we really do to turn the balance of power toward the 99%?
Marching around is great for raising awareness, but it fails at actually accomplishing change. If OWS is to stay relevant, which I certainly hope it does, we have to take far more aggressive actions such as blockades, disruptions of economic and political transactions (Robin Hood-style), and direct confrontations with perpetrators of injustices against society near or on their homes. I still hold the belief that nonviolence is far preferable to violent tactics, but unlike many OWSers, also espouse the virtue of self-defense.
Is there anyone here with the fortitude to agree with me?
Not too many post about it any more, but there were quite a few posting a few months ago about using the national reach of occupy to recruit candidates for congress and run them in primaries. Make obtaining political power for the purpose of getting the changes you seek a priority.
Few were interested and cling to a sort of raise awareness mantra. I also ran into a lot of feeling that the system isn't worth using or saving. It has been pointed out that the movements you mentioned above had leaders and developed political strength. OWS has chosen a different direction, if it fades away it may very well be because of this.
unimportant,
I fully agree with your proposed amendment and any efforts by the legislature or courts to limit the ability of non-persons to finance elections. The truly tricky aspect would be electing the appropriate legislature to push such an amendment through. As corrupt as the whole process is, I fear that the concept is self-defeating: no corporation would "donate" to a candidate promising to end corporate personhood.
Once the principle of money for votes is established (as it essentially is now), a conventional legislative approach to reversing it might not be possible. The solutions in my mind are frightening, and I hope there is another way.
I have my own document draft that OWS might get behind: http://www.nycga.net/groups/vision-and-goals/forum/topic/my-draft-of-specific-domestic-goals/
I was getting ready to submit a document to V&G.
I think the amendment can be passed.
My response:
In my mind the problems with our country are related to legislation and laws that are not beneficial to the Citizens of the country. The reason I see bad legislation being passed is a result of the direct and indirect influence and more importantly, interference of corporations and/or the created entities in our political processes; both the electoral and legislative processes.
The ability for these entities to be able to pump money into the political processes are the direct and indirect result of the Courts and their rulings that over the last 120 years starting with the 1886 case SANTA CLARA COUNTY v. SOUTHERN PAC. R. CO., 118 U.S. 394 (1886)
http://www.ratical.org/corporations/SCvSPR1886.html
Culminating in the case Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (FEC) which granted unlimited influence to created entities in the political processes.
In my mind this is where I would start to fix the problem, or stem the flow of bad rulings. The question is how you stem the flow of bad rulings by Courts. I would remove their ability to misinterpret the Constitution by making the Constitution specific in who the Bill of Rights are reserved for.
My proposed Amendment or at least the relevant text:
http://www.nycga.net/groups/political-and-electoral-reform/docs/amendment-28-status-of-created-entities
Resolved by the CITIZENS of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and presented to the House of Representatives and the Senate of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of two-thirds of the several States within twelve [12] months after the date of its submission for ratification:
“ARTICLE—
“SECTION 1. We the people who ordain and establish the rights protected by the Constitution of the United States to be the rights of natural persons.
“SECTION 2. The words people, person, or citizen as used in this Constitution mean “natural persons” and do not include corporations, limited liability companies and other private entities established by the laws of any State, the United States, or any foreign state.
“SECTION 3. Such entities not identified as a “natural persons” in SECTION 2. of this Amendment, shall be prohibited from making contributions or expenditures to, for or against, any candidate for public office or to, for or against, publicly elected official or to, for or against, any legislation before the Congress, the Senate or the people.
“SECTION 4. Nothing contained herein shall be construed to limit the people’s rights of freedom of speech, freedom of the press, free exercise of religion, freedom of association and all such other rights of the people, which rights are inalienable.”.
This precludes all except the individual from expenditure and contributing to all political processes. This gets rid of lobbiest, PACs and all other created entities from all influence of our government.
After this we can bail out the water by changing the laws to serve the public instead of the current laws that force the public to serve our government.
we have the right to establish a well armed militia according to the constitution, we should wear battle armor, guns and bullet proof vests, we could call us whitewater. and if the police or whomever should come against us we shall grow stronger by our majority and they shall remain the few.
you start disrupting anything else you better have lots of bail money because New York has it with your childish disruptions. If you noticed you are being ignored...your 5 minutes of fame are up and no one cares anymore ..head home get a job and start writing letters to your congressman or woman. write to the senators. do volunteer work in your local community if you can't find a job...but enough of this OWS ..it is such a scam and was only created so that someone could profit from it. You have been used like a pawn and that is sad.
Son, fame is a fickle thing and you can't say whether it is up or not. These "childish disruption" are the constitutional rights of the Citizens of the United States. Unlike your right to "childishly disrupt" this forum.
The difference of course is this forum is not public property and you do not have any rights to private property other those afforded to you by the property owner.
Public property is owned essentially by the Citizens of the United States who are committing the crimes of Free Speech and freedom of assembly to redress their grievances about our country.
You and those like you are not using public property to applaud our government, you and those like you are using the private property of others for the sole purpose of disrupting a discussion about what is wrong with this country and how to fix these wrongs.
You do not ask questions you name call. You contribute distraction for the sole purpose of distraction and nothing more. You do not discourage any from this, instead your stupidity and self-imposed ignorance buttresses the will of all who read your diatribes.
Instead of presenting valid or any points you can do no more than name call.
Writing to the fox about the changing things to the hen house is really stupid.
You say I name call have you read your post? You are the pot calling the kettle black. Zuccotti Park is not public property either in case you missed that point. Peaceful protest is a wonderful thing. It is my constitutional right and it is yours. Throwing yourself in front of moving cars, blocking traffic, disturbing the peace and a slew of other illegal activities people are doing in the name of OWS is not your constitutional right nor is it protected by anything in the constitution. It will however look dandy on your next job application when they ask if you have ever been arrested. There is no reason to engage in or promote activities that will lead your arrest or injury. Peaceful protest is respected, illegal activites are not.
As to this forum being public property: OWS is accepting donations through the Alliance for Global Justice (which also accepts funds for the PROCASTRO movement how nice where is the Justice for the Cuban people) and is acting as a 501(c). If you have your website open to the public it is therefore the right of anyone to write their views on it. To block or to disallow someone to write because their view are not the same as yours as worse than what you protest against.
While I advocate and support peaceful protest I will never support nor encourage protest which endangers the protestors and those around them and neither should you. Doing so is as unethical and immoral.
Zuccotti Park is private property donated for public use. Educate yourself. How much do you require others to learn for you and then take the time to explain to you?
Because an entity accepts funding from people does not make their property for public use. Donating it for a tax write off for public use does.
FOX Media is owned by News Corp, which is seven percent owned by a Saudi Prince.
How about twitter?
I never said the owner of the site shouldn't allow you to speak, I said you are allowed to speak on their site as a direct result of their grace.
You do not have the right to do so, the Public has the Constitutional Right to protest, exercise Free Speech, Peaceably Assemble on privately owned land that has been donated for public use.
Do you people even actually research any of your claims?