The Future of #OCCUPY
ADBUSTERS TACTICAL BRIEFING
The initial phase of the #OCCUPY movement was marked by several weeks of viral growth that peaked on October 15 with a global day of action. In the next phase, there will be a turn towards addressing the deep philosophical and strategic questions of how to escalate this democracy moment into a revolutionary people's movement. Across the nation there are clear signs that the #OCCUPY movement is simultaneously maturing and growing more militant.
Of the many questions swirling around #OCCUPY, the most challenging is how to gel into a global movement without sacrificing the decentralized, leaderless model. There is a widespread acknowledgment that there are challenges that can only be dealt with on a global scale, such as a climate change accord and overturning international casino capitalism, and that we must therefore forge a globally united people's movement. However, there is also a growing recognition that the general assembly model that has worked beautifully thus far may be fundamentally limited on a structural level.
A breakthrough came on Friday from the New York City General Assembly where the structure working group has proposed, and the general assembly has accepted, the adoption of a modified spokes council model that will work in conjunction with the general assembly. This lays the foundation for a regional, national and potentially international spokes council, something that both #OCCUPYPHILLY and The 99 Percent Declaration have been pushing for. We are beginning to see how the #OCCUPY movement will elevate itself into an international force.
Meanwhile, the power center of the movement is shifting away from the East Coast towards the West. On Wednesday, #OCCUPYOAKLAND is organizing a General Strike that is already finding support within the local community. Solidarity actions are planned in occupations nationwide. Within the movement, there is a sense that this may be a turning point as militant tactics come to the fore and direct confrontation with the structures of the corporate-state becomes the norm.
Other sparks on the horizon include the November 5 Transition Day/Bank Transfer Day, the November 25 Buy Nothing Day kick off to #OCCUPYXMAS and the December 10 Global Day of Action which was proposed this week by the international network behind the blast on October 15.
Hang in there!
for the wild,
Culture Jammers HQ
370 comments on the article “The Future of #OCCUPY”
Displaying 161 - 170 of 370
Page 17 of 37
Anonymous
Wealth Inequality in the United States
Statistics suggest the severity of wealth inequality in US: "with the top 10% possessing 80% of all financial assets [and] the bottom 90% holding only 20% of all financial wealth. "Currently, the richest 1% hold about 38% of all privately held wealth in the United States. while the bottom 90% held 73% of all debt.
While the standard of living of the working and middle classes is dependent upon income and wages, the rich tend to rely on wealth, distinguishing them from the vast majority of Americans. Income refers to a flow of money over time in the form of a rate (per hour, per week, or per year); wealth is a collection of assets owned. In essence, income is specifically what people receive through work, retirement, or social welfare whereas wealth is what people own. While the two are seemingly related, income alone is insufficient for two reasons:
1. It does not accurately reflect an individual’s economic position
2. Income does not portray the severity of financial inequality in the United States.
Wealth signifies the opportunity to “make it” in life; wealth is not used for daily expenditures or factored into a budget but when coupled with income it comprises the family’s total opportunity “to secure a desired stature and standard of living, or pass their class status along to one’s children”. Moreover, “wealth provides for both short- and long-term financial security, bestows social prestige, and contributes to political power, and can be used to produce more wealth." Hence, wealth possesses a psychological element that awards people the feeling of agency, or the ability to act. The accumulation of wealth grants more options and eliminates restrictions about how one can live life.
Essentially, the wealthy possess greater financial opportunities that allow their money to make more money. Earnings from the stock market or mutual funds are reinvested to produce a larger return. Over time, the sum that is invested becomes progressively more substantial. Those that are not wealthy, however, do not have the resources to enhance their opportunities and improve their economic position. Rather, “after debt payments, poor families are constrained to spend the remaining income on items that will not produce wealth and will depreciate over time."
in US “62 percent of households headed by single parents are without savings or other financial assets. The lack of savings removes the poor any opportunity to accumulate wealth and better their conditions. the process of accumulation or debt is cyclical. The rich use their money to earn larger returns and the poor have no savings in which to produce returns and eliminate debt. the wealthy strategically organize their money so that it will produce profit. Affluent people are more likely to allocate their money in financial services such as stocks, bonds, and other investments. Yet those who are not wealthy are likely to have their money in savings accounts and home ownership. [12] This difference comprises the largest reason for the continuation of wealth inequality in America; the rich are accumulating more assets while the middle and working classes are just getting by.
Upon observation of wealth inequality in the United States it is obvious that there remains to this day a large wealth gap between whites and African Americans. This gap could be from a variety of things however the most important when evaluating this topic is inheritance. One in three white households will receive a substantial inheritance during their lifetime compared to only one in ten black households. Inheritances provide a starting point for families and also allow them to purchase certain assets that greatly improve their financial standing, or transformative assets. Any direct transfer of resources from the parent to the child will provide a base for starting wealth accumulation. Children who receive fewer assets from their parents will have a different starting point in terms of debts as well as assets.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_United_States
P.S.
