Soft Regime Change in America
The #OCCUPY movement is entering an ominous new phase.
Police attacked #OCCUPYOAKLAND on Tuesday with tear gas, rubber bullets and flash grenades. Scott Olsen, a two time Iraq war veteran, was critically wounded in the assault. Graphic pictures of an unconscious Olsen, his skull fractured, being carried by fellow protestors to safety have reverberated from Zuccotti to Cairo and escalated the movement. On Wednesday, three thousand protestors reclaimed the square, reestablished their encampment and held a general assembly that called for a General Strike.
"We as fellow occupiers of Oscar Grant Plaza propose that on Wednesday November 2, 2011, we liberate Oakland and shut down the 1%... All banks and corporations should close down for the day or we will march on them."
There are signs of occupations in other cities taking up Oakland's call. A tantalizing possibility hangs in the air: Could a wildcat general strike spread across the nation? Are we witnessing the first clues of how a soft regime change might begin in America?
occupywallstreet.org / occupytogether.org / Twitter / Facebook
262 comments on the article “Soft Regime Change in America”
Displaying 191 - 200 of 262
Page 20 of 27
moredotjpg2
#2 is a HORRIBLE IDEA!
Your #2 says, "The goal at this stage is to point to your opponents and say that they have been lying to you; that the show they have constructed is false and that you are sick of it."
Simply arguing that we were "stabbed in the back" (as the early 1930s brown shirts liked to say), and then demonizing some "they" (who are they? bankers? jews? come on!), does absolutely nothing but show a scary vindictive mob-mentality.
Please please find positive positions to affirm, and present THOSE as central. This should be a social-psych. "given" here; we will achieve nothing if we just demonize a class of people and play the victim. You suggest what is really the path of a traditional xenophobic reactionary movement. Such an approach can doom a movement.
I'm not saying you shouldn't identify certain institutions and organizations as flawed, but be specific and put those complaints in the context of a general push for improvements -- this gets people thinking creatively and positively and cooperatively. That's just basic psychology. People get emotionally tired of whining-circles; but they get inspired by critique's that accompany solutions.
So for example, the relationships between CEOs and Boards of Directors; that's an incestuous cluster*_ck that well deserves a critique; and how bout offering an alternative vision of corporate leadership to accompany that critique -- nothing specific, just the germ of an idea. THAT would be something people can rally around, and push for and argue about (and is a lot more satisfying than saying "they hurt me and they're bad").
Admittedly, you're probably right that it's not necessary to have specific objectives yet, but outlining basic principles, at least, that circumscribe acceptable solutions to identified problems, that much is essential to an intellectually coherent and emotionally engaging movement.
As for the rest of your suggestions, they all sound great (thanks for the contribution).
moredotjpg2
#2 is a HORRIBLE IDEA!
Your #2 says, "The goal at this stage is to point to your opponents and say that they have been lying to you; that the show they have constructed is false and that you are sick of it."
Simply arguing that we were "stabbed in the back" (as the early 1930s brown shirts liked to say), and then demonizing some "they" (who are they? bankers? jews? come on!), does absolutely nothing but show a scary vindictive mob-mentality.
Please please find positive positions to affirm, and present THOSE as central. This should be a social-psych. "given" here; we will achieve nothing if we just demonize a class of people and play the victim. You suggest what is really the path of a traditional xenophobic reactionary movement. Such an approach can doom a movement.
I'm not saying you shouldn't identify certain institutions and organizations as flawed, but be specific and put those complaints in the context of a general push for improvements -- this gets people thinking creatively and positively and cooperatively. That's just basic psychology. People get emotionally tired of whining-circles; but they get inspired by critique's that accompany solutions.
So for example, the relationships between CEOs and Boards of Directors; that's an incestuous cluster*_ck that well deserves a critique; and how bout offering an alternative vision of corporate leadership to accompany that critique -- nothing specific, just the germ of an idea. THAT would be something people can rally around, and push for and argue about (and is a lot more satisfying than saying "they hurt me and they're bad").
