Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: What Future Occupy?

Posted 5 years ago on Jan. 11, 2013, 4:16 p.m. EST by VQkag2 (16478)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement



Read the Rules
[-] 1 points by Paleocon (10) from Richmond, VA 5 years ago

Excellent article! The way forwards is wide open. We can keep our principles, but we must be willing to vary our persona enough to show that we are alive.

This is the point I tried to make in


[-] 0 points by highlander (-163) 5 years ago

Nationofchange.org needs donations. Why is that?

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 5 years ago

To pay bills.

[-] 1 points by highlander (-163) 5 years ago

So money has a use and a need. Even the organizations that bemoan the money in politics and the economic inequality, etc, etc. etc. need money. I am not saying that is a bad thing. Quite the opposite. I just do not want anyone out there to forget that

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 5 years ago

Thank you for that. I'm sure we would have all forgotten.

[-] 0 points by penguento (362) 5 years ago

All of this assumes. of course, that OWS can deliver enough votes or money to influence the debate.

Interest groups can most certainly have an impact disproportionate to their absolute size. The UAW is a good example of this - they are a major player in Democratic politics even though they aren't all that big membership-wise. But what they can do is deliver a reliable bloc of votes and big money in the right place when needed.

OWS hasn't demonstrated the ability to deliver either votes or money, and until it can do so, no one will take it seriously. Right now, OWS isn't even on the radar for politicians. Sorry folks, if you think otherwise, but that's just how it is.

It may be that this is due to a philosophical refusal to get into the sewers with everybody else (a tactical mistake for anybody with pretensions of making real change) or it may be due to the fact that OWS hasn't got the money or votes to deliver (which I suspect is the real issue), but until that changes, OWS will not be a force for anything. Anyone who thinks otherwise is delusional.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 5 years ago

I disagree of course & i am not delusional. It is inappropriate to measure Occupys success in traditional ways.

Occupy has had great success, and made enormous change. In changing the national dialogue, forcing a discussion about income/wealth disparity/inequity between the 99% & the 1%. And changing the momentum/direction of the country from the rejected failed right wing tea party extremist austerity to a progressive tax fairness/stimulus approach.

All without dirtying our hands in direct politics. I think we can continue our efforts and more politicians will embrace our agenda.


[-] 0 points by rayolite (461) 5 years ago

Good article!

  • The question that must be asked is whether or not the Occupy Movement will begin to apply more direct pressure on the political process itself, on promoting specific pieces of legislation.

Occupy has been motivated by two fundamental principles: 1) corporations are not people, and 2) money is not speech. Occupy must decide whether or not it wants to see those principles materialized in legislation.**

Yes, the demands are what matter, not the means. Article V IS THE "specific pieces of legislation".

BUT PROPER PREPARATION MUST BE MADE before Article V proceeds generally. Three amendments.

1)End the abridging of free speech 2)Campaign finance reform 3)Secure the vote.

IF occupy goes to congress demanding Article V with proper preparation, THEN they will be engaging proper legal process. It is time to do this OR, the case might be made we are ready to relinquish our rights

[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 5 years ago

What speech abridging are we concerned about.?

[-] 1 points by rayolite (461) 5 years ago

The speech needed for Americans to share, understand constitutional intent assuring Article V is properly conducted.

If I'm doing this now, it's seriously abridged.

[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 5 years ago

Are unable to speak freely.?

[-] -1 points by rayolite (461) 5 years ago

No,-share, understand-is a lot more than be able to utter noises.

Your positions limits the knowledge and sentience of humanity. It is unconstitutional, again.

[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 5 years ago

Thanks for that.

[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 5 years ago

What do you think?

[-] 1 points by JPB950 (2254) 5 years ago

It would be nice if Occupy finally awoke and took that advice.

[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 5 years ago

We are too dispersed/diverse in opinions To do that.