I agree with jem that simplicity carries greater force and breadth. As I understand it, this document is intended not to be a comprehensive manifesto, but just a clear statement and justification of the OWS (non)relation to the political parties. Does this have enough force and breadth:
From all walks of life, and with opinions across the political spectrum, the 99% have begun to unite on common ground in an Occupy Movement to oust corporate control of government.
Both the Democratic and Republican parties have failed to solve the problems we face. Therefore the Occupy Movement does not endorse their politicians. They belong to the 1%.
A couple of other proposed sentences lacked credibility to me, and a movement vaunting implausible claims (even if they turn out true) can easily become a laughing stock (making them less likely ever to become true). Nothing is as damning or deflating as ridicule arising from the source itself.
On Sun, Oct 16, 2011 at 10:20 PM, Snafu <firstname.lastname@example.org>
You are right Doug, and I thank you for this observation. It was not my intention inserting any reference to the obsolescence of past struggle in the declaration. I was just noting that most statements produced and approved by the GA so far are focusing on either corporate power or (now) the two-party system, whereas none of the two are to me the hegemonic forces in contemporary capitalism.
Financial capitalism is a tough beast to fight because it is at the same time abstract and diffused at a molecular level. Yet if Standard&Poor's downgrading of the US debt has such massive effects, it means that we have entered a new phase, one in which the power of rating agencies stands above that of national governments. Hence my hesitation on supporting statements that keep focusing on the traditional enemies and seem to be oblivious to the new forms of sovereignty that are emerging. The more you claim that the state is useless and powerless the more you will have to confront financial power directly. But who will regulate the stock market as the system keeps melting, the GA?
On 10/16/11 7:08 PM, Doug Singsen wrote:
It's not true that market volatility is mainly the result of the automation of financial transactions. Markets were highly volatile long before automation. The biggest financial collapse in history took place before the invention of the microchip. Rather, market volatility is an inherent part of capitalism. We also need to beware of declarations that all previous resistance is obsolete and that we need to invent new tools from scratch. The lessons of past struggles are still very much relevant today, and ignoring them is a quick recipe for repeating their errors today.
Lower East Side Residents for Responsible Developmenthttp://savethelowereastside.blogspot.com/
622 E 11, #10