Over the past few decades, income inequality in the United States has risen dramatically. Top earners have experienced a remarkably rapid income growth while those with lower earnings have experienced much less increase in their income. An expenditure cascade occurs when the swift income growth of top earners fuels additional spending by the lower earners. The cascade begins among top earners which encourages the middle class to spend more which, in turn, encourages the lower class to spend more.
During the 1980s, the income-tax structure was altered to favor top earners in regards to after-tax purchasing power. This alteration is frequently known as Reaganomics. The increased purchasing power of top earners resulted from an enormous increase in earnings of the top earners. These changes came from policies enacted by Ronald Reagan. Furthermore, the policies were strengthened by the tax cuts passed during the first term of George W. Bush.
Anonymous
Wealth Inequality in the United States
Statistics suggest the severity of wealth inequality in US: "with the top 10% possessing 80% of all financial assets [and] the bottom 90% holding only 20% of all financial wealth. "Currently, the richest 1% hold about 38% of all privately held wealth in the United States. while the bottom 90% held 73% of all debt.
While the standard of living of the working and middle classes is dependent upon income and wages, the rich tend to rely on wealth, distinguishing them from the vast majority of Americans. Income refers to a flow of money over time in the form of a rate (per hour, per week, or per year); wealth is a collection of assets owned. In essence, income is specifically what people receive through work, retirement, or social welfare whereas wealth is what people own. While the two are seemingly related, income alone is insufficient for two reasons:
1. It does not accurately reflect an individual’s economic position
2. Income does not portray the severity of financial inequality in the United States.
Wealth signifies the opportunity to “make it” in life; wealth is not used for daily expenditures or factored into a budget but when coupled with income it comprises the family’s total opportunity “to secure a desired stature and standard of living, or pass their class status along to one’s children”. Moreover, “wealth provides for both short- and long-term financial security, bestows social prestige, and contributes to political power, and can be used to produce more wealth." Hence, wealth possesses a psychological element that awards people the feeling of agency, or the ability to act. The accumulation of wealth grants more options and eliminates restrictions about how one can live life.
Essentially, the wealthy possess greater financial opportunities that allow their money to make more money. Earnings from the stock market or mutual funds are reinvested to produce a larger return. Over time, the sum that is invested becomes progressively more substantial. Those that are not wealthy, however, do not have the resources to enhance their opportunities and improve their economic position. Rather, “after debt payments, poor families are constrained to spend the remaining income on items that will not produce wealth and will depreciate over time."
in US “62 percent of households headed by single parents are without savings or other financial assets. The lack of savings removes the poor any opportunity to accumulate wealth and better their conditions. the process of accumulation or debt is cyclical. The rich use their money to earn larger returns and the poor have no savings in which to produce returns and eliminate debt. the wealthy strategically organize their money so that it will produce profit. Affluent people are more likely to allocate their money in financial services such as stocks, bonds, and other investments. Yet those who are not wealthy are likely to have their money in savings accounts and home ownership. [12] This difference comprises the largest reason for the continuation of wealth inequality in America; the rich are accumulating more assets while the middle and working classes are just getting by.
Upon observation of wealth inequality in the United States it is obvious that there remains to this day a large wealth gap between whites and African Americans. This gap could be from a variety of things however the most important when evaluating this topic is inheritance. One in three white households will receive a substantial inheritance during their lifetime compared to only one in ten black households. Inheritances provide a starting point for families and also allow them to purchase certain assets that greatly improve their financial standing, or transformative assets. Any direct transfer of resources from the parent to the child will provide a base for starting wealth accumulation. Children who receive fewer assets from their parents will have a different starting point in terms of debts as well as assets.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_United_States
P.S.
Over the past few decades, income inequality in the United States has risen dramatically. Top earners have experienced a remarkably rapid income growth while those with lower earnings have experienced much less increase in their income. An expenditure cascade occurs when the swift income growth of top earners fuels additional spending by the lower earners. The cascade begins among top earners which encourages the middle class to spend more which, in turn, encourages the lower class to spend more.
During the 1980s, the income-tax structure was altered to favor top earners in regards to after-tax purchasing power. This alteration is frequently known as Reaganomics. The increased purchasing power of top earners resulted from an enormous increase in earnings of the top earners. These changes came from policies enacted by Ronald Reagan. Furthermore, the policies were strengthened by the tax cuts passed during the first term of George W. Bush.
Anonymous
Other Factors of Poverty in US
•Tax levels Cross-country data shows an inverse correlation between tax levels as a share of GDP and child poverty.
