The 2011 Occupy Protests: A Precursor to Meaningful Action


shelphs
#1
The Occupy protests were a global encampment of public spaces in protest of societal inequalities that undermine democracy and freedom. Because the movement is representative of many different communities, many different focuses exist around the world; however, the unifying concerns deal with the distribution of wealth, the financial system, and corporate and government powers and their interconnectivity.

“We are the 99%” is the Occupy Movement’s slogan; it is in reference to how the greatest monetary holdings are held by the very few, i.e., the 1%, and that the majority of power and influence in the financial system, corporate world, and government is possessed by them. The rally cry is to signify a shift from a voiceless majority to a vocal and influential one.

Protests under the Occupy banner have thus far only been introductory, a precursor to a larger and more narrowed non-violent attack on the status quo. For progress and reform to occur, the Occupy Movement needs to coordinate meaningful protests against specific policy, legislation, or actions brought about by the private and public sectors that exploit and ignore the interests of the 99%.

Society is governed by a value structure – ethics. Laws and enforcement tools are created to define and uphold them, but, as shown by the Occupy Movement, there is too great of a disparity between the 1%’s values and that of the 99%’s. The majority need increased political power to be more politically involved and influential, and this can be achieved by attacking the value system upon which injustices rest.

The movement and continued activism should focus on the ethics of society that legitimize laws and policy that dilute democracy and freedom. The world citizenry must express its refusal to be marginalized. We must create demands based on a new value system and express and defend them vigorously.
 
EagleSmack
+2 / -2
#2
... in addition to being a BIG FAT FAIL.
 
mentalfloss
+1
#3
It's true that the movement has already had a very meaningful impact.

Social impact

In the United States, the protests have helped shift the national dialogue from the deficit to economic problems many ordinary Americans face, such as unemployment,[267] the large amount of student and other personal debt that burdens middle class and working class Americans,[268] and other major issues of social inequality, such as homelessness.[269] The movement appears to have generated a national conversation about income inequality, as evidenced by the fact that print and broadcast news mentioned the term “income inequality” more than five times more often during the last week of October 2011 than during the week before the occupation began.[270] The Occupy movement raised awareness regarding undeserved wealth and lack of fairness in American society.[271]

Labor unions have become bolder in the tactics they employ and have been using digital social media more effectively because of the Occupy movement.[272] In New York City, the Occupy Wall Street protest has also provided hundreds of protesters to help in picket actions conducted by labor unions.[272]

On November 10, 2011, The Daily Telegraph reported that the word "occupy" had been the "most commonly used English word on the internet and in print" over the past 12 months according to a top ten list published by media analysis company Global Language Monitor.[273][274] In January 2012, members of the American Dialect Society voted with an overwhelming majority for "Occupy" as the word of the year for 2011.[275]


[edit] Political impact

On 27 December 2011 the Financial Times argued that the movement had had a global impact, altering "the terms of the political debate."[276] Other commentators have taken a more critical view, suggesting the occupy movement has been a disruptive waste of time. Even some sympathetic commentators such as Anthony Barnett, have suggested that in Spain, where the movement once had the support of well over 70% of the population with millions taking part, the popularity of Occupy is now past its peak and has achieved no consequences of any significance. [34] However there were numerous successes at local level [277] and The Economist has reported that Spanish protestors caused their government to pass various laws including new limits on the amounts banks can claw back from defaulting borrowers. [94]

In November 2011, U.S. Congressman Ted Deutch, member of the House Judiciary Committee, introduced the "Outlawing Corporate Cash Undermining the Public Interest in our Elections and Democracy (OCCUPIED) Constitutional Amendment," which would overturn the Citizens United Supreme Court decision recognizing corporate constitutionally-protected free speech rights and would ban corporate money from the electoral process.[278][279]

Also in November 2011, Paul Mason said that the occupy movement had started to shape the global policy response to the Late-2000s financial crisis, being mentioned so often at the 2011 G20 summit that if occupy had been a brand "it would have a profile to die for among the super-elite". [280]

Various journalists along with Jared Bernstein former chief economist and economic adviser to Vice President Joe Biden, have suggested that Occupy influenced the President's January 2012 State of the Union address , with the movement creating the political space for Obama to shift to the economic left and speak about the desirability of the rich paying a greater share of the tax burden. President Obama no longer mentions the Occupy movement by name, which analysts say reflects the fact that by early 2012 Occupy had become a divisive issue, unpopular with much of the public. [263][281] [282]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupy_movement#Impact
 
shelphs
+1
#4
Quote: Originally Posted by EagleSmackView Post

... in addition to being a BIG FAT FAIL.

