|Subject: Re: [GlobalRevolutionMedia] Re: Can OWS be turned into a Democratic Party movement?|
|From: kari giron |
|Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2011 22:52:28 -0400|
There's no doubt that the mainstream media is working feverishly to co-opt the movement and make us containable.
I think our secret weapon is solutions. The tea party focused on criticism, not solutions. We aren't falling for that trap.
We're using the movement's momentum to create solutions that people want to use such as a resource-based (instead of debt-based) currency system, documentation that helps people use free/libre/opensource software, and designs for hardware that are bringing manufacturing back to our country. The more these solutions are used, the less our movement can be co-opted.
We're working on these solutions and more. It'd be great if someone in media was documenting this work.--On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 10:29 AM, Andrea <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
From an actions perspective, that means getting tactical, and mobile,I agree and I want to focus on this.
> activating the rest of the city, executing higher-risk actions, civil
> disobedience and arrests.
I'm particularly interested in messaging. I'm a writer - I have
literally just returned from a 3 month 10 country research trip on
empowerment issues in 3rd world nations with a focus on human
trafficking and gender violence. This movement has been something I
have been dreaming about for over a decade. OWS needs to speak up in
response to the Democratic Party's attempt to co-opt what's going on
here and soon. If there is anyone who can steer me in the right
direction, I'd appreciate it.
For starters - I am starting to spread the word in the Manhattan
neighborhood that I live in. Other than that I need to be put to work.
I want to see us do something. An opportunity like this does not come
On Oct 12, 4:26 am, beka economopoulos <b...@notanalternative.net>
> Here's the thing: our messaging, our strategy, and our tactics must change> That's if we want to win more than concessions and easy reforms (*that
> based on the external landscape. When we become embraced by the Democratic
> Party and its allies, we must go further than what makes them comfortable.
> currently exist within the realm of possibility)*, and achieve game-changing
> substantive/structural reforms (*that currently live in the realm of
> impossibility*, that we didn't imagine we ever could see in our lifetimes).
>> before, now the mainstream media start to change tune. *Focus of coverage
> We should aim for nothing less -- why aim for closing up shop soon when we
> have no idea what we're capable of?
> Phase 1 = vanguard moves in, initiates occupation, largely dismissed, but
> staying power piques curiosity, and police misconduct/violence draws
> attention and wins sympathy.
> Phase 2 = vanguards in other cities recognize potential, initiate
> occupations. At the same time, initial occupation gathers steam, grows,
> large membership orgs endorse and give legitimacy that wasn't present
> is human interest story of life in the park; and what do they want?*
>> orgs. * Media coverage attributes power to movement, queries whether it's a
> Phase 3 = mainstream media interest explodes, NGOs, labor, community, and
> establishment orgs engage supporters, connect existing campaigns to #occupy
> frame, amplify visibility and suggestion of social movement. Democratic
> leadership embrace movement, as do party-related and electorally focused
> Tea Party for the left, whether it will gain electoral power and legislative> victories. *
> Phase 4 = ?
> We currently find ourselves in Phase 3. Senior members of the White House
> administration, and the President himself, have expressed support for OWS.
> Democracy for America, a Howard Dean initiated group just sent an email
> blast to more than a million members tonight selling yard
> say "We Are the 99%" with co-branded urls: OccupyWallSt.org and> it non-threatening and normalizing it. *Result is rise in media coverage of
> DemocracyforAmerica.org/occupy. OWS is embraced by the establishment as a
> means to amplify existing agendae.
> Bloomberg gives tacit "permission" for our occupation, effectively rendering
> occupation as nuisance to neighbors. *
>> On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 11:43 PM, William Dobbs <duch...@mindspring.com>wrote:
> This is a natural and necessary phase. So now what?
> We're in this for the long haul. There are no "solutions" that can be
> presented quickly to make us go away. And so there will be moments where our
> presence is no longer an uncomfortable and unknown variable, but rather is
> normalized and integrated. It's in those moments that we have to push the
> envelop, pry open the space of possibility even farther. We go as far as we
> can to destabalize, but maintain momentum. And when that's the new "normal"
> then we go farther. That's how change happens, how we shift the terrain and
> the terms of the game.
> From an actions perspective, that means getting tactical, and mobile,
> activating the rest of the city, executing higher-risk actions, civil
> disobedience and arrests.
> From a media perspective, we have to get ahead of the game. We no longer
> need to legitimize. Or articulate the problem. Both are clearly
> established. So, given this new moment how can we use media strategically?
> We must draw a line, disavow the Democrats explicitly, make our messaging a
> little uncomfortable. Yes, perhaps, split the support, lest we not be
> co-opted. This will be painful, internally, as it won't always achieve
> comfortable consensus. But to hold this space and expand the realm of
> possibility, we have to go farther than others are ready to go. It's how
> this started and we can't be too shy to be bold.
> > ** ** ** **
>> > and well-known junkyard for social movements. ****
> > Savants – idiots and otherwise—say the Democratic Party operates a large
> > I’d like to know more about the system that is in place to prevent it. **
> > **
> > ** **
> > ** **
> > ------------------------------
> > *From:* email@example.com [mailto:
> > firstname.lastname@example.org] *On Behalf Of *Ed Needham
> > *Sent:* Tuesday, October 11, 2011 11:35 PM
> > *To:* email@example.com
> > *Subject:* Re: Article: Can OWS be turned into a Democratic Party
> > movement?****
> > ** **
>> > good sign.****
> > we will see a great deal of this sort of thing come along. every group who
> > believes they can profit from endorsing or promoting ows or parts of its
> > agenda, will.