•Limited job opportunities appear to exist for significant subgroups of some races and ethnic groups. This is reflected by the low-income nature of large sections of the economy, as divided along racial/ethnic lines: 21% of all children in the United States live in poverty, but 46% of African American children and 40% of Latino children live in poverty.
•The Heritage Foundation speculates that illegal immigration increases job competition among low wage earners, both native and foreign born. Additionally many first generation immigrants, namely those without a high school diploma, are also living in poverty themselves.
•In 1991, 8.3% of children in two-parent families were likely to live in poverty; 19.6% of children lived with father in single parent family; and 47.1% in single parent family headed by mother.
Anonymous
Other Factors of Poverty in US
•Tax levels Cross-country data shows an inverse correlation between tax levels as a share of GDP and child poverty.
•Limited job opportunities appear to exist for significant subgroups of some races and ethnic groups. This is reflected by the low-income nature of large sections of the economy, as divided along racial/ethnic lines: 21% of all children in the United States live in poverty, but 46% of African American children and 40% of Latino children live in poverty.
•The Heritage Foundation speculates that illegal immigration increases job competition among low wage earners, both native and foreign born. Additionally many first generation immigrants, namely those without a high school diploma, are also living in poverty themselves.
•In 1991, 8.3% of children in two-parent families were likely to live in poverty; 19.6% of children lived with father in single parent family; and 47.1% in single parent family headed by mother.
Anonymous
The Link Between Slavery and Welfare State
http://www.ralphmag.org/FL/poverty-reading.html
Anonymous
The Link Between Slavery and Welfare State
http://www.ralphmag.org/FL/poverty-reading.html
Anonymous
99%ers, the 1% owes you NOTHING. They either worked hard for their money or inherited it. Either way, it's their money! They don't owe anybody else one cent. You want something for nothing. You want socialism. If the top 1% had to give away a lot of their money to the poor poor people who don't want to work hard enough to earn a living, you know what will happen? They are going to stop working so hard, because if they can't keep the money they earn, why should they work so hard for it. So your money flow will stop.
You should also know that compared to the rest of the world, YOU are in the top 1%. Look at pictures of all the starving, sick, homeless people in this world. It should make you ashamed of what you are doing.
Stop disrupting public life and costing taxpayers money. So the land you are on belongs to the people - you still don't have a right to set up tents and disrupt everything. You aren't going to change a thing. But you are already hurting people and businesses.
Grow up and realize NO ONE OWES YOU ANYTHING. If you want something, work for it. Would I Iike Bill Gates to give me 10 million dollars? Yes! Does he owe me $10,000,000.00 dollars because he is so much richer than me? NO! Please be responsible people and go home and look for a job. If you can't find one, keep looking. You don't deserve other peoples' money.
BE RESPONSIBLE AND GET BACK TO YOUR LIVES AND DON'T DISRUPT OTHER PEOPLE'S LIVES.
Anonymous
99%ers, the 1% owes you NOTHING. They either worked hard for their money or inherited it. Either way, it's their money! They don't owe anybody else one cent. You want something for nothing. You want socialism. If the top 1% had to give away a lot of their money to the poor poor people who don't want to work hard enough to earn a living, you know what will happen? They are going to stop working so hard, because if they can't keep the money they earn, why should they work so hard for it. So your money flow will stop.
You should also know that compared to the rest of the world, YOU are in the top 1%. Look at pictures of all the starving, sick, homeless people in this world. It should make you ashamed of what you are doing.
Stop disrupting public life and costing taxpayers money. So the land you are on belongs to the people - you still don't have a right to set up tents and disrupt everything. You aren't going to change a thing. But you are already hurting people and businesses.
Grow up and realize NO ONE OWES YOU ANYTHING. If you want something, work for it. Would I Iike Bill Gates to give me 10 million dollars? Yes! Does he owe me $10,000,000.00 dollars because he is so much richer than me? NO! Please be responsible people and go home and look for a job. If you can't find one, keep looking. You don't deserve other peoples' money.
BE RESPONSIBLE AND GET BACK TO YOUR LIVES AND DON'T DISRUPT OTHER PEOPLE'S LIVES.
Anonymous
Stop making sense. These morons won't "get it" until they get their way and find out what it means under a Communist dictatorship. Hell, there's an article right on this very Web site that argues in favor of Communism and marginlizes the 100 people killed in its name.
"The death of one person is a tragedy; the death of a million people is a statistic." - I believe that quote comes from Josef Stalin. If I have misattributed, someone please correct me.
Anonymous
Stop making sense. These morons won't "get it" until they get their way and find out what it means under a Communist dictatorship. Hell, there's an article right on this very Web site that argues in favor of Communism and marginlizes the 100 people killed in its name.
"The death of one person is a tragedy; the death of a million people is a statistic." - I believe that quote comes from Josef Stalin. If I have misattributed, someone please correct me.
Pages
Add a new comment