I think you might want to check your history. In the very beginning of the revolution there weren't any specific leaders and they didn't have a concrete goal. They simply didn't like the way the crown was taking advantage of their labors and wanted it to stop. It started out with random acts of rebellion and spread across the colonies. It was quite a while before they had a cadre of leaders and a specific goal. The exact same situation is happening again. The Royalty = The 1% The British Army = The Police The Trading Companies = The Corporations. In the beginning, the protests against the crown were relatively peaceful, but the increase in violent acts of repression caused a similar response from the colonist. The advantage we have today is a more more elevated sense of the best way to achieve change which we learned from our role models: Dr. Martin Luther King, Ghandhi, The Dalai Lama and others. In addition, just like those peaceful groups had to deal with people like the Black Panthers the OWS groups have to deal with the violent hangers on.
http://www.the-richmonder.com/2011/10/redstate-blogger-calls-for-violence.html In addition, go read the comments on the articles on places like Fox News and you will find plenty of calls for violence against the OWS protesters.
And how does the beginning of that differ from the beginning of this. The protesters are gathering together, marching on the halls of power, creating websites (the modern day equivalent of pamphlets), organizing amongst themselves, recruiting from all walks of life (even the 1% have their members in the OWS movement), and more. How exactly is this different than what happened at the beginning of every revolution in the world including the American One.
Who is not a member of the OWS protests, whose comment is from a different thread all together and whose words would be condemned by the vast, vast majority of the OWS protesters. You are taking one person on an internet forum and attempting to paint his attitude as representative of the OWS movement.
You're quite right. http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york...gher-tone-occupy-wall-street-article-1.971097 and as I said Go read the comments being made on most of the conservative websites and you will see that plenty of people think they should be cleared out by force.
All it takes to create a website is a site building program or basic knowledge of HTML and a host. I have created several websites using extremely basic knowledge and they look pretty nice--but it takes more than a website to make a movement. I have yet to see much in way of reports of organization--all of the groups seem to be fighting their own battles and in their own ways. Does the Oakland group really care about what the London group is doing? Where is their Adams, their Franklin, their Jefferson? Who is calling people to arms, leading by example and with engaging and motivating words? If their message speaks to everyone in the working class, then why is there such debate about it? Do you really think that this "movement" will lead to worldwide change and revolution? If it does, what do you think the benefit from it will be? The American Revolution at least stood for something. Same thing with virtually every successful revolution. How anyone can say that the activities of the OWS "movement" are even vaguely the same as those that led up t the American Revolutionary War is almost laughable to me. If anyone--or any group of anyones--can stand up and be the charismatic face of the "movement," if anyone can clearly define and focus the purpose of the group, then I'll concede the similarities. Until then, all it is is an unruly group of discontent individuals with a vague collection of complaints whining about how the system is holding them down. Sure, it's a big unruly group, but it has no purpose and stands for nothing concrete.
The answer to that is simple - the results agree with their conception of the world. Therefore, it is so.
I agree. I'm not pinning this stance on any one "side," either. Most people want to feel part of something important and world-changing, regardless of whether the belief is supported by fact or not. In this case, I think it's "not." I can see that this "movement" might lead to an actual focused movement, but I think that something real will "grow out of" it, instead of this "movement" evolving into anything. Really, what are they proving to anyone, other than that they can harass local businesses, frighten local citizens, and defy local police?
Some good talking points here regarding this issue Have a read http://m.bdonline.co.uk/comment/deb...right-to-occupy-public-space?/5026871.article
I have read Animal Farm. When did I ever say anything bad about wealth? I don't think wealth is a bad thing at all. But wealth, and corporate power and abuses are different things. Wealth, and public subsidies to corporations that are already extremely profitable are different things. Wealth and corporations buying politicians are two different things. Wealth, and giant too-big-to-fail financial institutions crashing our economy are two different things. I'm not against human persons becoming rich....
