The Rude Pundit: This Is Not Your Fucking Movement; This Is Our Fucking Movement

[meegbear]

Let's be honest here: the march this morning to shut down Wall Street was useless if its goal was to, well, shut down Wall Street. The New York Stock Exchange is, more or less, a show. Multi-million dollar financial transactions are not done by crazy, sweaty guys on a loud, chaotic floor. They're done digitally. So whether or not the secretaries and junior fuckbag executives and janitors got into work didn't stop a single transfer of funds from one rich asshole to another. It pissed off some people and got the cops more overtime.

But, as ever, as ever, since it's started, everyone, from The Daily Show to Diane Rehm, right, left, and middle, have insisted that Occupy Wall Street conform to some readily defined paradigm of what a protest movement needs to be. Essentially, they are echoing something that Karl Rove drooled out the other day when he asked protesters at a speech he giving at Johns Hopkins University, "Who gave you the right to occupy America?" The real question is "Who took that right away?"

We are just two months into this. Two fucking months after sucking up the shit given to us from the right for years. Two fucking months after being part of the movement that propelled Obama into the presidency, only to see that movement dissolved and dissipated. Two fucking months after watching two years of Tea Party bullshit being flaunted in our faces as if it represented anything but the height of corporate and conservative cynicism and manipulation.

We are two months into this and everyone in the media is clamoring for closure. It took years for the civil rights movement to get laws changed. It took years for the anti-Vietnam War movement to get through the thick skulls of the majority of Americans. This is just starting. Welcome to the real occupation.

Right now, the whole Occupy Wall Street narrative arc is following a well-worn script: defiance of authority followed by a crackdown by the agents of the authority. The corrupt, illegal power of the police and the governments of New York, Oakland, and elsewhere have been on display, with the raid on Zuccotti Park and on encampments around the country, as well as attacks on media members from the right, left, and middle.

The march this morning wasn't going to do anything, despite the hopeful rumors that the stock market opening bell had been delayed (it wasn't). No, the point was, like the rallies for Obama before them, that there is power in numbers. And that power needs to be exhibited and enacted.

When the Supreme Court, in the Citizens United decision, said that corporations are people with First Amendment rights and affirmed that money is the equivalent of speech, it essentially was saying that some people have more speech than others. The wealthy and the corporations can never be matched in terms of the speech effect of their dollars. But they can be matched and overcome by the sheer volume of people. That's why we say we are the 99%.

http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/

[graywarrior]

1. Damn right! And we're just getting started! ! ! !

[firehorse]

25. Who gave you the right to occupy America?" The real question is "Who took that right away?"

loved that

[Enthusiast]

39. Loved it too.

[nadinbrzezinski]

2. Yup

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

3. "...clamoring for closure..."

They're trying really, really hard at that right now.

[Luminous Animal]

5. Clamoring for closure is all over DU.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

7. Indeed.

[Enthusiast]

40. And now they have revealed their true identity.

We all know who they are now.

[Marrah_G]

56. LOL

[fascisthunter]

64. .

[totodeinhere]

80. Let's not confuse clamoring for closure with impatience.

For God's sake, can you blame a guy who has been unemployed for two or more years for being impatient to get a job? Can you blame the 60 year old uninsured cancer victim for being impatient to reach age 65 so they can get Medicare? Can you blame the mother who has a son in harm's way in Afghanistan for being impatient to get her son home?

Yes, there is a lot of justified impatience out there and I think there is a fine line between impatience and wanting closure. Yes movements like this can take a lot of time just as the civil rights movement took a lot of time. But my fear is that we don't have much time.

[xxqqqzme]

90. di$ruptor$, I call them.

[VWolf]

60. Sign of the times, really

Today's media works in cycles, and they'd like to have this all "wrapped up" so that they can move on to the next shiny object. Not gonna happen.

[aquamarina]

4. Awesome rant by the Rude Pundit

[Fumesucker]

6. Damn... Well said.. Recced..

[lunatica]

8. kick'd and rec'd

[Hell Hath No Fury]

9. Wow! Someone who "gets" it!

;) :applause:

[Magoo48]

10. Patience, yes, we already occupy America,

it will simply take a while get some of the parts replaced...

[RKP5637]

11. Exactly and well said!!! It's time for the country to be for "we the people!" n/t

[No DUplicitous DUpe]

12. Right on!

:kick:

[TriMera]

13. K&R. n/t

[hifiguy]

14. Kicked and rec'd nt

[mmonk]

15. BINGO. Rude Pundit wins the prize.

[Matariki]

16. Bravo - spot on as always.

"We are two months into this and everyone in the media is clamoring for closure."

