Occupy Oakland Clashes with Police (Again)

[Traitorfish]

The DNC and GOP don't make it a habit of assaulting police, creating camps where criminality runs wild, and basically behaving in a violent criminal method.

So many Iraq War jokes just waiting to be made...

 

[aelf]

The DNC and GOP don't make it a habit of assaulting police, creating camps where criminality runs wild, and basically behaving in a violent criminal method.

Look at the criticisms directed at OWS as a whole here (at least the ones I've been responding to). They are not about how violent or destructive some of the participants are. It's all about how they aren't organised and don't have a coherent message, etc.

Besides, can I also characterise the cops as "basically behaving in a violent criminal method" now? Because some of them do.

 

[CaptainF]

The DNC and GOP don't make it a habit of assaulting police, creating camps where criminality runs wild, and basically behaving in a violent criminal method.

Someone watches too much television.

 

[Murky]

The DNC and GOP don't make it a habit of assaulting police, creating camps where criminality runs wild, and basically behaving in a violent criminal method.

That's a pretty broad generalization to make about all the OWS protestors.

 

[downtown]

That's a pretty broad generalization to make about all the OWS protestors.

But not of the major OWS camps.

 

[downtown]

I'm not sure why there is such a disconnect between people's knowledge of reality and their expectations. You guys know that your political scene is screwed up, but you seem to expect solutions to come quickly, as though there are solutions that are convenient and that everyone will agree on. Even if OWS mobilises and becomes a political organisation, it's going to come up against all sorts of obstacles in implementing its agenda, at which point a great number of people will criticise it for being not being inclusive and effective enough. And people like Joecoolyo will still be opposed to it because they have never agreed with its politics in the first place.

Why would people oppose it for not being inclusive enough? That doesn't seem to be a popular critique of other social or political movements in the US, except for maybe the Republican Party, thats at a tactical level, not an ideological one. The fact that OWS has been too inclusive has lead to most of their problems. If you include all the homeless people and the petty criminals and the anarchist troublemakers...surprise! You get some pretty bad images on the TV.

We know our political system is screwed up. Forcing our country to LOOK AT OWS, in highsight, was a win. We used to sweep income and opportunity inequality under the rug, and now candidates and our media are actually talking about it. That's the first step. Now we need to decide HOW we talk about it, and what we should do. Those are political and organizational questions, and they require political and organizational answers.

With coordinated mass action and a strong message, outside forces can still shape our corrupt and stupid parties. Look at SOPA last week. A grassroots group came up with a clear message, a plan of action, and millions of people across disparate groups bought into it. If that same kind of energy and action was brought towards say, fighting corporate influence of elections, or creating competitive elections, we'd be in businesses.

OWS wouldn't need to exist if there was a viable way for leftist organisations to participate in the political process.

There are ways for them to participate in the political process. Groups farther left than a typical US democrat are often marginalized because
1) the leadership for these leftist groups is terrible, and they dont know how to maximize their opportunities.
2) these groups are incredibility unpopular in the uS.

 

[aelf]

Why would people oppose it for not being inclusive enough? That doesn't seem to be a popular critique of other social or political movements in the US, except for maybe the Republican Party, thats at a tactical level, not an ideological one.

What about the 'elitist liberals' rhetoric, for one?

And remember when some inner circle in an OWS camp began trying to call the shots by taking control of the funds? That didn't get OWS good publicity. How do you imagine OWS would organise itself when there are so many different participants from all walks of life who don't all share the same ideology? The only way I can see it happening is if a core group emerges and begins monopolising the OWS brand and resources, inevitably stepping on many people's toes in the process. Do you honestly see that happening without a major breakup?

The fact that OWS has been too inclusive has lead to most of their problems. If you include all the homeless people and the petty criminals and the anarchist troublemakers...surprise! You get some pretty bad images on the TV.

I highly doubt that that is on purpose.

We know our political system is screwed up. Forcing our country to LOOK AT OWS, in highsight, was a win. We used to sweep income and opportunity inequality under the rug, and now candidates and our media are actually talking about it. That's the first step.

That's exactly what I'm thinking.

Now we need to decide HOW we talk about it, and what we should do. Those are political and organizational questions, and they require political and organizational answers.

With coordinated mass action and a strong message, outside forces can still shape our corrupt and stupid parties. Look at SOPA last week. A grassroots group came up with a clear message, a plan of action, and millions of people across disparate groups bought into it. If that same kind of energy and action was brought towards say, fighting corporate influence of elections, or creating competitive elections, we'd be in businesses.