Takiji, I really don't think that I meant to specifically address you when I was talking about "wealth," but when comparing the American Revolutionary War to the OWS protest, the question is a valid one. Wealth is not a bad thing: it takes money to do things in this world. When the colonists were starting their movement against the British government, they were fighting against the taxation of their wealth more than anything else, not necessarily its distribution. At that time, it was expected that there would be rich men and poor men--and the middle class essentially did not exist. The OWS protests have less in common with the *American* Revolution and a great deal more to do with the Communist Revolution. Throw in a few well-placed references to the "proletariat" and the "bourgeoisie" and you have the recipe for the same kind of effort over here. Fortunately, it seems that the OWS protestors lack the drive of either of those revolutions--at the moment, I doubt that we'll see either such result from them.
Jo, I wasn't comparing the goals, such as they were and are, of the two groups, I was comparing the development of revolutions of this type. The American Revolution it seems to me was a real mix of issues and currents - 18th Century Enlightenment and its focus the relation of people and politics to reason and free choice, and the general sceptitsim about a God that was involved in human affairs or about the existence of a god at all. There was the workaday aspect inherent in a collection of societies that over 150 or 200 years or so had been to one degree or another in charge of their own affairs. and were quite comfortable with that. Unless they needed help fighting the Indians or the French. A situation in which the colonies were part of a global mercantilist empire in conflict with at least two other global empires. And the needs and goals of a class of colonial businessmen and traders who felt their rights and interests were being sacrificed to those of of the multinationals of the day, the British East India Co being the primary one. There were other things too, but they escape me right now. Anyway, after a decade of two simmering this stew produced a coherent movement in favor of rebelling against their legal and recognized government. It's that simmering process that I think is just barely starting now with OWS. Again, were it goes from here, if it goes anywhere, who knows? Anyway back to the American R, the populace had to be convinced that is was a good idea and many of them never were. Much of the quality went to Canada. But enough of them were for it that they were able to give it a shot. Despite a constant problem with desertion among the ranks of the Continental Army and thanks to the aid of the French and the unreliability of the Hessian mercenaries employed by the Crown (bad move but made sense at the time), and the fact that Great Britain had bigger fish to fry on a global scale with the French and the Dutch and the Spanish, we won. And so ends Takiji's view BTW Jo, I'm Tak
Family Reunion Hancock Beach, August 12th, 1986. My Uncle did something unmentionable to the neighboring party's kid's sand castles. In his defense those kids had it coming lol *just kidding, it's a joke... sheesh!
I am still trying to figure out how the simplicity of making web pages and social media means their use isn't relevant. On leadership. The group is very specifically organized to avoid the "cult of personality" which tends to derail most movements. It is trying to be a true democracy and develop solutions based on consensus instead of the hierarchical structures which have helped create the problem. It is this tendency to rely on charismatic leadership which can be bought by money, advertising and media manipulation which has corrupted the government process. The movements dissatisfaction with Obama is very much based on that problem. He rode a wave of popularity to the presidency, but was nothing more than another pretty face riding into power with his charisma. Charisma which, like all things based solely on appearance, was an illusion hiding his true nature. We don't trust the charismatic leaders anymore. The pretty ones with the glib speeches, the thousand dollar suits, the million dollar cars, the 350 million dollar homes and their hands so deep in the corporations pockets that they can't make a move without falling down. You want to see a leader rise to the top so there can be someone to follow. We don't. We don't want to follow. We want to participate. Everyone of us working together to solve the problem.
Wow thanks Deeneely. I love it when I read things on my screen and my brain doesn't scold me for having to see all the stupid. It's not about socialism. It's about democracy. Real actual democracy. I would like to see a leader arise though. Someone to mark on the ballot who is not simply a choice between who gets to screw you.
This should be required reading for every voter considering wasting another vote on BO. Once he is out of office and no longer able to quash the truth, he'll be exposed as the biggest joke & most dishonest person to ever hold the office.