Exactly. Fuck that.

[riderinthestorm]

17. The Rude Pundit listens to Diane Rehm! Smart guy! nt

[malaise]

18. Rudie nailed it

as usual

Rec

[Hydra]

19. The MSM can STFU and start doing their jobs

As part of the checks and balances of our system.

Right now they're a paid tool of the system, not the people bringing daylight to the places that need it.

[Zorra]

20. WOOT! Excellent. nt

[Huey P. Long]

21. Love the 'fucking' Rude One.

[emulatorloo]

22. Love the Rude Pundit, great rant as usual. Thanks for posting this n/t

[madinmaryland]

23. Thanks for the new word, meegbear.

"iDouche"

:rofl:

[myrna minx]

24. Excellent. K&R n/t

[DeSwiss]

26. Damn skippin Meegbear!!! - K&R n/t

[bottom line]

27. Recommendation :)

Here's the deal: (last paragraph)
I'm 60, been to a lot of protests in my day... been meaning to go check out Occupy LA... The lack of mumstream media of the Gestapo Bloomberg marionette, (PS boycott). I definitely went to the 12:00 action march here in LA, today.
The police stopped the march, hoping to inflame, we were all on the sidewalks (how convenient, "Can't block sidewalks" the absurdity) They then two lines of officers "caged us" on the sidewalk, You're first thoughts are like an animal, how convenient. Achoo!!! We maintained our cool, monitors said they can't arrest us, without an order to disperse, other marchers chanted "let them leave" & cops then filed away & on we went to find the march...
Los Angeles has some old timer elder activists, some of whom showed up as always, (matronly if you will).
The camp is physically, quite a CAMP, but spiritually, is like stepping onto the ship, the Nebuchadnezzer of the movie Matrix.
I've been wanting to Thank You "Younger Generation" since Obama's election. The beauty & merit that you are putting your physical bodies on the line for an "idea whose time has come" is beauty... {long & many words I could write here}...
The LA police were OK, this isn't delusionary Bloomboy's Gotham. I don't believe in guilt or manipulation; next time there is an action where ever you may be, attend. You don't have to be on the line. Don't be PSYCHED. You'll tune in & say How Remarkable, How Cool, {long & many words I could write here} "an idea whose time has come."
Thank You, Thank You, Thank You, Thank You, blada yada, how many Thank You's, can this guy say :)
PS Kudos to Captain Ray Lewis (a little armchair guilt, perhaps :)
Pretty amazing for a Thursday, I might add

[bottom line]

32. Postscript:

Just a note. I don't advise any putting your body on the line, except MAYBE some little staged, trained by experienced activists. The reason is, from the unprecedented show of force, I think these nutcases have some vision for some huge riot. That vision is not going to happen. So don't lose your cool!

[FirstLight]

35. thanks for the input

and welcome aboard!~ ;) :grouphug:

[Enthusiast]

41. Nice to hear from you, bottom line.

[Quixote1818]

28. Very well put! K and R

[rhett o rick]

29. Right on.

[shanti]

30. yes

k&r for the truth!

[RainDog]

31. k&r n/t

[6000eliot]

33. Hear Hear, RP.

Thank you, Meegbear!:toast:

[FirstLight]

34. Absofuckinloutely!

I am sorry I was so busy watching livestreams and being hyped up about how FUCKING AWESOME this whole thing is, to read much else here today. But this post rocks. thanks, sharing :) :hug: In soildarity Yo!

[FrodosPet]

36. Is the Daily Show and Colbert trying to tear down OWS?

A couple weeks ago, Colbert was making fun of the various hand gestures of the General Assembly, and now Samantha Bee is claiming there is division and ghettoization at Zuccoti Park.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-november-16-2011/occupy-wall-street-divided

They did bring up an interesting point - there are committees meeting in the lobby of Deutche Bank?

[tridim]

81. I actually didn't tune in to TDS last night because of Samantha Bee's report.

I don't think the audience enjoyed it either based on their reaction.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

37. You can't compare OWS to the civil rights movement or the anti-Vietnam movement.

Both of those had specific, achievable goals; the government was able to end the protests by meeting those goals.

OWS does not, and therefore I'm afraid I don't expect it to achieve much.

[Enthusiast]

42. We can't? Sorry to disabuse you of that notion

but we can do anything we want. OWS does have achievable goals but the right wing does not want to acknowledge those goals.