It is the beginning, hopefully. The outrage was too broad-based for specific change to occur through the protests themselves. Specific policies now need be targeted to continue the movement.

A good one for the USA is Super PACs. Super PACs allow for greater money in politics in the USA, which caters to the 1% and their level of influence.

For Canada, evidence-based policy making need be demanded. Ideological views or gut feelings should not shape society when they run counter to statistically, empirically supported policy.
 
mentalfloss
#5
Quote: Originally Posted by shelphsView Post

It is the beginning, hopefully. The outrage was too broad-based. Specific polities now need be targeted to continue the movement.

The movement will always have side measures, but I think they'll stick to the very real issue of wealth inequality.
 
EagleSmack
+3
#6
Quote: Originally Posted by shelphsView Post

It is the beginning, hopefully. The outrage was too broad-based. Specific polities now need be targeted to continue the movement. A good one for the USA is Super PACs. For Canada, evidence-based policy making need be demanded. Ideological views or gut feelings should not shape society when they run counter to statistically, empirically supported policy.

Not to mention the encampments becoming a haven for drug use, crime, anarchy, filth, sexual assaults, assaults, thievery, and last but not least class warfare!
 
mentalfloss
-2
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by EagleSmackView Post

Not to mention the encampments becoming a haven for drug use, crime, anarchy, filth, sexual assaults, assaults, thievery, and last but not least class warfare!

Those things are greatly exaggerated and everyone knows they're just Republican/Conservative talking points being fed to the media.
 
EagleSmack
+2
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

It's true that the movement has already had a very meaningful impact.


I read through the cut and paste... and honestly none of what was written points to any meaningful impact. Opening a discussion, proposing a bill is not what would fall under the IMPACT category.

Even Bank of America is trying to sneak their fee hikes back in. I told everyone in here they would once the hype ends.
 
shelphs
#9
Most to all does come down to money. The Super PAC example I gave earlier is obvious, but non-evidence-based policy also has roots in inequalities of distribution of wealth and how money buys political access.
Policy that is not based in whole societal good or ignores evidence is rooted in an arcane motivation. However, that motivation usually stems from power and influence. The Conservatives' omnibus crime bill represents a willingness to incarcerate and punish rather than decriminalize and help, as shown by countless studies on the issue and real-life success cases in other governments, e.g., Portugal.

Why ignore these facts. It could be to create an overcrowding prison population with the goal of opening privatized prison systems in Canada or b/c helping "criminals" is ideologically unsavory. And, statistically, criminals are overwhelmingly poor or in bad economic situations.

Whatever the motivation, the policy hurts those less powerful in society, i.e., the poor.
 
EagleSmack
+4 / -2
#10  Top Rated Post
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

Those things are greatly exaggerated and everyone knows they're just Republican/Conservative talking points being fed to the media.

Oh please. Don't make a fool of yourself! It is right there in plain view and pictures and in the police reports. That would be like me saying the Iraq War was greatly exaggerated.

And you don't speak for everyone and most everyone wanted this scum out of our public parks.
 
DaSleeper
+2
#11
Oh Gawd...another season of this.....


The Lotion Man - YouTube



The Robin Hood of "progressives" .....
 
lone wolf
Free Thinker
#12
I figure the Occupy crowd served to make the look-down-their-nose crowd uncomfortable in that there, by the grace of gawd, go they - hence the name calling: so they can actually believe they're better than someone
 
PoliticalNick
Free Thinker
-1
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by EagleSmackView Post

I do understand the concept and I know that when one small segment of the public suddenly feels that they have the right to set up camp and pile their filth all over the place at the cost of MILLIONS to everyone they are out of line. Public parks are intended for use by ALL, not just filthy vermin.