Firstly, I don't think OWS is well-suited to carry out the task of organising itself in such a manner right now, for reasons that I've already gone into. Secondly, SOPA is a single issue. Even if you want to boil OWS' concerns down to the issue of income inequality, that's a huge issue with many different moving parts. It's not going to be as simple as opposing SOPA. Thirdly, if you think OWS has brought progress, I think you shouldn't attack it for not living up to your expectations of what should be done next. I think that just damages the cause because then you're contributing to the chorus of anti-OWS voices that include people who are against what OWS stands for. It's better to accept that OWS itself has a specific role and not to expect it to do much more than that.

And, lastly, if you believe that it's high time to act, well, I guess I have to ask, what are you doing about it?

There are ways for them to participate in the political process. Groups farther left than a typical US democrat are often marginalized because
1) the leadership for these leftist groups is terrible, and they dont know how to maximize their opportunities.
2) these groups are incredibility unpopular in the uS.

That's really the most important point. If they didn't suffer from such a lack of prestige and opportunity, they'd have no real problem attracting some talent. The dearth of talent is largely a consequence of other factors, because even if you have a few brilliant people, once they are gone, you're most likely going to end up back in square one. We have a lot of experience with that in Singapore, where the opposition has been kept weak by the systematic denial of talent.

 

[RobAnybody]

Which only means that you don't get it.

I don't get it. I'll try to explain why, & I honestly don't mean to be insulting, but some of this is going to sound insulting, so all I can ask is that you bear with me & accept that I sympathize with the problem, but not the movement, & I'm going to try to explain why.

They did write a bunch of referendums, I forgot what they called them or whether most of the OWS people have even read them. I posted them though, I think Intregal started a thread about them.

This. This is my main problem, really. What do we want? I dunno, something. We wrote it down but I forgot where we put it. When do we want it? At some vague time in the future, maybe.

Like I said, I sympathize with the problem of too much wealth, & by extension, too much control over the economic & political system, being concentrated in the hands of the few at the expense of the many. If it were truly a rising tide lifting all boats, then hey, not so much a problem, but it's a rising plateau at the expense of other people's dirt (colorful metaphor, yes?).

Now, what do the OWS want? To draw attention to that fact? OK, but I think that's not (just) it. If that's it, well, you have my attention. Now what?

The point is the system can't be fixed by just fixing one or two issues. If it could, don't you think some people would have come up with some solutions by now? And, that being the case, whose job is it to point out to ordinary people that the system needs a major overhaul?

I don't know. Is it the OWS people's job? If not, then what are they doing? I just don't get it.

As Cheezy says, at this point they're still floundering in a sort of desperate left-liberalism, as unwilling to imagine alternatives to the present system as they are unable to come up with fixes for it. What's significant about the OWS movement is the movement itself, it's the possibilities it opens up, the cracks in the system- as Innonimatu says- that it highlights and begins to widen.

What possibilities? What cracks? Seriously. Tell me. Too much of this is generalities. Things are bad. Things need fixes. Give me specifics. I'm listening.

I just don't get why it's OWS' fault that they are not doing the mobilising. By definition, as I've explained more than once, it's not a movement that is capable of organising without transforming itself radically from an inclusive broad-based movement into an exclusive one, thereby becoming not-OWS. You might as well extend the same criticism to both the Democratic and Republican parties.

Yep, sure. You may as well. But what makes OWS different? What if I already do extend the same criticism to both the Democratic and Republican parties? Why is OWS's message better? I lean libertarian, small "l". The caital "L" Libertarian party would never have me because I don't hate poor people. I just want as few laws & government intrusions as possible. Now, what does OWS offer? Specifically, not bumper sticker level, specifically. Why should I support them over the D's or R's? What do they want? What do they stand for? What are they going to do to get the things they want? Too often they seem to be "above" such questions, but those are important questions.

You guys know that your political scene is screwed up, but you seem to expect solutions to come quickly, as though there are solutions that are convenient and that everyone will agree on.

That's valid, but if no solutions are proposed, they can't come quickly or slowly

downtown, Traitorfish, & aelf all seem to disagree on what the movement is *about*, much less what the solutions should be.

We know our political system is screwed up. Forcing our country to LOOK AT OWS, in highsight, was a win.

Agreed.

Now we need to decide HOW we talk about it, and what we should do. Those are political and organizational questions, and they require political and organizational answers.

