After midnight, the Occupy Wall Street web site posted “A Modest Call to Action,” a statement of purpose for the occupation of New York City’s financial district.
This statement is ours, and for anyone who will get behind it. Representing ourselves, we bring this call for revolution.
We want freedom for all, without regards for identity, because we are all people, and because no other reason should be needed. However, this freedom has been largely taken from the people, and slowly made to trickle down, whenever we get angry.
Money, it has been said, has taken over politics. In truth, we say, money has always been part of the capitalist political system. A system based on the existence of have and have nots, where inequality is inherent to the system, will inevitably lead to a situation where the haves find a way to rule, whether by the sword or by the dollar.
We agree that we need to see election reform. However, the election reform proposed ignores the causes which allowed such a system to happen. Some will readily blame the federal reserve, but the political system has been beholden to political machinations of the wealthy well before its founding.
We need to address the core facts: these corporations, even if they were unable to compete in the electoral arena, would still remain control of society. They would retain economic control, which would allow them to retain political control. Term limits would, again, not solve this, as many in the political class already leave politics to find themselves as part of the corporate elites.
We need to retake the freedom that has been stolen from the people, altogether.
If you agree that freedom is the right to communicate, to live, to be, to go, to love, to do what you will without the impositions of others, then you might be one of us.
If you agree that a person is entitled to the sweat of their brows, that being talented at management should not entitle others to act like overseers and overlords, that all workers should have the right to engage in decisions, democratically, then you might be one of us.
If you agree that freedom for some is not the same as freedom for all, and that freedom for all is the only true freedom, then you might be one of us.
If you agree that power is not right, that life trumps property, then you might be one of us.
If you agree that state and corporation are merely two sides of the same oppressive power structure, if you realize how media distorts things to preserve it, how it pits the people against the people to remain in power, then you might be one of us.
And so we call on people to act
We call for protests to remain active in the cities. Those already there, to grow, to organize, to raise consciousnesses, for those cities where there are no protests, for protests to organize and disrupt the system.
We call for workers to not only strike, but seize their workplaces collectively, and to organize them democratically. We call for students and teachers to act together, to teach democracy, not merely the teachers to the students, but the students to the teachers. To seize the classrooms and free minds together.
We call for the unemployed to volunteer, to learn, to teach, to use what skills they have to support themselves as part of the revolting people as a community.
We call for the organization of people’s assemblies in every city, every public square, every township.
We call for the seizure and use of abandoned buildings, of abandoned land, of every property seized and abandoned by speculators, for the people, for every group that will organize them.
We call for a revolution of the mind as well as the body politic.
What’s your reaction?
My own reaction:
Specific and tangible demands are important. These are not specific and tangible demands.
Also important is an absence of absolutism — at least if you want experienced people to take you seriously. I also notice there are a lot of “every,” “all” and “none” statements. That’s not “modest” at all — whoever wrote this is claiming to have a bead on ultimate and complete truth, and that’s heady but inaccurate. It’s not strategically smart to go that far, because all someone has to do to dismiss the protest is to come up with one quibble showing that “every,” “all” or “none” is not true. For instance, the state and the corporation are not “merely” two sides of the same coin; they’re different.
There’s no explanation for how the seizure of corporations and workplaces by masses of people will solve the problems we’re facing. Considering that the statement begins with a dismissal of concrete reform, the failure to suggest a concrete solution (and not just an action without a goal) is a problem.
I admire the gumption of the activists, on the other hand, and if they can keep this going until Monday, they will have an effect on Wall Street. For the disruptive, conversation-starting usefulness of the action, I hope they keep it up, and revise, revise, revise.
If they consider this a “modest” call to action, I wonder what’s really on their minds.
I also wonder how they define their terms. They say that “state and corporation are merely two sides of the same oppressive power structure”. How are they defining “state”, here? It’s not capitalized, but there’s also no “the” or “this” in front of it, so I take it to mean government in general. How are 6 billion people on Earth supposed to be democratically represented without governments?
Sounds like an incoherent mish-mash of anarchism and Marxism to me.
There’s a lot of attitude here that it’s okay for the “revolting people” to seize and grab things, but it’s not okay for corporations. That sounds like “power is right” to me.
Also, I think this group may be surprised to see how reluctant people are to join a revolution that names itself as the community of revolting people. Language, people. Learn to use language effectively, please.
All in all, this speech is rather disconnected and theoretical. Sounds like a lot of students showed up to the barricades yesterday.
I think a nonviolent people’s occupation of Wall Street is a positive thing. There’s a lot to be legitimately mad at, and it’s good to see people take power.
