8 ms·
>“With the rise of the internet,” Soule says, “modern movements can mobilize constituents through their websites and social media. If your end goal is to get 50
by rudiv 7y ago
>“With the rise of the internet,” Soule says, “modern movements can mobilize constituents through their websites and social media. If your end goal is to get 500,000 people to turn up on the Mall in Washington, D.C., Twitter is great at that. Facebook is great at that. But if your goal is to actually make lasting change in the system, you have to work within the system — to essentially get a seat at the table.”
>“Occupy Wall Street,” she continues, “mobilized a lot of people and got a key point across about income inequality in the U.S. But did it result in real change? Unfortunately, no. Had there been a nice set of organizations able to get access to the political and economic system that the movement criticized, the changes may have been more enduring.”
The idea that OWS could have worked within the system to get the changes they wanted seems misleading to me.
- locopati 7y ago> But did it result in real change? Unfortunately, no. The rise of a progressive wing of the Democratic party is certainly due to OWS bringing income inequality into the awareness of generally apolitical people. Democrats elected legislators from under-represented groups in 2018 than ever. In time, that will change the discourse. Even the rise of right-wing populism reflects some of the same discontent (though that energy is channeled differently and is building on decades of propaganda).
- jkoudys 7y agoI agree you need a seat at the table, and historically mass protests have been a way to get that seat. It only happens when the movement is reflective of a group willing to change their behaviour though - strikes, boycotts, etc. Criticism without a clear alternative or consequence isn't going to do much.
- Shivetya 7y agoOWS could not effect change because it was not created by the people, it was not grassroots. It was a funded operation of political operatives. hence the same reason why it was not lambasted by both parties. The Tea Party however was grass roots but it took less than twenty years for the Republican party to co-opt it. Before then both they and the Democrats demonized it. Why? Because it took control from the two parties that run the show. Now the Democrats have a very nascent uprising of their own that they are desperately trying to smother. hopefully it lasts a bit longer than an election cycle or two. US politics cannot change until two party rule is not the only outcome and this can only come to fruition by having campaign finance reform that blocks incumbents from the gravy train they have and removing restrictions on those seeking to unseat them. As in, the rules have always been written backwards - they always have been written to maintain the status quo and that is the lie that needs to be ended.
- willis936 7y agoPeople who make the rules aren’t going to want to change the status quo. Getting money out of politics is hard and I would argue it would be hard to treat it as the first step. Removing the two party system is an attainable goal prior to removing money from politics. Those in control could believe it is acceptable to have the will of the people more accurately represented through a majoritarian voting system.
- pjc50 7y ago> OWS could not effect change because it was not created by the people, it was not grassroots. It was a funded operation of political operatives. There is zero evidence for this and it's basically a smear of the "everything I don't like is funded by Soros" category. > US politics cannot change until two party rule is not the only outcome This on the other hand is very true.
- zuuow 7y ago>Soros Strawman/10
- JulianMorrison 7y agoThere's no way inside the system because it's the system OWS wanted to change (And Extinction Rebellion wants nowadays). There's no nonviolent way outside the system because the police are violent if you actually inconvenience the system (which marches don't do but occupations do). The problem basically is the fetishization of nonviolence. Revolution can change the system.
- perfunctory 7y agoExtinction Rebellion is strictly non-violent and they seem to be very successful afaict. Or do we different definitions of "nonviolence"? Also, what do you think about "The success of nonviolent civil resistance" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJSehRlU34w https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJSehRlU34w ?
- srean 7y agoNonviolence needs an influential audience / gallery to play to. If none such exists then it is not effective.
- perfunctory 7y agoWhat influential audience did freedom riders play to? Or would you say they were ineffective?
- srean 7y agoWouldnt that be non-racist white folks ?
- citboin 7y agoIn what way has extinction rebellion changed anything?
- perfunctory 7y agoFor one, UK parliament has declared a climate emergency [0]. So did NYC [1]. And many others. It doesn't mean much but still. They've met with UK Sec. of State for Environment [2]. Exactly what the OP advocates. Majority of Britons now believe that climate change is more pressing than Brexit [3] And so on. [0] https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-48126677 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-48126677 [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPtAKjhT02s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPtAKjhT02s [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EMGqP5rP8v8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EMGqP5rP8v8 [3] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jul/26/climate-more-pressing-than-brexit-say-71-of-britons-poll https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jul/26/climate-...
- FakeComments 7y agoOWS failed to get a seat as a reward for their protests because they had no one to give a seat to. Otherwise, a protest at that scale generally results in political power of some form being ceded — but how can you do that for a disunified, leaderless movement? That’s ultimately what brought them down as well: they took on every issue, so accomplished nothing — and eventually fell to infighting as people who wanted to advance racial and gender issues disrupted the movement by seeding conflict between members.
- hbt 7y agoleaders are targeted. their reputation is tarnished by the media and isolated / detained by police. also a major lack of trust within the group prevents a leader from emerging in the first place
- b_tterc_p 7y agoOWS seemed kind of lame to me. There were a lot of people there, but they didn’t seem especially clear on why they were there.
- mrfusion 7y agoThe media creates that impression on purpose by choosing who they interview.
- b_tterc_p 7y agoPerhaps. But was it wrong? Like, the women’s march when trump was elected. Many many people. Lots of them genuinely angry. Was it a serious protest... ehhh maybe?
- anarchodev 7y agoYes it was wrong, which will become clear if you spend any time with the people who were involved. Which you can very much still do, because the coalitions and communities formed during that movement are still active today, struggling against the rise of fascism in the US.
- sokoloff 7y agoIf that's the case, it would be wise for the leaders of OWS to correct that narrative.
- b_tterc_p 7y agoThe narrative I understood was that there were basically no leaders
- staticautomatic 7y agoTrue. David Graeber wrote about this in The Utopia of Rules, where he explained that OWS was essentially felled by bureaucratic demands that it could not satisfy without formally organizing. An interesting lesson in the practical realities of anarchism.
- didibus 7y agoI'm not sure how to take this. Does it imply that you don't believe the US political system will be able to deal with income inequalities, and that it is doomed to fall apart? Cause otherwise, the only other outcome is that the system changes itself from within over time and quality of life remains high for its citizen and the country stays prosperous and able to sustain itself. Which would mean someone will eventually work with the system to change it, otherwise it's doomed to fail.