Unfortunately I have to agree that the protesters should have picked up their garbage when they left and most probably would have given the opportunity instead of being forcibly chased off. I will also say that there were some persons present who were not there to protest peaceably and instead used the situation for nothing but their own enjoyment and to flaunt the law.

If you have such a huge problem with the cost of the clean-up you could have saved everyone "MILLIONS" by rounding up a bunch of corporate VPs and brokers and friends on their 2 hour, 3 martini lunch breaks to all fill a garbage bag as volunteers....except they would have no idea what hard work and voluteerism is about.
 
lone wolf
Free Thinker
+1
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by PoliticalNickView Post

Unfortunately I have to agree that the protesters should have picked up their garbage when they left and most probably would have given the opportunity instead of being forcibly chased off. I will also say that there were some persons present who were not there to protest peaceably and instead used the situation for nothing but their own enjoyment and to flaunt the law.

If you have such a huge problem with the cost of the clean-up you could have saved everyone "MILLIONS" by rounding up a bunch of corporate VPs and brokers and friends on their 2 hour, 3 martini lunch breaks to all fill a garbage bag as volunteers....except they would have no idea what hard work and voluteerism is about.

The pigs infiltrate every party....
 
EagleSmack
+1
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by PoliticalNickView Post

Unfortunately I have to agree that the protesters should have picked up their garbage when they left and most probably would have given the opportunity instead of being forcibly chased off. I will also say that there were some persons present who were not there to protest peaceably and instead used the situation for nothing but their own enjoyment and to flaunt the law.

It was time for the filth to go... and go they did. It was great to see.

Good riddens Occupiers!


Quote:

If you have such a huge problem with the cost of the clean-up you could have saved everyone "MILLIONS" by rounding up a bunch of corporate VPs and brokers and friends on their 2 hour, 3 martini lunch breaks to all fill a garbage bag as volunteers....except they would have no idea what hard work and voluteerism is about.

So I should have rounded up some corporate VPs huh? Any other realistic ideas?

Please continue with your logic Nick!
 
LiesOfTheIntell
No Party Affiliation
+1 / -2
#16
Quote:

Good riddens Occupiers!

lesser inteligence confirmed!

Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

Those things are greatly exaggerated and everyone knows they're just Republican/Conservative talking points being fed to the media.

Small correction: look at the media as a filter which decides which message will be propogated. As such, it is the media who choose this message, it is the media who is responsible for disseminating this lie.

I saw a demographic study comparing the Tea Partiers to the Occupiers. I was surprised at the disparity, the Tea Partiers didn't do well in the survey in any demographic. The Occ's were better educated, more likely to be employed, better informed etc. The TP'ers supported right wing extremists like Michele Bachman, but you don't hear the media harping about what a down and out group of people these idiots are.

Even the methods of the Occupiers suggested "well educated." A big lol at their nuetered nanny state "violence doesn't work" approach. This suggests these are the kids of the well-to-do, the bureacrats, the borgeoise. And let's admit their protest changed nothing since non-violence - contrary to nanny state teachings - doesn't work. *yawn*

Quote: Originally Posted by PoliticalNickView Post

Actually it was a huge success at showing just what lengths the corporate governments would go to to maintain the status quo and control of the 99%. It also had the added effect of showing moronic, right-wing a$$holes like you for the useless wastes of sperm you are.

I don't like to take sides, but Nick does have a point. However I'm not sure why you would argue with a super-pat asshat with a alias like that. Don't waste your time on fools Nick.

Anyways, bravo to the Occupiers for trying. Unlike many of us, atleast they are trying to make a difference. Hopefully in the future protests will take on more militant tone and increasingly so, as each new protest is subdued with State sponsored violence, be it the violence of a monetary fine, the violence of a jail term, the violence of confiscated possessions.

The lesson to learn, and Noam Chomsky would agree with this, is that violence does work.
 
CDNBear
+3
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by LiesOfTheIntellView Post

Small correction: look at the media as a filter which decides which message will be propogated. As such, it is the media who choose this message, it is the media who is responsible for disseminating this lie.

I keep hearing this lame argument.

Maybe before the internet, it was a legitimate excuse. But we have the internet now, and no shortage of alternative news outlets, from all corners of the political spectrum.

