It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Antipathy17
I don't think many of us, if any of us at all, can explain what Occupy Wall Street actually stood for. It had a lot of issues on this point alone but most seemed to be to fight corruption. What I never thought of Occupy Wall Street when I was there was, that we were pushing for socialism. Socialism is actually what it seemed like we were fighting, that and fascism. But when I clicked a random link about OWS that lead me to Yahoo.com I was surprised.
ca.news.yahoo.com...
The picture here shows what seems to be a Union fighting for socialism....
Am I wrong? Was occupy just a socialism front? Because the people I saw there were just trying to shrink government and prosecute those who've robbed us. Insight appreciated.
WhiteAlice
reply to post by OrphanApology
You know that you're regurgitating exactly what the various media were saying repeatedly over and over again in every news piece about OWS, right? Corporate corruption in government was the consistent complaint. At one point, some random person put out a convoluted list of demands in the name of OWS. However, the source of that was extraordinarily dubious and, honestly, the whole "list of demands" stunk of COINTELPRO type activity. The question I still don't have an answer to was who signed that guy's paycheck. Notably, it was picked up by several media outlets as being an "official" OWS demand list.
s3-ec.buzzfed.com...
The media did this exact kind of thing back in the 60's. If you listen to MLK Jr's "I've been to the Mountaintop" speech, he directly talks about media representation of the civil rights movement. It was his final speech:
The media did this exact kind of thing back in the 60's. If you listen to MLK Jr's "I've been to the Mountaintop" speech, he directly talks about media representation of the civil rights movement.
Of course nobody really knew what OWS stood for. The amusing thing about the movement was that it stood for a lot of things and nothing at all at the same time.Occupy never really had strong leadership that could deliver a clear and concise message. Thus, you had many people with many ideas. This is where the establishment can say "well, they really don't know what they want".A lack of any real leadership was the first sign that OWS didn't really know what they were doing. The idea that they didn't have a leader/s sounds really nice philosophically, but it doesn't really work in reality. If you don't have a seat at the bargaining table then you're not negotiating for $h!t. You're nothing more than a spectator.I do believe that if OWS had at least some competent leadership they could've done some damage. A big part of the narrative delivered by OWS resonated with many more people than some people want to admit, and it would've gained some serious steam if it could've maintained itself. Unfortunately, there were some fatal flaws in the movement from the very beginning. You also have to take this leadership idea very carefully. Representation is a double edged sword. Your leadership/representation can help or hurt depending on their intentions. This is where an intelligent populace becomes paramount in not allowing their movement to be co-opted by entities who have no intention of working towards the populaces best interests.It's all about consolidation and mobilization of popular sentiment. It's an extremely difficult thing to do. Problem being, if you don't, popular stresses reach a breaking point and it usually results in violence.
Antipathy17
I don't think many of us, if any of us at all, can explain what Occupy Wall Street actually stood for.
It certainly started out as a movement to fight corruption. But like all good movements it was quickly hijacked by special interests….in this case it was the George Soros progressive crowd and big union thugs.
Am I wrong? Was occupy just a socialism front? Because the people I saw there were just trying to shrink government and prosecute those who've robbed us. Insight appreciated.