Exactly. That's where I stand. I see the OWS people as drawing attention to a valid issue but not proposing any solutions, & not even having a discussion about potential solutions. They're just... whining... for lack of a less incendiary word to use. How am I suppose to sympathize with a movement who just stomps their feet & occasionally vandalizes property or fights with cops? What are they doing to actually help the 99% outside of drawing up proclamations they can't find & wiggling their fingers? Sorry. I shouldn't have ended with the incendiary suff, but it's a little frustrating trying to get a straight answer from a movement I *want* to like but just can't at the moment.

 

[aelf]

Yep, sure. You may as well. But what makes OWS different? What if I already do extend the same criticism to both the Democratic and Republican parties?

Did you miss the part where I mentioned the two parties' "money-spinning political machines"? OWS, like the two parties, seeks to be as inclusive as possible, but it's (still) outside of the vote-grabbing game, which is one of the things it criticises. That's obvious, right? I mean, are you really asking this question or are you trying to play gotcha?

Now, what does OWS offer? Specifically, not bumper sticker level, specifically. Why should I support them over the D's or R's? What do they want? What do they stand for?

downtown, Traitorfish, & aelf all seem to disagree on what the movement is *about*, much less what the solutions should be.

Well, by your own admission, you don't even know what OWS is about. So how are you going to engage in a productive discussion here?

No wonder, then, that you think that we are disagreeing on what the movement is about. You're just not following. What we disagree on is the role or function of the movement.

 

[RobAnybody]

Well, by your own admission, you don't even know what OWS is about. So how are you going to engage in a productive discussion here?

By asking questions. By telling you my perceptions, asking what you're about, & hoping you'll tell me.

I said I don't get it. I said I'm not following. I told you what my issues were. I asked for you to explain. Instead, I get... well, exactly what you gave me. Nothing.

 

[aelf]

You're asking me to explain what OWS is all about, expecting to be spoon fed, or else I'm the one offering nothing? Really? Wow. There ought be a name for this tactic.

PS: Besides, you completely ignored the rest of my reply, which makes your claim that I gave you nothing even more ludicrous.

 

[RobAnybody]

There is. I believe it's called "I was open to the movement's ideas, but you've demonstrated why I shouldn't even bother". I'm paraphrasing, though. It probably has other names all around the country.

 

[aelf]

You mean you were open to ideas you apparently know nothing about? Feigned ignorance, eh? That's probably the name I was looking for.

 

[RobAnybody]

You mean you were open to ideas you apparently know nothing about?

Yes. Of course. I'm open to hearing your ideas, but I don't know what they are. Just complaining about the current system doesn't cut it. What are your *ideas*? How much clearer can I be?

Why is this so difficult? This is exactly what I was talking about:

What do they want? What do they stand for? What are they going to do to get the things they want? Too often they seem to be "above" such questions, but those are important questions.

You seem to think people should grasp your ideas intuitively, with no explanations. Like they're just obvious. I'm open to it. Explain it to me. Stop being a dick about it & assuming anyone who doesn't "get it" is against you. I. don't. get. it. We agree on that.

Feigned ignorance, eh? That's probably the name I was looking for.

Stop condescending to people who ask you questions like it's a big insult to be questioned.

 

[aelf]

Or maybe you're just schizophrenic:

This. This is my main problem, really. What do we want? I dunno, something. We wrote it down but I forgot where we put it. When do we want it? At some vague time in the future, maybe.

Like I said, I sympathize with the problem of too much wealth, & by extension, too much control over the economic & political system, being concentrated in the hands of the few at the expense of the many. If it were truly a rising tide lifting all boats, then hey, not so much a problem, but it's a rising plateau at the expense of other people's dirt (colorful metaphor, yes?).

One minute, you're like "What do we want? I dunno." Then the next minute you're like, "Yeah, we want wealth to be less concentrated in the hands of the few." If only we knew that we want that. Those useless OWS buggers and their determination not to tell me their ideas!

 

[RobAnybody]

Oh, come on. Are you purposefully trying to drive people away? I said I understand the issue that OWS is drawing attention to. I have a problem with their lack of ideas or solutions. Those two statements are not mutually exclusive.

 

[aelf]

Oh, come on. Are you purposefully trying to drive people away? I said I understand the issue that OWS is drawing attention to. I have a problem with their lack of ideas or solutions. Those two statements are not mutually exclusive.

