From:   MAd Hatter <progressivechange@gmail.com>
Sent time:   Tuesday, September 27, 2011 7:40:30 AM
To:   september17@googlegroups.com
Subject:   SPAM-MED: Re: [september17discuss] occupywallst.org: revolution, not a riot, revolution
 

I am speaking about occupywallst.org. As then nycga site has a focus and process that is pretty clear.
If   we want to grow, at some point the coverage on the occupy  website should be focused on the 99.9% who haven't  yet joined us.
The police briutality got us lots of press and we have folks attention, but we need to tell them a little bit about why we occupy and how they can join us. Is there a proces that determines what  stuff gets posted? Perhpas you can have a section of news from Libery Square, and reserve the front page for more inclusive messaging about what we are all about and upcoming ways for people to get involved.  Occupy wall street is now bigger than any one encampment, and has the potential to become the rallying cry for the 99%.  



On Tuesday, September 27, 2011, gail zawacki <witsendnj@gmail.com> wrote:
> Heard a report on NPR - MarketPlace - basically repeating WSJ story about planned eviction but it gave me an insight, since I talked to a cop Sat. eve.  I was sure they were going to evict but he said they were convinced we were going to march again - Sat. eve - and that's why there was such a heavy police presence.
> So there you have it - they are happy to confine us to the park and what threatens them - and the Mayor - is having us move out and really disrupt traffic and business as usual.
> According to NPR, Bloomberg said, if we continue to "villify the banks" well, they just won't lend money for mortgages, and the economy will never improve.
> See?  It's OUR FAULT the economy is in the tank!
> Ha!
>
> On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 8:46 AM, grimwomyn <grimwomyn@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Definitely the demands for reform should be loudest right now.
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 12:51 AM, Doug Singsen <dougsingsen@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Both are true; they're mutually reinforcing. But the CP in the thirties didn't build a mass membership by calling for revolution at the expense of demanding reforms. The CP engaged in every struggle for reforms it could. So that example really just helps prove my point, that you don't build a movement for revolution by avoiding demands for reform.
>>>
>>> On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 10:20 PM, Richard S. <chardsinger@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Actually, I've gotten a reverse impression from a lot of our history:
>>>> Reforms are most likely achieved when the ruling powers are scared by
>>>> talk about revolution.  This certainly is a big part of why the New
>>>> Deal reforms went through - because there was concrete fear of a
>>>> revolutionary communist movement.  Much of the workers' organizing
>>>> that led to pressure for reforms like the New Deal was led by the
>>>> Communist Party.  (Our comrade Noam Chomsky has said as much on many
>>>> occasions - and he is not normally a champion for any CP.)  In other
>>>> countries, too, some of the great leaders who are highly regarded here
>>>> would not have been able to achieve what they did had there not been
>>>> harder or more militant revolutionaries to balance them out, scaring
>>>> the ruling classes.  Certainly, this was one of the keys to Gandhi's
>>>> political success, as Gandhi was easier for the ruling class to take
>>>> than the very prevalent communists of the day.
>>>>
>>>> On Sep 25, 8:06 pm, Doug Singsen <dougsing...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > Every revolution in history has begun with demands for reform. You don't
>>>> > begin a revolution by trying to "prefigure" a future society, you do it by
>>>> > building democratic, participatory movements for change that address issues
>>>> > that directly impact peoples' lives. When the state and capital are
>>>> > unwilling or unable to meet the needs of the mass of the people, revolution
>>>> > can result.
>>>> >
>>>> > Doug S
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 12:10 PM, Lauren <celli...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> > > Honestly it will be neither a revolution nor a riot if our only
>>>> > > demands are some reforms on the legislative agenda which the
>>>> > > legislators will get rid of again in a matter of months.
>>>
>>
>
>
< PREV INDEX SEARCH NEXT >