Not to mention, I see time and time again, people use the very same media, they rail against on one issue, to bolster their position in others.

Watch you don't bite off your fingers, while you have your cake and eat it too.
Last edited by CDNBear; Mar 7th, 2012 at 06:58 PM..
 
taxslave
No Party Affiliation
+2
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by shelphsView Post

It is the beginning, hopefully. The outrage was too broad-based for specific change to occur through the protests themselves. Specific policies now need be targeted to continue the movement.

A good one for the USA is Super PACs. Super PACs allow for greater money in politics in the USA, which caters to the 1% and their level of influence.

For Canada, evidence-based policy making need be demanded. Ideological views or gut feelings should not shape society when they run counter to statistically, empirically supported policy.

That is why we do not want a dipper government. Experience in BC has shown them to be stuck on ideology and ignore reality. Which is why the occupy movement is a fail.
The ones they should be complaining about are the movie stars, rock stars and jocks that make billions and contribute zero to the economy. Not the movers and shakers that provide the majority of high paying union jobs outside of government.
 
PoliticalNick
Free Thinker
+1
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslaveView Post

That is why we do not want a dipper government. Experience in BC has shown them to be stuck on ideology and ignore reality. Which is why the occupy movement is a fail.
The ones they should be complaining about are the movie stars, rock stars and jocks that make billions and contribute zero to the economy. Not the movers and shakers that provide the majority of high paying union jobs outside of government.

Thanks for the neg rep. If I am getting that from a right-wing radical like yourself I must be doing something right. Thanks again!

 
wulfie68
No Party Affiliation
+1
#20
The "Occupy" movements did illustrate one major point to all politicians: there is as much anger and dissatisfaction on the political left as there is/was on the right, that led to the establishment of the Tea Party movement in the US. The anger wasn't focused on one issue or set of issues but it is there, and I think that is something the politicians need to be aware of. The "Occupiers" were derided in many quarters but they also struck some chords with many others and they shared 2 common targets with the original Tea Partiers: ineffective gov'ts and excessively powerful corporate lobbies. In large part the difference between the 2 groups is in how they feel the problems need to be addressed.
 
B00Mer
Republican
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by wulfie68View Post

The "Occupy" movements did illustrate one major point to all politicians: there is as much anger and dissatisfaction on the political left as there is/was on the right, that led to the establishment of the Tea Party movement in the US. The anger wasn't focused on one issue or set of issues but it is there, and I think that is something the politicians need to be aware of. The "Occupiers" were derided in many quarters but they also struck some chords with many others and they shared 2 common targets with the original Tea Partiers: ineffective gov'ts and excessively powerful corporate lobbies. In large part the difference between the 2 groups is in how they feel the problems need to be addressed.

You get a good old Lefty titty-twist...

 
mentalfloss
#22
My left nipple just went hard.
 
SLM
No Party Affiliation
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

my left nipple just went hard.

t.m.i.
 
shelphs
#24
Examples of Cultural Values to Attack (monetary policy with regard to the electoral process)

An example of policy in the US that reflects distorted values is the Super PAC legislation: a political device that allows for unlimited contributions to political parties. Monetary contributions correlate with electoral success; that is, parties that receive most funding generally win. Consequently, money disrupts the democratic process in favour of the 1%.

The culture and ethics associated with the Super PAC law need be challenged and attacked. This is law that should not be.

Canadians have a similar problem, though nowhere near as democratically crippling. The $2-per-vote subsidy is an excellent democratic law, which, unfortunately, Stephen Harper has made steps to have abolished entirely by 2015.

This policy should remain. It's greater incentive to vote and allows people to not only support the party of their choice during an election but it also allows them to contribute financing to it in default of voting. Some people earn very little and don't think of donating to parties. This law allows parties to exists even if their support base is not financially strong.
 
mentalfloss
#25
Quote: Originally Posted by SLMView Post

t.m.i.

n.e.i.
 
EagleSmack
#26
Quote: Originally Posted by LiesOfTheIntellView Post

lesser inteligence confirmed!

.

Indeed it has been!

It always makes me smile when someone attempts to insult another's intelligence and their post is chock full of common spelling errors.