Admittedly, you're probably right that it's not necessary to have specific objectives yet, but outlining basic principles, at least, that circumscribe acceptable solutions to identified problems, that much is essential to an intellectually coherent and emotionally engaging movement.
As for the rest of your suggestions, they all sound great (thanks for the contribution).
wolfgangbraun
Really good post moredotjpg2 !!
Allow me to share some of my thoughts and get your feedback.
Agreement needs to be reached about the PURPOSE of the movement - if support for the movement is to be consolidated and if real progress is to be made.
I've no doubt that the purpose relates to the loss of democratic control over our governments - which have become preoccupied with imposing POLICY agendas rather than with upholding fundamental PRINCIPLES ..
.. What is more, if the serious failings of government institutions were to be fixed .. then the problems with Wall Street and related groups would inevitably be brought under control.
Focusing on Wall Street without looking at the deeper failures in government that allowed Wall Street to go so badly wrong would be a mistake, because it would not fix the underlying problems.
The preoccupation of those in government with IMPOSING partisan policy agendas has led to the most vital institutions of government act in ways that are in direct opposition to the fundamental purpose OF GOVERNMENT:
- That fundamental purpose OF GOVERNMENT relates to PRINCIPLES rather than POLICIES ..
.. and THE core purpose of government is connected very directly with upholding the principle of fundamental justice.
That principle dictates that no person or institution will act in any way that violates the fundamental rights and just interests of ANY other person.
That is, the core purpose OF GOVERNMENT is to uphold the principles of fundamental justice - equally and for every single citizen.
.
I believe that the widespread support for the OWS movement comes from a feeling among many that the movement is seeking some fundamental change in the way in which our society "works" ..
.. so as to restore the principle of fundamental justice to its proper place as THE PRINCIPLE that guides and controls our society .. and to get government to do its essential job in upholding that principle .. as the institution with the duty to uphold that PRINCIPLE .. and to prevent the doing of harm by any person or party in our society.
Effectively, the movement draws its support from the perception that it is more concerned with correcting the deeper failings in government that allowed Wall Street to go so seriously wrong in the first place, than with the failings in Wall Street itself.
.. Put another way, support for the OWS movement arises from the fact that many believe or hope that it is directed by a commitment to restore the principle of fundamental justice to a proper place in our society ..
.. and that the movement, in seeking to move towards that principle, is dedicated to bringing about essential changes in the most critical institutions in our society that have a duty to uphold that principle .. the institutions of government - which have increasingly strayed from THEIR most essential purpose:
.. of protecting the rights and just interests of every citizen against the self-serving desires of those who want to bias the rules of society so as to create privileges for themselves.
In effect, I believe that the OWS movement gets its support from the fact that the movement is seen:
.. to stand behind the PRINCIPLE that governments must protect the rights and just interests of every citizen against the potential for abuse by any other citizen..
.. and to undo any POLICY, programme or regulation that would compels any citizen to provide unjust privileges or benefits to any other.
More narrowly, the OWS movement gets its support from the sense that it is attempting to take back democratic control of the vital institutions of government.
That is, the movement draws a great deal of its support from the perception that it is concerned with the fact that those who occupy positions of public trust have lost their legitimacy ..
.. by abusing the immense powers of the public offices that they hold so as to impose partisan POLICY agendas that grant privileges to the members of certain sub-groups in society ...
.. through the imposition of statutes, regulations and practices that grant privileges to some, at the expense of the rights of others..
..
And the hope that lies behind the support for the movement comes from the perception that it is intent on trying to find ways to ensure that governments take all necessary steps to uphold the PRINCIPLE of fundamental justice equally and for all.
That said, the embryonic support for the OWS movement comes from a sense that the PURPOSE OF THE MOVEMENT is to take back control of our government and its institutions ..
.. so that governments begin to do their most essential job - begin to live up to THEIR actual purpose - of PROTECTING the rights of each and every citizen.
So, if the PURPOSE OF THE MOVEMENT was to be articulated along the lines of taking back control of OUR governments from those who have perverted institutions that are essential to the operation of a sound and civil society, that would attract much deeper and wider support ..
