4 ms·

“He described the nihilism of the many protest movements of 2011 that organized mostly online and that, like Occupy Wall Street, demanded the destruction of exi

“He described the nihilism of the many protest movements of 2011 that organized mostly online and that, like Occupy Wall Street, demanded the destruction of existing institutions without offering an alternative vision of the future or an organization that could bring it about.“ Calling Occupy nihilistic is strikes me as blinkered, and shows the neoliberal bias of the author. Occupy is where the 99% vs. 1% lens arose, which is a reasonable description of concentration of wealth and power across Western countries and especially the US. Occupy attempted to employ more empowering and less alienating peer-to-peer governance. Occupy didn’t “succeed”, probably due to both internal and external forces, but it wasn’t nihilistic.

spaetzleesser 5y ago
I also don’t like the disrespect Occupy often gets. Yes they didn’t have ready made solution but neither does Wall Street. The bailouts in 2008 and generally the rising inequality show that Wall Street is perfectly fine with making the lives of a lot of people worse as long as they can make money for themselves. To me the nihilists are the ruling class that only cares about them self and nothing else.
game_the0ry 5y ago
Agreed - media portrays OWS as broken movement with no goals and no hope of changing anything. That's neo-lib PR - corp media does not want you take OWS issues (pro-union, anti-corporate, Medicare for all, etc) seriously.
- BuyMyBitcoins 5y ago
  In my home city the OWS movement denigrated into a homeless encampment with a handful of banners and sign waivers. I don’t think a neoliberal media was the culprit because from the beginning the local movement lacked any sense of cohesion or the coordination required to exert pressure on local politicians. The righteous anger burned bright for a few months then slowly faded and nothing really came of it. I distinctly remember a lack of a figurehead and a lack of specific reform they wanted to get people to support.
  - dntrkv 5y ago
    Same experience here. I lived in Portland at the time and was sympathetic to the cause. But then seeing the protest devolve and turn the Park Blocks into a sketchy homeless encampment really made it difficult to support the cause. The media didn’t have to twist anything, the results spoke for themselves. Your average person is not going to support something that turns their parks into shanty towns.
- ameister14 5y ago
  Without the media portrayal, at the time I thought OWS was a broken movement with no goals and no hope of changing anything. That's having gone there and having friends that stayed. It was a bunch of people against something vague but with no real agenda. Soon enough it changed from anger at wall st to anger at the cops saying they couldn't camp there. Nothing was accomplished.
bko 5y ago
Occupy failed because it didn't have any clear asks or metrics to track. They were against the bailouts. Did they vote anyone out of office? Did the re-election rate of 90% budge? Are there "Occupy Democrats" like there were "Tea Party Republicans"? But most importantly, did they stop future bailouts? The original uproar about the 2008 bailouts (TARP) was originally authorized to spend $700 billion, of which they spent $431 billion and they were all paid back. What about with Covid relief? This time the politicians learned not to go through legislature and just use the Federal Reserve directly. This time they were able to disburse 4 trillion in asset purchases, most of which was held by large institutions (banks). $1.3 trillion in mortgage backed securities! Another $3 trillion was spent on liquidity measures, other load purchases, lending facilities, etc. So in total a 10x spend from the proposed 2008 bailout which caused all the uproar. Note this doesn't include any money for income support, stimulus, etc. It was just giving money to banks. Occupy just taught the politicians how to do things under the radar. https://www.covidmoneytracker.org/ https://www.covidmoneytracker.org/
- Tenoke 5y ago
  >Occupy just taught the politicians how to do things under the radar. Was it under the radar though? It seems like as many people know about it, but that this time the target and reasoning for the loans was just more liked by the general public.
  - bko 5y ago
    There will always be reasoning for the bailouts. "We can't let the banks fail because that means they'll stop giving out loans to small businesses and homeowners." There was reasoning in 2008. The difference is now there's no expectation of them paying it back. It's not a loan, its just sitting on the balance sheet of the Fed. Banks may buy them back later, but its always at an advantage since its completely voluntary. There were additional measures for direct payments and loans for small businesses. This was very targeted to prop up the balance sheet of large banks. You see shady stuff like this all the time. Is there a reason mortgage rates are pushing 5% but savings accounts at places like Bank of America are paying literally 0.01%?
- 5y ago
engineeringwoke 5y ago
It's absurd how the author (and presumably their editorial board) are so willing to paint a picture that absolves them of guilt for the inequality in their country. News flash. If you say that you are wealthy/powerful and "politically liberal", but don't support policies that would give away that wealth or power to those with less of it in society, then you are not "politically liberal", you are conservative. I don't hate the Boomers, but their ideas have been around for far too long. Society in the United States is far too conservative. It's time for a liberal ideal that isn't about race or gender but about economics and equity. And I mean equity in a color-blind sense, can we please work together here; I know the world is not fair and race does play a role in that equation. Living in Europe opened my eyes. None of the liberals in the US are liberal. I want CHANGE. Not Barack Obama's "change". I want unions. I want free healthcare. I want to house the homeless. The Dutch can do it, but somehow in the discourse here, it's "impossible". Oh, our country is "too big". Oh my god, stop. Can we please move past the legacy of the boomers and their anti-big government stances. That was just a cynical jab at their parent's generation; it's not real. The government CAN do things. We can do so much if we work together.
- Clubber 5y ago
  There are two different things and one is used to silence the other. You have social policies and economic policies. The economic policies are devoutly conservative / corporatist and have been since Reagan. This is generally known as neoliberalsm. Both parties bow to the alter of conservative economic policies because they are both paid to do just that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism Now, the socialist policies, that's where the magic happens. If you can get the people to constantly bicker at each other about intentionally vague and ill defined social issues, well then you've succeeded in having them not talk about the economic policies and the status quo remains in place for the people who want it to remain in place. These are generally known as the culture wars. See you can't really make laws about social issues that do a whole lot, but you can sure make laws about economic ones: NAFTA, trade deals, government contracts, minimum wealth requirements, minimum wage laws, union laws, regulatory direction and funding, tax policy, etc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_war https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_war Economic policies that are good for the citizenry will alleviate most of the social problems we've been trained to focus on, but we can't take our eyes off the social bickering enough to actually make our lives economically better.
recuter 5y ago
Do you have to be a neoliberal to think the way those protests were organized with the hand signals was ridiculously silly? Great, income inequality, important subject to tackle. Are we going to get creative, involve serious people, suggest intelligent chang-- oh, you're flashing signs at each other aimlessly for days on end. Cool.
- Miner49er 5y ago
  > Great, income inequality, important subject to tackle. Are we going to get creative, involve serious people, suggest intelligent chang-- Arguably, Occupy was just the start. I'd say it did end up setting the groundwork for doing much more. Bernie Sanders' presidential campaigns, for example.
  - recuter 5y ago
    OK, so make the argument. Embedded in what you're saying, as I understand it, is that Bernie and socialism are the answer and Occupy tee'd it up. Well, not everybody feels that is the answer, even amongst the people who were involved in Occupy. I don't see any coherent through line or economic thought whatsoever. Much easier to complain there is a problem than offer up viable solutions. In this case, knowing wasn't half the battle and they didn't do half the work, they did at best... one percent.. of the work.
hogrider 5y ago
Occupy didn't go all in class struggle and that's why I think they were apolitical nihilists.