If you understand the issues that OWS is drawing attention to, why are you asking me what they stand for? My point is that OWS exists to draw people's attention to those important issues. I'm not hung up about its inability to provide solutions now. In fact, I don't think OWS is capable of doing that because of its very nature. OWS is a diffuse movement that, in my reckoning, simply represents the agreement of the figurative 99% on the topic of contemporary issues that need to be addressed. It's a statement of what its diverse participants can agree on. Anything beyond that will probably require more specialised movements.

In addition, I don't think those movements can emerge from OWS itself so quickly without ruining the sense of solidarity that the movement has achieved. It's probably better for new groups to spring up that draw on the energy and the impetus for change that OWS has engendered. That way, the whole thing would be less likely to be plagued by massive internal bickering that would only cause it to self-destruct.

 

[Narz]

"troublemakers" may have played an integral part of the early US labor movement, or in social justice movements in the 1800s, but the way that social change happens in the US now is not how Occupy has gone about.

Social change doesn't really happen now. Not fast enough anyway. What significant social gains have happened in the last ten years?

 

[choxorn]

Social change doesn't really happen now. Not fast enough anyway. What significant social gains have happened in the last ten years?

Gay Rights?

 

[downtown]

What about the 'elitist liberals' rhetoric, for one?

For a movement that started outside the halls of academia and hollywood, and for a while was set up with organized labor, I don't think that label would stick very well.

And remember when some inner circle in an OWS camp began trying to call the shots by taking control of the funds? That didn't get OWS good publicity. How do you imagine OWS would organise itself when there are so many different participants from all walks of life who don't all share the same ideology? The only way I can see it happening is if a core group emerges and begins monopolising the OWS brand and resources, inevitably stepping on many people's toes in the process. Do you honestly see that happening without a major breakup?

Yeah, I think there would likely need to be a breakup, and I don't really see that as a bad thing. Step one of the process has already been accomplished. If all OWS is going to do is beat drums, burn flags, fight cops and get arrested, it's going to undo the gains that have already been made.

I highly doubt that that is on purpose.

Eh, I wouldn't be so sure. Either way, criminality in the camps has been a problem nationwide, and nobody in OWS has really done anything to prevent that.

I think that just damages the cause because then you're contributing to the chorus of anti-OWS voices that include people who are against what OWS stands for. It's better to accept that OWS itself has a specific role and not to expect it to do much more than that.

I support greater equality and a freer political system. I also strongly believe that every time I see a moron 22 year old throwing something at a cop on TV, those goals are going to be undermined.

And, lastly, if you believe that it's high time to act, well, I guess I have to ask, what are you doing about it?

I'm not superman, but I think I can say with a straight face that I've worked, and will continue to work, towards these goals.

I saw how grossly unjust our educational system is, so I went off and taught in the inner city for a year (both to help, and to better understand the issues surrounding the schools). Even after I left, I volunteered for another several months for an inner city school in a different city, and I've helped coordinate the corporate outreach for inner city education in 2 different companies. I'm continuing to make responsible outreach into Chicago Public Schools a priority in my current company, and I'll probably get back into non-profit work in a few years, once I get my MBA paid for.

I also donate my resume and job hunting services to a community center in Chicago. My job also requires me to recruit from, and retrain workers in the displaced blue-collar job pool...so every day, I wake up and try to put people back to work.

Am I going to go outside and bang on a drum outside of Chicago City Hall? No. That's stupid. I have a job and a wife and responsibilities, and I just don't have time for that anymore. If there was a legitimate organization set up that was actually working on addressing some political inequalities, would I work with it? Yeah, I think I would. Since there isn't, I'll work trying to do good in those other ways...and quite frankly, that's still more than most American 25 year olds.

That's really the most important point. If they didn't suffer from such a lack of prestige and opportunity, they'd have no real problem attracting some talent. The dearth of talent is largely a consequence of other factors, because even if you have a few brilliant people, once they are gone, you're most likely going to end up back in square one. We have a lot of experience with that in Singapore, where the opposition has been kept weak by the systematic denial of talent.

Nah, there really are opportunities. Far-left (or at least substantially left of the Democratic Party) groups could win multiple local level elections, should they make that a priority. Very rarely has anybody tried (a Green party candidate won nearly forty percent in my local statehouse race last year, and if he ran again, he may actually win). You don't win bigger elections because their ideas are not popular. Once people see they can be trusted with governing, their philosophies will become more popular.

Social change doesn't really happen now. Not fast enough anyway. What significant social gains have happened in the last ten years?

Gay rights is obviously the big one. If you're into education policy, urban school choice would be the other.