There is no alternative to OWS. OWS exists because it is clear the American people have lost their political representation to corporate money.

Modify your expectations. DU naysayers are being made note of.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

50. By all means make note.

And if - as seems likely - I'm right, and OWS follows in the footsteps of e.g. the Iraq war protests rather than the civil rights movement and fizzles out without any notable legislative consequences, remember that I was.

I'm afraid I think you're wrong about OWS having achievable goals - most Occupiers appear to take pride in the fact that no one person speaks for the movement. That means that while each individual may have achievable goals, the movement as a whole doesn't. Political protests work* because politicians agree with the people in charge that they will pass laws XYZ and in exchange the protest will be called off; because of it's ambiguity there is no specific piece of legislation that would end the occupy movement, and therefore politicians won't bother trying.




*Alternatively, some work by getting people elected and changing the system from inside rather than outside - this appears to be the goal of the Tea Partiers, for example. But OWS isn't trying this.

[kenfrequed]

66. Why did the antiwar protests fizzle?

It was lack of committment on the protesters.

Some of the largest protests in American history took place in the run up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq. They dwarfed most of the Vietnam protests. They took place in many cities throughout the US and throughout the world. They were given minisucle coverage. Almost nothing. The various media outlets decided war was inevitable and necessary. the media gave equal time to prowar protesters that were outnumbered in many cases over a thousand to one.

Given that do you really think it is the fault of the protesters that the protest failed. And before you laud praise and accolades on the Vietnam antiwar movement, until TWAT (the war against terror) it was the longest bloody war in American history. I don't know how much credit to give for that.

You have to acknowledge there are very basic differences between the War on Terror, the civil rights movement, and OWS. They have very, very different roots and causes.

[MedleyMisty]

76. I saw a comment on Twitter

It said that the anti-Iraq protests didn't work because people just marched for a few hours and then went home and went to work on Monday.

Notice how Occupy, well - occupies.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

83. My answer would be "because the government *could* ignore them".

All the successful political protests that I can think of (votes for women in the UK, Indian independence, civil rights, anti-apartheid), have worked along roughly the same model.

1) Protesters start doing X, and declare that they will continue doing X until their demands are met.
2) The government decides that it will not put up with X, and uses force to prevent it.
3) The populace take the view that the amount of force used to prevent X was excessive, and the government starts to become unpopular.
4) X continues when the amount of force used to stop it is reduced.
5) The government decides that the only way to end X is to give in to the demands.


The anti Iraq war protests, in my view, failed at step 2: what the protestors did was simply walk from point A to point B; the government shrugged and said "fair enough" and ignored them and went on with what it is doing.

I think that OWS will fail at step 5* - there are no clearly-agreed-upon demands, so "ending the protests by meeting their demands" won't be considered. For protests to achieve something, you have to either make that thing in the interests of existing politicians, or get new politicians elected; OWS doesn't appear to be doing either of those.




*I think there is also a problem at step 3, in that occupying buildings is something most people will consider force an acceptable response to - I've seen various posts and articles on how the police response has been excessive, but none from places which didn't already support the occupiers and, frankly, would probably claim the response was excessive whether or not it was. But the main problem is the lack of a win condition.

[kimsarah]

44. Au contraire

To Donald Ian Rankin, who says, "You can't compare OWS to the civil rights movement or the anti-Vietnam movement. Both of those had specific, achievable goals; the government was able to end the protests by meeting those goals.
OWS does not, and therefore I'm afraid I don't expect it to achieve much."

Hang in there. Only the uninformed are trying to define what kind of movement this is. Its power to achieve is unlimited.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

49. I'm afraid I think that's an empty platitude.

Political protests succeed because politicians reason that they can end the movement by agreeing to its demands.

OWS doesn't have demands that would lead to it ending if they were met, and therefore there's no incentive for politicians to act in response to it.

[rucognizant]

63. The goal as I see it..................

Is to get RID of the EXHISITING POLITICIONS WHO ARE OBSTRUCTING the performance of Democracy. Therefor you can't really request of the politicians that they step down quietly and let others take their place!
What I am seeing in my largely conservative rural location, with a minority of raving, Progressives; is that the Occupy Movement is causing the clueless and oblivious, ( who are suffering under the policies of the 1% for so long)to AWAKEN & SEE THE LIGHT.They agree with the movement.

[They_Live]

65. "therefore there's no incentive for politicians to act in response to it."

Pay close attention, because the politicians have no choice but to react/respond to OWS. You've already seen it at Local, State, and Federal levels. And each time, the politicians reveal themselves by their actions.