spaetzleesser 5y ago

I also don’t like the disrespect Occupy often gets. Yes they didn’t have ready made solution but neither does Wall Street. The bailouts in 2008 and generally the rising inequality show that Wall Street is perfectly fine with making the lives of a lot of people worse as long as they can make money for themselves. To me the nihilists are the ruling class that only cares about them self and nothing else.

game_the0ry 5y ago

Agreed - media portrays OWS as broken movement with no goals and no hope of changing anything. That's neo-lib PR - corp media does not want you take OWS issues (pro-union, anti-corporate, Medicare for all, etc) seriously.

BuyMyBitcoins 5y ago
In my home city the OWS movement denigrated into a homeless encampment with a handful of banners and sign waivers. I don’t think a neoliberal media was the culprit because from the beginning the local movement lacked any sense of cohesion or the coordination required to exert pressure on local politicians. The righteous anger burned bright for a few months then slowly faded and nothing really came of it. I distinctly remember a lack of a figurehead and a lack of specific reform they wanted to get people to support.
- dntrkv 5y ago
  Same experience here. I lived in Portland at the time and was sympathetic to the cause. But then seeing the protest devolve and turn the Park Blocks into a sketchy homeless encampment really made it difficult to support the cause. The media didn’t have to twist anything, the results spoke for themselves. Your average person is not going to support something that turns their parks into shanty towns.
ameister14 5y ago
Without the media portrayal, at the time I thought OWS was a broken movement with no goals and no hope of changing anything. That's having gone there and having friends that stayed. It was a bunch of people against something vague but with no real agenda. Soon enough it changed from anger at wall st to anger at the cops saying they couldn't camp there. Nothing was accomplished.