It’s a refreshing alternative to the kind of over-articulated International ANSWER type of statement you see yourself putatively signed onto when you show up to march against the war in Iraq, as well as Americans Elect type of polished smarmy appeal to truism.
That said, I can’t help noticing that the items iterated in the “call to action”–seizure of abandoned property, workplaces, and classrooms–wouldn’t do much toward alleviating the problem the statement begins by objecting to, i.e. the influence of money over politics (or maybe I’m reading it wrong…”the system” is the problem…).
Realistically, the best these protesters can hope for–in the context of this action and statement–is to show that people are angry at Wall Street and want it to change. That’s a big deal, because the dominant paradigm supported by the two dominant political parties and the main stream press quite simply assumes that we’re stuck with Wall Street as it is.
Expressing disapproval is a fine thing for a protest to do. This could mark the beginning of a paradigm shift. But if it’s not eventually backed up with some clearly expressed concrete demands, it’s going to end up being yet another way to let off steam without really changing anything.
Most all of the objections that I have read on this forum, others and heard directly are that there are no concrete or tangible demands from Occupy Wall Street. I understand where these criticisms are coming from and in part agree because it is up to us to decide what we want our future to look like if we want to take it into our own hands.
However I think these criticisms are a little premature. At this point the movement is about changing the paradigm and opening the floor to serious political discussion so that we can each decide for ourselves what it is we want to see.
I spent the day marching in Denver and would be down there until this is over if I didn’t have to work and go to school but I have no delusions about the corporations actually listening to us. When I’m out there I’m marching for the people not the corporations. I want the people to think about the disempowerment they have been conditioned to accept and I want the people, myself included, to talk with fellow citizens openly and honestly so we can come up with a new model that eliminates the power that corporate greed has over our lives.
I believe as this goes on the tangible demands will begin to formulate and then the real action can start. This is just the begining so I encourage everyone whether they are marching or not to open yourself up to the political discussions around you and seriously consider what alternatives you would like to see, this is what the marches are here for in my opinion. The marches are for us, the 99% so use them to your full advantage, listen and learn as much as you can.
We have a long way to go but what I have seen so far is astounding and inspiring. I see people from all different generations expressing concerns with not just corporate greed but everything from the human experience, race, gender, sexual orientation, respect and community. We have seen how our lives and societies can be better, more connected and full of love. We are going to accomplish a lot more than just getting the control out of the hands of the greedy theives. I am hopeful.
I’m getting more hopeful too as the days go on. The demonstrators are sticking it out, showing patience. They see what they’re doing as the beginning of a long and very ambitious project for real change.
Another reason for my optimism is what I’m NOT hearing. Some people are making fun of the protesters for being inexperienced and unclear in their demands–things that will change soon enough if this movement keeps going. In previous decades, these demonstrators would have been vehemently accused of being anti-American. Why? I’m not sure. Maybe because, like in the Vietnam era, America is divided–except it’s not divide 50-50 anymore. It’s divided 99-1.
You know what? I’ve changed my mind. I agree with you, Ralph.
The protests need to be better organized, but they have been extremely hard working, and dedicated, and effective.
I’m going to join in with one of these protests this week.
Are you planning on attending one of the occupation protests, Ralph? If so, where?
Peregrin I’m thrilled to hear your planning on attending. And if you want to see them better organized we’d love your help, bring your talents and help us out!
I just went to one in Ithaca, NY. It was right in front of the Bank of America on the Ithaca Commons. It was scheduled for 12:00pm to 6:00pm today, and I went for an hour and a half. There were about ten people holding signs and more people coming and going, milling around with the group of demonstrators. There was no discernible leadership, each person had come on their own or maybe with a friend or two to say what they wanted to say.
I’ve been attending and helping to organize protest movements for over twenty years now (since the 1991 invasion of Iraq). This one is different in a number of ways from any I have been to. The old model was, you get a very large number of people to support or oppose a single policy, have a parade, and go home. This is different. A bunch of people with some general shared grievances but no specific shared policy agenda show up and stay for a while. They talk, to each other and to passers by. They hold up signs It’s the most spontaneous, most grassroots thing I’ve been to. It’s anarchic, but seems to somehow work anyway.
I’m a skeptic, but I’ve got to tell you I’m genuinely enthusiastic about this. Today was the third day in a row of demonstrations in Ithaca in support of the Occupy Wall Street movement. Each one has been bigger than the last. I’ve never seen anything like it. This thing is growing FAST.
