Dear Rob, if you follow both threads, yes very confusing, there have been long discussion re: your edits below, i shall address each one point by point-
firstly--there is no agreement on using "99%" meme, so i have avoided it. hence, the statement "we are not a singular voice, but we stand together in plurality," Also the word "different" is the recognition of "differences."
secondly, re your suggestion of "corporate control of gov't" is redundant since we mention early in second sentence, Both parties are controlled and corrupted by Wall Street." and by the end of the paragraph, we use "global" and also the plural form of "governments" to make clear this is a transnational issue. So, in conclusion, it is not just this government that is bought, but in collusion with other goverments that too are bought. This is intentional.
Thirdly and most importantly i do like your word oust and i have marked it in yellow, which can be inculcated here, if folks agree --it is a strong word. I personally am in favor of including it...
The colossal crisis we face today cannot be solved by either the Democratic or the Republican party because both parties constitute this crisis. Both parties are controlled and corrupted by Wall Street. With the connivance of both parties, only the top 1% has profited, at the expense of everyone else. Therefore, the occupation does not endorse their politicians, nor will we allow them to divide us or distort us. We have moved beyond false hopes, submission by eloquent speeches, populist manipulation and recurrent failures. We cannot be bought or sold. We are stronger, we are determined that we can succeed without them. We will create the change the world needs. We The People, know that we are not a singular voice, but we stand together in plurality, from all different walks of life, and with opinions across the political spectrum, we have begun to unite on common ground and fight back against a common enemy -to oust
the global financial interests that have bought our governments and hold us hostage to their greed. We claim a sustainable future to be ours.
Thanks Rob (i think you are a linguist...am i right?)
On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 12:39 AM, rob hollander <email@example.com>
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.
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 Development
622 E 11, #10