> > especially politicians. and i think we have a pretty good system in place
> > to prevent any iota of co-opting anywhere.
> > that said, it is a measured re-enforcement of our capacity to effect change
> > immediately. when politicians start picking up your verbage and tone, it's a
> > On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 9:34 PM, Tyler Combelic <tyler.combe...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:****
> > GA solidarity
> > Sent from my iPhone****
> > On Oct 11, 2011, at 9:16 PM, Patrick Bruner <pmubru...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Solidarity with the Novemeber 6thhttp://www.tarsandsaction.org/march
> > > on the White House would be a good way to spin on message and against
> > > the Pres and Obama.
> > > Is this something that can be handled in house or should calls of
> > > solidarity originate from GA? or other working groups? Before this
> > > solidarity has mostly been handled through direct action in solidarity
> > > with the principles of GA, which seems untenable given the rapid
> > > expansion of the movement.
> > > On Oct 11, 8:19 pm, Kira Annika <kira.ann...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> This is terrible. At least they point out why it's completely
> > hypocritical for dems to take us under their wing. Blech. Turn left, guys.
> > Let's talk about this when we talk about messaging.
> > >> Sent from my iPhone
> > >> On Oct 11, 2011, at 7:27 PM, Mark Bray <markbra...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>> Need to prioritize talking about this before it's too late. Since we
> > >>> are thought of has having no direction, these kinds of superficial
> > >>> attempts by dems could sap our strength.
> > >>>http://politics.salon.com/2011/10/11/can_ows_be_turned_into_a_democra.
> > ..
> > >>> When I first wrote in defense of the Occupy Wall Street protests a
> > >>> couple of weeks ago, I suggested that much of the scorn then being
> > >>> expressed by many progressives was “grounded in the belief that the
> > >>> only valid form of political activism is support for Democratic Party
> > >>> candidates.” Since then, even the most establishment Democrats have
> > >>> fundamentally changed how they talk about the protests — from
> > >>> condescension and hostility to respect and even support — and The New
> > >>> York Times today makes clear one significant factor accounting for
> > >>> this change:
> > >>> Leading Democratic figures, including party fund-raisers and a top
> > >>> ally of President Obama, are embracing the spread of the anti-Wall
> > >>> Street protests in a clear sign that members of the Democratic
> > >>> establishment see the movement as a way to align disenchanted
> > >>> Americans with their party.
> > >>> The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, the party’s powerful
> > >>> House fund-raising arm, is circulating a petition seeking 100,000
> > >>> party supporters to declare that “I stand with the Occupy Wall Street
> > >>> protests.”
> > >>> The Center for American Progress, a liberal organization run by John
> > >>> D. Podesta, who helped lead Mr. Obama’s 2008 transition, credits the
> > >>> protests with tapping into pent-up anger over a political system that
> > >>> it says rewards the rich over the working class — a populist theme now
> > >>> being emphasized by the White House and the party. The center has
> > >>> encouraged and sought to help coordinate protests in different cities.
> > >>> Judd Legum, a spokesman for the center, said that its direct contacts
> > >>> with the protests have been limited, but that “we’ve definitely been
> > >>> publicizing it and supporting it.”
> > >>> He said Democrats are already looking for ways to mobilize protesters
> > >>> in get-out-the-vote drives for 2012.
> > >>> Politico similarly noted today that “the White House wants to make it
> > >>> clear that President Barack Obama is on the same side as the Occupy
> > >>> Wall Street protesters.”
> > >>> Can that scheme work? Can the Occupy Wall Street protests be
> > >>> transformed into a get-out-the-vote organ of Obama 2012 and the
> > >>> Democratic Party? To determine if this is likely, let’s review a few
> > >>> relevant facts.
> > >>> In March, 2008, The Los Angeles Times published an article with the
> > >>> headline “Democrats are darlings of Wall St“, which reported that both
> > >>> Obama and Clinton “are benefiting handsomely from Wall Street
> > >>> donations, easily surpassing Republican John McCain in campaign
> > >>> contributions.” In June, 2008, Reuters published an article entitled
> > >>> “Wall Street puts its money behind Obama”; it detailed that Obama had
> > >>> almost twice as much in contributions from “the securities and
> > >>> investment industry” and that “Democrats garnered 57 percent of the
> > >>> contributions from” that industry. When the financial collapse
> > >>> exploded, then-candidate Obama became an outspoken supporter of the
> > >>> Wall Street bailout.
> > >>> After Obama’s election, the Democratic Party controlled the White
> > >>> House, the Senate and the House for the first two years, and the White
> > >>> House and Senate for the ten months after that. During this time,
> > >>> unemployment and home foreclosures were painfully high, while Wall
> > >>> Street and corporate profits exploded, along with income inequality.
> > >>> In July, 2009, The New York Times dubbed JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie
> > >>> Dimon “Obama’s favorite
> read more »
Project Lead, BEEx
Director, Sarapis Foundation
BEEx is a free/libre/open source grassroots fundraising solution created by the Sarapis Foundation.
|< PREV||INDEX||SEARCH||NEXT >|