.. enough support, one might hope, that it would create sufficient pressure to force those who occupy positions of public trust within the vital institutions of government .. to act in accordance with the actual purpose of their positions within the overall purpose of government - and so move towards restoring the legitimacy of governments:
.. by putting PRINCIPLE ahead of POLICY;
.. and by protecting the rights and just interests of every citizen.
If the PURPOSE OF THE MOVEMENT was to be concisely articulated – along the lines of the above - I believe that that would serve to consolidate support for the movement - and enhance the role of the movement as an effective agent of essential change.
Once a clear statement of PURPOSE is articulated it would then be possible to move on to discussing policies and prescriptions for achieving that PURPOSE.
Without the clear statement of of such a uniting PURPOSE, it would be impossible to evaluate any of the many policies and prescriptions that might be proposed by those who are associated with the movement . or who might want to use the movement to their own ends.
It is necessary to articulate the PURPOSE.
wolfgangbraun
Really good post moredotjpg2 !!
Allow me to share some of my thoughts and get your feedback.
Agreement needs to be reached about the PURPOSE of the movement - if support for the movement is to be consolidated and if real progress is to be made.
I've no doubt that the purpose relates to the loss of democratic control over our governments - which have become preoccupied with imposing POLICY agendas rather than with upholding fundamental PRINCIPLES ..
.. What is more, if the serious failings of government institutions were to be fixed .. then the problems with Wall Street and related groups would inevitably be brought under control.
Focusing on Wall Street without looking at the deeper failures in government that allowed Wall Street to go so badly wrong would be a mistake, because it would not fix the underlying problems.
The preoccupation of those in government with IMPOSING partisan policy agendas has led to the most vital institutions of government act in ways that are in direct opposition to the fundamental purpose OF GOVERNMENT:
- That fundamental purpose OF GOVERNMENT relates to PRINCIPLES rather than POLICIES ..
.. and THE core purpose of government is connected very directly with upholding the principle of fundamental justice.
That principle dictates that no person or institution will act in any way that violates the fundamental rights and just interests of ANY other person.
That is, the core purpose OF GOVERNMENT is to uphold the principles of fundamental justice - equally and for every single citizen.
.
I believe that the widespread support for the OWS movement comes from a feeling among many that the movement is seeking some fundamental change in the way in which our society "works" ..
.. so as to restore the principle of fundamental justice to its proper place as THE PRINCIPLE that guides and controls our society .. and to get government to do its essential job in upholding that principle .. as the institution with the duty to uphold that PRINCIPLE .. and to prevent the doing of harm by any person or party in our society.
Effectively, the movement draws its support from the perception that it is more concerned with correcting the deeper failings in government that allowed Wall Street to go so seriously wrong in the first place, than with the failings in Wall Street itself.
.. Put another way, support for the OWS movement arises from the fact that many believe or hope that it is directed by a commitment to restore the principle of fundamental justice to a proper place in our society ..
.. and that the movement, in seeking to move towards that principle, is dedicated to bringing about essential changes in the most critical institutions in our society that have a duty to uphold that principle .. the institutions of government - which have increasingly strayed from THEIR most essential purpose:
.. of protecting the rights and just interests of every citizen against the self-serving desires of those who want to bias the rules of society so as to create privileges for themselves.
In effect, I believe that the OWS movement gets its support from the fact that the movement is seen:
.. to stand behind the PRINCIPLE that governments must protect the rights and just interests of every citizen against the potential for abuse by any other citizen..
.. and to undo any POLICY, programme or regulation that would compels any citizen to provide unjust privileges or benefits to any other.
More narrowly, the OWS movement gets its support from the sense that it is attempting to take back democratic control of the vital institutions of government.
That is, the movement draws a great deal of its support from the perception that it is concerned with the fact that those who occupy positions of public trust have lost their legitimacy ..
.. by abusing the immense powers of the public offices that they hold so as to impose partisan POLICY agendas that grant privileges to the members of certain sub-groups in society ...
.. through the imposition of statutes, regulations and practices that grant privileges to some, at the expense of the rights of others..
..
