Occupy vs the Anti-Social Justice Movement

[Zorra]

Most members of the Anti-Social Justice Movement are just jealous because they know deep down that they will never have the courage to get off the couch, shut off the TV, get a life, and really do something.

They fawningly obey their 1% corporate masters, lovingly kissing their gilded asses for the mere chance to serve them in the smallest way possible. Any threat to the fragile security bestowed upon them by their self-acknowledged superiors leads to immediate attacks on the barbarians who dare challenge the status quo of their beloved plutarchy.

The rest of the members of the Anti-Social Justice Movement are the 1% themselves.

These are *snarf* typical examples of members of the bipartisan Anti-Social Justice Movement conservatives who hate Occupy. Conservatives universally hate Occupy

In contrast, these are typical examples of socially conscious people love Occupy. The cops, mmm, not so much. Most liberals love Occupy:

Which one are you? Which group best represents your feelings toward Occupy?

[randome]

1. There is a reason the Occupy forum was created.

I think that is where this belongs.

[white_wolf]

2. Why? This is a topic that is of general interest.

Besides, just because there is a group for a topic doesn't mean all discussion has to be in that group unless the site's rules say otherwise. I do a lot of crossposts from the socialist group, because I like getting the more diverse opinion you find here.

[randome]

5. The reason the Occupy forum was created was because of last year.

Post after post of people arguing the merits or the shortcomings of OWS. Whatever the pros and cons of OWS, it needs to be recognized that it is a divisive subject. That's Reality.

We do not need to engage in baiting one another all over again.

And yes, before someone says this, I know that no one needs to read or respond to threads they don't agree with. But then those are the threads many of us are drawn to.

[TheKentuckian]

8. Cop-out. Most subjects are divisive, most that are not aren't going to drive any dialog.

The most substantial problem seems to be that Occupy is not a Democratic Party booster organization. Many seem to want the movement to be some fusion of ACORN (which Democrats fecklessly helped destroy) and some unfunded, unassisted by party insiders and professional strategists, no free busses, left-leaning "Tea Party" that won't challenge the party establishment.

Failing that, become an advocacy group for economic issues roughly under the Democratic umbrella like a MoveOn or an ACLU or a Greenpeace and "piddle around with their myopic single issue agenda" as long as they endorse and bundle for Democrats.

I suspect some of the smarter folks that seem ticked and dismissive are frustrated to the point of anger because their hope was for this to grow into something that can one day replace the organizational and advocacy muscle of the unions they helped allow to wither and ACORN that they joined in TeaPubliKlan attacks to destroy which is insane because there is no room for the objectives of Occupy in a tent driven by the Turd Way.

[sabrina 1]

30. Absolutely incorrect. OWS is the most popular topic on DU and the forum was created

for reasons that had absolutely nothing to do with 'controversy'. There is no controversy here. Most Democrats support this Social Justice movement. A few disgruntled people do not make a controversy.

I see the same few people complaining about OWS in every thread, while the majority of DUers support and even belong to this movement, as do many Elected Dems. And some Occupiers are running for office as Democrats.

Why are you so scared of this movement? What is it that forces you to go into every thread when all you have to do is use the 'Thrash Thread' button??

Otoh, as I have told you so many times, I always appreciate your kicking these threads.

[sabrina 1]

33. The OWS forum was not created for the reasons you just gave.

I gave you the information on why it was created in another thread. I expect you will correct this false information you have placed at the top of this OP which would be the right thing to do. Or delete it.

[Zorra]

3. Lame, and disingenuous, attempt at hiding the truth. nt

[randome]

4. Oh yes, I am so afraid of the truth.

And OWS. And you.

I don't think it's possible for me to be still more afraider.

[sabrina 1]

29. Hi Randome, imagine meeting you in yet another OWS thread!

Thanks for kicking the thread.

[pintobean]

34. That's what I thought of the OP.

[Zorra]

49. I'm shocked! nt

[sabrina 1]

28. Why would an OP about one of the most popular topics on DU not belong here?

[hack89]

6. Not being part of your black and white cartoon world

I belong to neither group. I am just a run of the mill Democrat working as hard as I can to get Democrats elected to office.

[Zorra]

7. Getting Dems elected is definitely a good thing.

I wholeheartedly support you in this, without reservation. I've campaigned for Dems several times in the past, and have voted straight Dem in every election since I was 18, and plan to do so once again this year.

Actually, more than once again, if they let me.

But it is true that almost every conservative despises Occupy. It's not really a black and white cartoon world.

Occupy has collaterally helped Obama and many Dems by putting the problem of the 1% in every living room. Last November's election is an example of this.

The Democratic Party has traditionally been the party of labor, of the people.

The GOP has traditionally been the party of the wealthy, and corporations.

Occupy is struggling against the control of the 1%, against the control corporations, on behalf of democracy and the people.