[unionworks]

77. by jove, you're "RIGHT"

...you can't end it.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

93. You say that like you think it's a strength.

The reason that successful political protests succeeded is precisely that it *was* possible for the government to end them - by giving women the vote, granting India independence, ending segregation, ending apartheid, etc.

There's no similar way the government could end OWS, and therefore little incentive to listen to it.

[unionworks]

94. "assume formlessness"

- Sun Tzu

[RetroLounge]

53. Your concern is noted

:eyes:

I love our DU concern trolls...

RL

[Donald Ian Rankin]

59. Who says I'm concerned?

I don't think OWS is doing much harm, and if that's how people want to spend their time then good luck to them. Who knows - maybe I'm wrong and they really will make the world a better place. I think the odds are against them achieving much, though.

[Marrah_G]

54. You certainly have the right to share your opinions

However let me just say that no one out there marching gives a shit about what you or the media or the PTB think about the protest. They are standing up for what they believe in. They feel that all other paths have been exhausted. If you don't approve, so what? It's not you out there. If you have no desire to fight in this manner then don't. Find some other way to get results. No one is stopping you.

[Pacifist Patriot]

71. Anyone who still believes the media-meme that OWS has no goals isn't paying attention.

[SemperEadem]

78. You know, I'm stunned by how many of my progressive friends

still do not know what the goals of OWS are, when they've been clearly spelled out since day one.

[Pacifist Patriot]

82. Same here. It's mind-boggling.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

88. I've heard lots of talk of goals, but nearly always they turn out to be meaningless.

"Take back money and power from the 1%", for example, which someone lists below, is *not* specific and achievable goal - there's no way it could be legislated.

The acid test is "is there a specific set of legislation that, if passed, would result in the protestors declaring victory and going home".

In the case of the civil rights movement, there was - integration and racial equality laws.

In the case of OWS, there isn't.

[Dawgs]

84. Wow! You couldn't be more wrong.

OWS has a very specific goal, which is take back the power and money from the 1%. And it's certainly easier to achieve that goal than ending racism. It's sad that you don't see it.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

87. That's not a specific goal, it's a meaningless and empty platitude.

I'm afraid it rather proves my point.

A specific goal would be along the lines of "institute taxes XYZ" or "bring back Glass-Steagall".

There's no way a politician could appear on a balcony and say "we have now passed a law that takes back the power and money from the 1%, you have won, go home".


Incidentally, "ending racism" was never the goal of the civil rights movement - the dream, sure, but there were always specific, achievable goals.

[Enthusiast]

38. Kicked and recommended!

That is excellent!

"We are two months into this and everyone in the media is clamoring for closure. It took years for the civil rights movement to get laws changed. It took years for the anti-Vietnam War movement to get through the thick skulls of the majority of Americans. This is just starting."

[kimsarah]

43. You people!

"But, as ever, as ever, since it's started, everyone, from The Daily Show to Diane Rehm, right, left, and middle, have insisted that Occupy Wall Street conform to some readily defined paradigm of what a protest movement needs to be."

Yup, the professional opinion shapers, ie: the media, are not used to being out of control or having a big story that's too hard to wrap their hands around. The perfect story has a simple beginning, middle and end, with one side that is pro, and the other that is con.

OWS takes too much actual thinking, reporting and talking to people for media types to even begin to get a clue.

To their credit, some in the media are trying harder and getting a little closer to getting a grip, but for the most part the majority on all sides of the political spectrum are still clueless, and their ignorance is becoming more transparent. Oh well.

[Tunkamerica]

45. And fits snugly into a media cycle... anything that lasts or has the potential to last

past next monday is out of format

[Kurmudgeon]

46. If you want liberal things done, give the president a liberal congress.

How about vote next time and take back congress from the Tea Party?
The protests are well and fine, but if not for the 2010 midterm, a lot of the things being protested wouldn't have happened.

[fasttense]

51. He had a Democratic Congress and he capitulated to the corporations anyway.

Yes, some of those Democrats were corporatist but some were real liberals too. Instead of siding with the real liberals in his own party, the President put the corporatist in charge and capitulated to most of their whims.

This president, or any president, will never have a perfect congress. There will always be some corporatist in among the real liberals. There will always be some populists in among the corporatist too. Yet a president who works up legislation that appeases the minority in their party will always have half-baked, weak legislation that tears apart their base.