I’m not sure I really understand the point of these protests. What do they really expect to happen? I don’t understand this concept of corporate greed or how it has influence over our lives? No one forces you to buy McDonald’s hamburgers. No one makes us work a job that pays less. No one demands that we take out student loans to go to school. I guess I just don’t see how this protest idea will bring about any real change, or what that change would even look like. Government and private enterprise has always been intertwined in unscrupulous ways. To say that workers should seize workplaces collectively and bring about democracy? This is simply asinine. Take over abandoned buildings? Come on. And why is everyone so angry with Bank of America for foreclosing on homes that, obviously, people couldn’t afford? I was one of the people who got a crappy loan. But when my rate started going up, I could tell I wouldn’t be able to afford it, so I sold my house for what I paid for it. Real estate has always been a risk. It’s called free enterprise. If you don’t to take the risk then rent. Why is it now the government’s responsibility (or Bank of America, for that matter) to bail us out when we get burned? How many people that bust out at the casinos go to Obama and demand their money back? This is really starting to get stupid.
Our freedom has never been taken. I feel more free today than I ever have and I’m making more money today than I ever had in the past. I just drove from the west coast to the east coast, back to the west coast and then from north to south and back again. I never had to show papers to anyone. Never had to explain to authorities where I was going or what I was doing. We are free.
If I get a job (and yes there are plenty of jobs out there, maybe people are just setting their sights too high), I am entitled to the sweat of my brow – it’s called a paycheck. If I don’t think I’m getting paid enough or treated right, I am free to quit any time I want. We, as a nation of people, need to stop whining.
If this was really the SofP for the OWS mob, then they should heed what they say: those out of work need to volunteer. So maybe they should stop causing trouble and go find something productive to do with their time.
It’s refreshing to see someone admit that they don’t understand what’s happening economically and politically in this country. You are what is called a “low information” citizen, someone who does not have a basic understanding of what is happening in this country. You are somewhat to blame for not doing research or thinking independently, but some of the responsibility lies with our education system and the press.
Please do some research on predatory lending, the elimination of Glass Steagall, speculation on mortgage-backed securities, and the TARP bailout. These factors have contributed signifcantly to the current economic collapse. If you understood how banks and other financial corporations risked the collapse of the entire financial system on risky schemes, then asked for their losses to be socialized when things went wrong, I think you would agree with the protesters.
Unfortunately, and I could be wrong, I do not think it’s likely you will ever understand this. I suspect that when you say you “do not understand,” you are parroting some right-wing sources that are feeding you this type of rhetoric. That’s the real problem with most low information Americans like you–you’re not really stupid, just willfully ignorant. Someone comes along and feeds you a superficially appealing line about how the protesters are somehow against good old fashioned values like hard work and financial responsibility. It’s complete bull, but it flatters you so you believe it. I’m guessing you’ll never have a clue that the protesters are really objecting to welfare and socialism–for the rich.
I didn’t write the original post, but agree 100% with his/her post, and yes I know all about Glass-Steagall and mortgage backed securites. I also know about predatory borrowing (applicants falsifying information to get a loan or more credit) and the reckless promotion of loans by Fannie / Freddie, as encouraged by our own government (and no, I do not think that somehow ACORN was the cause of all this).
Is there corporate greed and fiscal irresponsibility? Of course! Was it encouraged by own govenment via repeal of G-S? You bet! Was it limited to corporations? Nope, sorry (though not the G-S part). I have 6 houses, and I knew exactly what I was signing at each closing. The fact that other people did not is an issue with greed on the part of the lender ***AND MORE IMPORTANTLY*** the borrower. Borrowers walked away from the their high CC and mortgage debt, and then our government felt that every US citizen should cover it. My tenants have little responsbility and have no issue trashing my houses. If the government ever sent me a check to cover their irresponsiblity, I will happily cash it, and OWS can feel free to occupy any of the streets they’re on in protest, even if I rented to Section 8 tenants. You are right about education, but unfortunately it should be directed at the people that caused the problem, not just the people who promoted it.
If the issue is greed, then there is plenty to go around at all income levels (do you really believe that the average American citizen is any more fiscally responsble than WS or our own government?). My issue is government – they promoted the problem and did nothing to stop it, then used everyone else’s money to fix the mistake. If it was OPA I’d be in full support, but despite the post and SoP I don’t see the end goal here, unless it results in re-instatement of G-S (although I certainly expect lip-service from politicans since next year is an election year).
You lost me at “I have 6 houses.” I’ll try to re-read tomorrow.
I believe this is incredibly hypocritical. The line that says “If you agree that freedom is the right to communicate, to live, to be, to go, to love, to do what you will without the impositions of others, then you might be one of us.” makes absolutely so sense. First of all the rights to communicate, to live, to go and to do all provided by the big corporations or largely benefited by large corporations. Second of all what these people want is socialism not actually freedom because honestly treating everyone equal does not make people equal.