bko 5y ago

Occupy failed because it didn't have any clear asks or metrics to track. They were against the bailouts. Did they vote anyone out of office? Did the re-election rate of 90% budge? Are there "Occupy Democrats" like there were "Tea Party Republicans"? But most importantly, did they stop future bailouts? The original uproar about the 2008 bailouts (TARP) was originally authorized to spend $700 billion, of which they spent $431 billion and they were all paid back. What about with Covid relief? This time the politicians learned not to go through legislature and just use the Federal Reserve directly. This time they were able to disburse 4 trillion in asset purchases, most of which was held by large institutions (banks). $1.3 trillion in mortgage backed securities! Another $3 trillion was spent on liquidity measures, other load purchases, lending facilities, etc. So in total a 10x spend from the proposed 2008 bailout which caused all the uproar. Note this doesn't include any money for income support, stimulus, etc. It was just giving money to banks. Occupy just taught the politicians how to do things under the radar. https://www.covidmoneytracker.org/ https://www.covidmoneytracker.org/

Tenoke 5y ago
>Occupy just taught the politicians how to do things under the radar. Was it under the radar though? It seems like as many people know about it, but that this time the target and reasoning for the loans was just more liked by the general public.
- bko 5y ago
  There will always be reasoning for the bailouts. "We can't let the banks fail because that means they'll stop giving out loans to small businesses and homeowners." There was reasoning in 2008. The difference is now there's no expectation of them paying it back. It's not a loan, its just sitting on the balance sheet of the Fed. Banks may buy them back later, but its always at an advantage since its completely voluntary. There were additional measures for direct payments and loans for small businesses. This was very targeted to prop up the balance sheet of large banks. You see shady stuff like this all the time. Is there a reason mortgage rates are pushing 5% but savings accounts at places like Bank of America are paying literally 0.01%?
5y ago

engineeringwoke 5y ago

It's absurd how the author (and presumably their editorial board) are so willing to paint a picture that absolves them of guilt for the inequality in their country. News flash. If you say that you are wealthy/powerful and "politically liberal", but don't support policies that would give away that wealth or power to those with less of it in society, then you are not "politically liberal", you are conservative. I don't hate the Boomers, but their ideas have been around for far too long. Society in the United States is far too conservative. It's time for a liberal ideal that isn't about race or gender but about economics and equity. And I mean equity in a color-blind sense, can we please work together here; I know the world is not fair and race does play a role in that equation. Living in Europe opened my eyes. None of the liberals in the US are liberal. I want CHANGE. Not Barack Obama's "change". I want unions. I want free healthcare. I want to house the homeless. The Dutch can do it, but somehow in the discourse here, it's "impossible". Oh, our country is "too big". Oh my god, stop. Can we please move past the legacy of the boomers and their anti-big government stances. That was just a cynical jab at their parent's generation; it's not real. The government CAN do things. We can do so much if we work together.

Clubber 5y ago
There are two different things and one is used to silence the other. You have social policies and economic policies. The economic policies are devoutly conservative / corporatist and have been since Reagan. This is generally known as neoliberalsm. Both parties bow to the alter of conservative economic policies because they are both paid to do just that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism Now, the socialist policies, that's where the magic happens. If you can get the people to constantly bicker at each other about intentionally vague and ill defined social issues, well then you've succeeded in having them not talk about the economic policies and the status quo remains in place for the people who want it to remain in place. These are generally known as the culture wars. See you can't really make laws about social issues that do a whole lot, but you can sure make laws about economic ones: NAFTA, trade deals, government contracts, minimum wealth requirements, minimum wage laws, union laws, regulatory direction and funding, tax policy, etc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_war https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_war Economic policies that are good for the citizenry will alleviate most of the social problems we've been trained to focus on, but we can't take our eyes off the social bickering enough to actually make our lives economically better.

recuter 5y ago

Do you have to be a neoliberal to think the way those protests were organized with the hand signals was ridiculously silly? Great, income inequality, important subject to tackle. Are we going to get creative, involve serious people, suggest intelligent chang-- oh, you're flashing signs at each other aimlessly for days on end. Cool.

Miner49er 5y ago
> Great, income inequality, important subject to tackle. Are we going to get creative, involve serious people, suggest intelligent chang-- Arguably, Occupy was just the start. I'd say it did end up setting the groundwork for doing much more. Bernie Sanders' presidential campaigns, for example.
- recuter 5y ago
  OK, so make the argument. Embedded in what you're saying, as I understand it, is that Bernie and socialism are the answer and Occupy tee'd it up. Well, not everybody feels that is the answer, even amongst the people who were involved in Occupy. I don't see any coherent through line or economic thought whatsoever. Much easier to complain there is a problem than offer up viable solutions. In this case, knowing wasn't half the battle and they didn't do half the work, they did at best... one percent.. of the work.

hogrider 5y ago

Occupy didn't go all in class struggle and that's why I think they were apolitical nihilists.