So, we Occupy Dems have had a real hard time understanding why any Democrat would so continually, adamantly, almost desperately, want us to fail and die, and would be so dead set against Occupy from the very beginning. This is the type behavior that we fully expected from the conservative posters of freerepublic, but not from posters on progressive message boards.

There's a big difference between offering reasonable criticisms of Occupy, or Democrats, and hating on Occupy, or Democrats, while consistently spouting BS RW memes these groups. When someone starts spreading BS RW memes about Democrats, most people's first thought is "RW Troll".

Makes a person go "WTF is this?", and justifiably so, IMO.

[hack89]

9. I think it is less that Dems want OWS to fail

but more that Dems look at OWS and don't see the results living up to the hype. They are not a game changer. They will not lead the "revolution" that changes American society. They are not a detriment - they are simply not as relevant as you think they are.

I personally wish them the best but what little extra time and money I have will go to traditional political pursuits - supporting campaigns and elections.

[Zalatix]

10. Are you kidding? OWS has totally changed the game.

We weren't even talking about the 99% until they came along. They completely changed the tone of political discussion.

[hack89]

11. And all the politicians promptly co-opted that message

and left OWS in their dust. OWS is dead in my state - I live in the bluest of states and yet they are non- factor. They have no voice, no influence. That is not a game changing organization by any stretch of the imagination.

[Zalatix]

12. Oh for crying out loud. Read and be informed.

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/03/19/447087/after-six-months-a-look-at-what-occupy-wall-street-has-accomplished/

They've changed the political game significantly.

[hack89]

13. So a self congratulatory puff piece on a progressive web site

Is proof of OWS success? When you consider that the Tea Party counts their success by congressmen elected and laws passed, perhaps you can understand why so many of us are not impressed by OWS.

[Zalatix]

14. Let me guess, you'll spin doctor this away, too?

http://www.thenation.com/blog/165883/occupy-effect

[hack89]

16. It is good because it will get Obama elected

as well as other Democrats. Do you think re-electing a bunch of incumbent politicians is what OWS is all about? Is that how the great change to American society will come about? That's why the Dems don't fear OWS - it keeps them in office because there are still only two choices for the voters. "OWS" is not a choice when you step in the voting booth.

[Zalatix]

19. OWS is making Dem politicians change their tune.

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/oct/10/news/la-pn-occupy-democrats-20111010

They're also affecting the GOP.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1110/12/acd.02.html

[hack89]

38. Are they true believers or political opportunists?

smart politicians say what the people want to hear and the people are scared and angry.

Those politicians are part of the system that OWS says is corrupt. Are you arguing that a corrupt system will provide the change OWS says is necessary? You can't have it both ways.

[sabrina 1]

32. Several elected Dems are members of OWS.

And the President has addressed their message and stated his understanding of it. So OWS has reached our elected officials with their message and the message has been understood at the highest levels of our government. That is quite an achievement for a movement that is only in its infancy at this point. And they've changed their language to the language of the people. Obama has used OWS framing in some of his speeches.

The Democratic NY State US Attorney has met with OWS and thanked them publicly for supporting him in his fight against the pressure to 'make a deal' with the banks.

So what is your point? Like other disgruntled, anti-Social Justice movement individuals I've met online, not many on Democratic sites though where OWS has huge support, your point is not clear at all.

Why do some people always fear it when the people utilize their 1st Amendment rights to demand equal rights for all people? Every single time in history there has been a movement like this, and this movement was modeled after other Social Justice Movements, there are always those who try to discredit them.

[hack89]

39. Why should any Dem fear OWS?

if they have any impact on the election, it will be to reelect Democrats. That is my point - OWS says they are about change. Yet everything they do will put the same politicians back in power.

So I have no real problem with OWS now that it is clear what path we are on and that it is clear what impact they will have on the election.

On edit: Just to be clear, I have never had a problem with the issues OWS fights for. I agree with most of them. My only issue was from a purely political perspective - I did not want them damaging election prospects for Democrats in November. That is no longer a concern.

[Zalatix]

43. You must get a lot of exercise moving those goalposts.

[hack89]

44. I have changed my perspective on OWS

I was concerned that they would negatively impact the November election which is why I was initially down on them. Now that I see that is not the case, I have no real concerns with them. Everything they do helps Dems in November and that is a good thing. Don't you agree?

[Zalatix]

46. Yes, I agree that helping Dems is a good idea.

Helping liberal Dems is an even better idea.

Helping the cause of progressivism is the best part of Occupy.

[hack89]

47. But OWS will also help moderate and Blue Dog Dems

there are only two choices in the voting booth - Democrat or Republican. Since OWS eschew partisan politics there is no third choice.