So long Occupiers!


Last edited by EagleSmack; Mar 8th, 2012 at 02:24 PM..
 
DaSleeper
#27
Quote: Originally Posted by EagleSmackView Post

Indeed it has been!

It always makes me smile when someone attempts to insult another's intelligence and their post is chock full of common spelling errors.

So long Occupiers!


My Dad told me , when I was young..." you can't realise the value of anything unless you have earned it through your own labour"

I would guess, that all that stuff left behind, was donated???
I would hate to be the employer that hires one of those "do-nothings".......
Last edited by DaSleeper; Mar 8th, 2012 at 03:33 PM..
 
lone wolf
Free Thinker
#28
Sorta looks like a strong blue wind blew through....
 
damngrumpy
No Party Affiliation
+1
#29
As with all social movements they have a shotgun effect in the beginning. The try to cover
too much of the spectrum. yes there is encampments of idealist people and the opposition
will foucus on the drug issues and drinking. That comes with encampments. The difference
will come when the more focussed protests begin to center of what the problems really are.
We saw the classic example of this in the early seventies. The anti war protest movement
was winding down and those still engaged in civil action and social issues changed their
focus to the environmental movement. People laughed at them, condemned them, made
fun of them and dismissed them. Withing twenty years they tried to deal with them while
maintaining the status quo. Now of course they have joined them. In my opinion the
corporate elite have now stolen their agenda and are using the environment for profit to
themselves. We are paying the people who made the mess, great sums of money to clean
it up. By that I mean reclamation companies in construction to the manufacturers of new
green products to replace the harmful ones they sold us three decades ago.
This struggle is a class struggle as much as we say it is not. After WWII the middle class
refused to accept the world the way it was so instead of revolution the corporate elite made
concessions and lately they have been clawing them back.
In fact the middle class has helped them. They bought all those RRSPs and made investment
money possible for the companies to not only profit, but to set up off shore and put their
very small time investors out of work. The same people who complain about the export of jobs
are the same middle class people buying Chinese made goods at Walmart.

As the future progresses people will have to not only define the problem they will have to change
their behaviour and respond with serious solutions and that requires more than marches and
slogans. Yes Occupy is the movement of the future and it could well become the new left
with a purpose.
 
pgs
Free Thinker
#30
[QUOTE=damngrumpy;1557362]As with all social movements they have a shotgun effect in the beginning. The try to cover
too much of the spectrum. yes there is encampments of idealist people and the opposition
will foucus on the drug issues and drinking. That comes with encampments. The difference
will come when the more focussed protests begin to center of what the problems really are.
We saw the classic example of this in the early seventies. The anti war protest movement
was winding down and those still engaged in civil action and social issues changed their
focus to the environmental movement. People laughed at them, condemned them, made
fun of them and dismissed them. Withing twenty years they tried to deal with them while
maintaining the status quo. Now of course they have joined them. In my opinion the
corporate elite have now stolen their agenda and are using the environment for profit to
themselves. We are paying the people who made the mess, great sums of money to clean
it up. By that I mean reclamation companies in construction to the manufacturers of new
green products to replace the harmful ones they sold us three decades ago.
This struggle is a class struggle as much as we say it is not. After WWII the middle class
refused to accept the world the way it was so instead of revolution the corporate elite made
concessions and lately they have been clawing them back.
In fact the middle class has helped them. They bought all those RRSPs and made investment
money possible for the companies to not only profit, but to set up off shore and put their
very small time investors out of work. The same people who complain about the export of jobs
are the same middle class people buying Chinese made goods at Walmart.

As the future progresses people will have to not only define the problem they will have to change
their behaviour and respond with serious solutions and that requires more than marches and
slogans. Yes Occupy is the movement of the future and it could well become the new le


Yes Grumpy I know about those new green products,replacing the junk from 3 decades ago.
How is that vinyl siding on your house?
Much greener than natural growing cedar I am sure.
I bet it lasts longer as well.
 

Similar Threads

3
The right way to handle Occupy protests
by Icarus27k | Nov 28th, 2011
2
Roger and Yahoo! Class Action Law Action Available
by Dan_in_Ottawa | Apr 10th, 2005
no new posts