Obama had a chance at real change, at real populist legislation. But he negotiated away his chance and in so doing revived a dying party. In the final hours of his Democratic congress, what did he do? He extended the bushes tax give aways to the 1%. Instead of using that congress in it's passing hours to push through legislation on behalf of the 99%, he concentrated his efforts on giving the 1% more unfair advantages.

The Occupy movement was inevitable. I saw it the moment Obama came to power. If he had passed single payer, if he had passed stronger union rights laws, if he had held the banks (or any of the thousands of lawless fat cats) accountable for their actions, the occupy movement would be carrying Obama poster right now.

Instead he choose to concentrated on the little things, and allowed the 1% to continue to rape and pillage our nation.

The occupy movement, or something similar, was coming. It had to come. You can not eat away at your nations middle class and expect them to remain quiet. No matter how much money the Koch brothers and their minions have, it can not forever silence people who see their dreams, and their children's future, being gobbled up by corporations and monopolies.

Obama could have been the center of the movement. Instead he choose to be on the fringes.

[Marrah_G]

55. If Obama supported OWS then you would these posters cheering for it

I can gauge their view on any issue just by watching the actions and sound bites of the White House.

[SemperEadem]

79. If Obama openly supported OWS

he'd be accused by OWS of trying to glom onto it for political expediency, which, now--2 months on, would be true. That train has left the station. He should have been on it with the speed which he used in condemning the Egyptian government when the Egyptians took to the streets earlier this year. He was on that right off the bat... but he's eerily silent when it comes to his own people. That's fucked up.

[julian09]

89. Congress passes laws, president has no vote, only pen to

sign or veto legislation. He has to negotiate, even with his own party. He had to extended Bush cuts just to keep them for middle class and extend unemployment benefits. At that point dems had lost the sixtieth vote. He concentrated his effort on middle class tax cuts even though he had to extend the 1% cuts to do it.
What the OWS has to do is challenge the 44 tea party representatives and dinos, nothing could hasten change more. The TP is for preservation of tax breaks for 1%, cutting social safety net, then privatizing SOS, MEDICARE, destroy womans rights, voter rights for less fortunate, and health care reform. Right Wing media in NY, FOX, NY Post, Wall St Journal all Murdock owned are worried about OWS and want to prematurely defeat it. Fox should be a target of OWS for its' lies, misinformation, and distortions.

[tpsbmam]

58. If we want "liberal things done," give the congress a liberal president. nt

[Martin Eden]

47. Big K&R

Perhaps the best rant/perspective/summation I've read on OWS :yourock:

[xchrom]

48. Recommend

[jerseyjack]

52. Focus on the first two paragraphs.

[Highway61]

57. Damn right

This is just the beginning...

[tsuki]

61. I love me some Rude. nt

[zeemike]

62. What a smart guy you are Rude Pundit.

You cut right through the bullshit...K&R

[TBF]

67. K&R nt

[valerief]

68. Damn straight! Fuck the corporate media and their little whore minds. nt

[geardaddy]

69. Kicked and Recced.

The Rude One - 2016.

[fadedrose]

70. R

[Pacifist Patriot]

72. My favorite line: The real question is "Who took that right away?"

[krkaufman]

73. direct link, for later reference

http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/2011/11/this-is-not-your-fucking-movement-this.html

[demigoddess]

74. the 1% expected americans to roll over and take it because

we are so comfortable. But the OWS movement is saying that we are not comfortable and not going to roll over and we are interested in more than one issue. It is this decade's "I'm mad as hell and not going to take it anymore" Loud and clear. Keep it up.

[SemperEadem]

75. Indeed... that question should be flung right back in rove's teeth

by the Iraqis: "Who gave you the right to occupy, America?" Occupation sure seemed a fabulous idea back when he was riding high on the hog with his boy w being derelict in his duties and the vp basically acting as commander in chief. So indeed! Who gave #ows the right to occupy? THE FUCKING US CONSTITUTION DID, BITCH. Suck it if you don't like it.

[stonecutter357]

85. get the money out of politics.

get the money out of politics.

[Deep13]

86. Some people need to read some Foucault.

Martin Biddy has an excellent essay on Foucault and the "capillary function of power," that is how power does not exist in centralized institutions, but is systemic in culture. As soon as OWS picks leaders or makes specific demands, it defines itself as an other in opposition to to the general culture. The real purpose of OWS is not to change the hegemonic culture, but to supplant it.

[Gregorian]

91. RUDEY RULES!!!

The real question is "Who took that right away?"

[Paladin]

92. Another Home Run By The Rude One. Many Thanks. (n/t)