[Zalatix]

48. They'll affect the primaries.

[Zalatix]

15. Or maybe you'll find a way to handwave away this?

http://www.nonprofitquarterly.org/policysocial-context/20193-citicorp-shareholders-reflect-occupys-impact-on-corporate-narrative.html

[hack89]

18. Anything that keeps Dems in power is a good thing

that is what you want, right? Keeping incumbents in office is what OWS is all about?

[Generic Other]

20. There were many many Democrats at the Occupy marches

Social justice is still a Democratic issue to many of us.

[hack89]

37. Yes - never said it was not

but is reelecting a bunch of incumbents the social change OWS had in mind? And if it is, why don't they admit it and get involved in the election?

[sabrina 1]

31. Lol, 'don't see the results' What 'results' would those be?

Did you know that elected Dems belong to OWS btw? Or that Occupiers are running for office as Democrats?

They've ALREADY changed the game. Too late to stop it. And it keeps growing worldwide, and the people of countries around the world are now united. That is one big way OWS has changed the game. The People have gone Global. Up to now, it was the Corps who were Global. And they are not one bit pleased that now the people have joined the Global 'Game' that they were free to rig against the world's workers for so long.

[hack89]

36. The American people have not gone global

OWS has withered into near irrelevance. It can't get more than a handful of people in the streets. In many cities it has disappeared. By any objective standard OWS is not a growing movement in America.

[sabrina 1]

41. Yawn!

OWS has withered into near irrelevance.

Lol, and that is what the far right has been saying since September 17th, 2011. Why would anyone want to play into their rhetoric, especially since, as usual, they have been proven to have been so wrong?

OWS gets a kick out of those predictions. I remember on the first weekend, all the right wing blowhards on their noise machine were convinced that it would not last beyond that weekend. Then, a couple of days later there were 30,000 people on the streets in NYC, when the Unions joined them, not even a weekend, a workday, and heads exploded all over the right wing blogosphere and they had to come up with a different talking point because not only did more people join them, it began to spread across the country.

It's never a good idea to go with anything the right wing predicts or the MSM who joined them. They make stuff up and just put it out there and hope some of it will stick.

Fyi, OWS never intended to still be here. They expected to last at most, one month. So as of now, with all they are doing each day, they have far exceeded their own goals.

[hack89]

42. Since OWS will re-elect Democrats, I really have no problem with them

they are not a threat to what I stand for.

[4th law of robotics]

21. "Last November's election is an example of this."

The election that gave the House back to the Republicans?

[Zorra]

51. Um, ya know...you just might wanna think about that statement some more.

It appears that you missed a year.

Republicans took back the House in the year 2010

Last November was in in the year 2011.

There were elections that primarily overall turned out great for progressive Democrats.

There are always off year elections

Guess you must have missed it somehow.

Huh. That's really interesting.

Most Democrats here were overjoyed at the results of the election of November, 2011.

Gee, it's so hard to believe you missed it.

[4th law of robotics]

52. Ha, ok

the election that saw 2 republican and 2 democratic governors being elected?

My god it's only a matter of time before the OWS achieves . . . absolutely nothing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_elections,_2011

Seriously, you're claiming an off-year election season that didn't do much as a OWS success?

You may as well say that with the OWS the sun won't rise since you're attributing random things that happened when they were in existence to their efforts.

[Zorra]

54. Ok. I'm done with you. Election Day 2011: In State After State, "Remarkable Wins for Progressives"

Maybe you didn't like the results of the election. Maybe you thought they were no big deal. Most real Democrats thought the results were great. Especially after the pre-Occupy electoral disaster of 2010.

Advocates for labor, women's, and immigration rights are celebrating a number of key victories in Tuesday's state elections. In Ohio, voters defeated Republican Gov. John Kasich's controversial limits on the collective bargaining rights of state employees. In Arizona, Russell Pearce, the architect of the state's controversial anti-immigration law has lost his state senate seat in an unprecedented recall vote. Meanwhile in Maine, voters have defeated a Republican measure that barred same-day voter-registration on election day. For analysis, Democracy Now! speaks with reporter John Nichols of The Nation magazine. "There were many political insiders who said, 'Oh, don't pick this fight.' You'll note that President Obama and the Washington Democrats stayed clear of this battle in Ohio," Nichols says. "But in Ohio, on the ground, this grassroots movement, which literally put thousands and thousands of people at the doors, turned back a national conservative agenda. That's a big deal."

For the complete interview, read the transcript, download the podcast, and for additional reports about election news, visit http://www.democracynow.org/

I will not be responding to anymore of your posts.

Have a nice day.

[4th law of robotics]

55. But it's a social movement!

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2011/11/occupy-wall-street-favor-fading.html

[Egalitarian Thug]

27. "The Democratic Party has traditionally been the party of labor, of the people."