And the hope that lies behind the support for the movement comes from the perception that it is intent on trying to find ways to ensure that governments take all necessary steps to uphold the PRINCIPLE of fundamental justice equally and for all.
That said, the embryonic support for the OWS movement comes from a sense that the PURPOSE OF THE MOVEMENT is to take back control of our government and its institutions ..
.. so that governments begin to do their most essential job - begin to live up to THEIR actual purpose - of PROTECTING the rights of each and every citizen.
So, if the PURPOSE OF THE MOVEMENT was to be articulated along the lines of taking back control of OUR governments from those who have perverted institutions that are essential to the operation of a sound and civil society, that would attract much deeper and wider support ..
.. enough support, one might hope, that it would create sufficient pressure to force those who occupy positions of public trust within the vital institutions of government .. to act in accordance with the actual purpose of their positions within the overall purpose of government - and so move towards restoring the legitimacy of governments:
.. by putting PRINCIPLE ahead of POLICY;
.. and by protecting the rights and just interests of every citizen.
If the PURPOSE OF THE MOVEMENT was to be concisely articulated – along the lines of the above - I believe that that would serve to consolidate support for the movement - and enhance the role of the movement as an effective agent of essential change.
Once a clear statement of PURPOSE is articulated it would then be possible to move on to discussing policies and prescriptions for achieving that PURPOSE.
Without the clear statement of of such a uniting PURPOSE, it would be impossible to evaluate any of the many policies and prescriptions that might be proposed by those who are associated with the movement . or who might want to use the movement to their own ends.
It is necessary to articulate the PURPOSE.
moredotjpg2
Tough week here, and you've offered so much to comment on. Give me a couple days and I'll write a substantive reply.
moredotjpg2
Tough week here, and you've offered so much to comment on. Give me a couple days and I'll write a substantive reply.
Anonymous
No Copying of George Soros Color Revolutions in the US! Central Asia saw a lot of this color revolutions!
Instead of a color get a Motto that reverberates! Like No More In Indignity! or Prosecute & Impeach Now!
Police Cronies! Game Over! No Fools! etc.
Egyptian Revolution was not a color revolution and was affected by Islamic Revolution in Iran in 1979 which since then been marginalized by US . Egyptians did not rise up for bread. They rose up for Islamic values. People in US believe in values. Justice, brotherhood, respect, and dignity, sincereity, and care.
The US has been supporting the thugs/Baltagia in Egypt, Syria, and Iran. In Iran US through George Soros was fomenting the Green Revolution and in Syria US is fomenting a fake uprising against Bashar Asad to give impunity to Israel and wage war in Lebanon.
Anonymous
No Copying of George Soros Color Revolutions in the US! Central Asia saw a lot of this color revolutions!
Instead of a color get a Motto that reverberates! Like No More In Indignity! or Prosecute & Impeach Now!
Police Cronies! Game Over! No Fools! etc.
Egyptian Revolution was not a color revolution and was affected by Islamic Revolution in Iran in 1979 which since then been marginalized by US . Egyptians did not rise up for bread. They rose up for Islamic values. People in US believe in values. Justice, brotherhood, respect, and dignity, sincereity, and care.
The US has been supporting the thugs/Baltagia in Egypt, Syria, and Iran. In Iran US through George Soros was fomenting the Green Revolution and in Syria US is fomenting a fake uprising against Bashar Asad to give impunity to Israel and wage war in Lebanon.
Anonymous
Probably important to remember that the "Revolution" in Egypt could also easily be called a military coup. Hard to say which is more accurate at this point with the slow pace of progress towards democratization.
A relatively small portion of the population just happened to force the question the military was already struggling with. The military behind the dictator was already unhappy with their appointed dictator. Don't draw too many universal lessons from that one. ;)
Anonymous
Probably important to remember that the "Revolution" in Egypt could also easily be called a military coup. Hard to say which is more accurate at this point with the slow pace of progress towards democratization.
A relatively small portion of the population just happened to force the question the military was already struggling with. The military behind the dictator was already unhappy with their appointed dictator. Don't draw too many universal lessons from that one. ;)
Pages
Add a new comment