Actually it hasn't. The Democratic party has traditionally been the party of the status quo. From the early 19th century through the Civil War they were the pro-capital, pro-slavery party. It was the Democrats that created the robber barons and fought against the progressive movement.Take FDR and arguably the JFK/LBJ administrations out of the picture and the Democratic Party has consistently backed Big Money against The People.

[Zorra]

53. Do you believe that Thomas Jefferson, considered the founder of the Democratic Party,

was a corporatist?

Although I understand and agree with you to some degree, I believe you missed some history here. I'm also disappointed with the way conservative DLC/Third Way corporatists have taken over the Party, and think that corporatists have had way too much malevolent influence on the Democratic Party in the past. But in the grand scheme of things, the Democratic Party has, generally, been the political organization that has acted on behalf of the people to maintain our rights and increase opportunities for our well-being. Republicans would have long ago sold the 99% to the highest bidder if it were not for Democratic Party opposition to them.

Jefferson is considered to be the founder or the Democratic Party and the ideology of the Democratic Party.

If you wish to argue that Jefferson was a corporatist, then I will not be able to take what you post seriously anymore.

Jefferson-Jackson Day

Democratic Party

The Democratic Party evolved from Anti-Federalist factions that opposed the fiscal policies of Alexander Hamilton in the early 1790s. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison organized these factions into the Democratic-Republican Party. The party favored states' rights and strict adherence to the Constitution; it opposed a national bank and wealthy, moneyed interests. The Democratic-Republican Party ascended to power in the election of 1800.
snip---
The Democratic Party traces its origins to the inspiration of Democratic-Republican Party, founded by Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and other influential opponents of the Federalists in 1792. That party also inspired the Whigs and modern Republicans. Organizationally, the modern Democratic Party truly arose in the 1830s, with the election of Andrew Jackson. Since the division of the Republican Party in the election of 1912, it has gradually positioned itself to the left of the Republican Party on economic and social issues. Until the period following the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964—which was championed by a Democratic president but faced lower Democratic than Republican support in Congress—the Democratic Party was primarily a coalition of two parties divided by region. Southern Democrats were typically given high conservative ratings by the American Conservative Union while northern Democrats were typically given very liberal ratings. Southern Democrats were a core bloc of the bipartisan conservative coalition which lasted through the Reagan-era. The economically activist philosophy of Franklin D. Roosevelt, which has strongly influenced American liberalism, has shaped much of the party's economic agenda since 1932, and served to tie the two regional factions of the party together until the late 1960s. In fact, Roosevelt's New Deal coalition usually controlled the national government until the 1970s.

Andrew Jackson

The 1830–1850 period later became known as the era of Jacksonian democracy.[1]

Jackson was nicknamed "Old Hickory" because of his toughness and aggressive personality; he fought in duels, some fatal to his opponents. He was a rich slaveholder, who appealed to the common men of the United States, and fought politically against what he denounced as a closed, undemocratic aristocracy. He expanded the spoils system during his presidency to strengthen his political base.

....Historians acknowledge his protection of popular democracy and individual liberty for United States citizens, and criticize him for his support for slavery and for his role in Indian removal.

The Democratic Party is not the party of saints, but it is the only major political organization that has consistently supported , to some degree, the rights of the 99% over the greed of the 1%.

Yeh, recently...I agree with you, not as nearly much as they should be. That's why Occupy came into being as a tangible entity.

[Egalitarian Thug]

56. I think we've hit on the problem, neither party has consistently advocated for us in our history.

The Democrats had Jefferson and Jackson (a questionable choice considering his orders regarding the native population), then a century later we got FDR and Kennedy/LBJ.

The republicans started with Lincoln and went on to McKinley, Roosevelt, and Harding.

Or we could look at it this way; between both parties we have had only 9 out of 44 Presidents on our side.

[Odin2005]

23. Third Way corproatist BS.

Is that you, Rahm???

[hack89]

35. So you oppose electing Democrats to office? Ok. nt

[4th law of robotics]

17. Support me or you stand with the terro. . . er corporatists!

[Zorra]

22. No. Poor analogy.

It's like "If you want me to lose, you stand with the corporatists."

Big difference.

Same as "If you want Democrats to lose, you stand with the republicans.

[4th law of robotics]

24. Whatever you say captain! When shall the waterboarding begin?

That'll learn them traitors. Oorah!

[Zalatix]

45. Over-dramatize much?

[UnrepentantLiberal]

25. I was on that bridge

so you know where I stand.

[Zorra]

50. Thanks!

[limpyhobbler]

26. A lovely thread thank you.

I stand with the weirdos.

Just kidding not weirdos but people who take personal risks to stand up for social justice. In a non-violent way. Even though we may get some strange looks.

Whether it's a nursing home worker trying to organize her co-workers, or an occupier fighting to keep a family in their home.

"Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric" - Bertrand Russell

[woo me with science]

40. DU Rec.