5 ms·

> You know what killed Occupy? Occupy! No goal, no purpose, Occupy was subverted from the inside much like the Tea Party. The fact that George Soros was invol

by smky80 13y ago

> You know what killed Occupy? Occupy! No goal, no purpose, Occupy was subverted from the inside much like the Tea Party. The fact that George Soros was involved is a big clue. The aim went from something fairly specific, like lets bring Goldman Sachs to justice for starters, the other major investment banks and the Federal Reserve ... to "let's get those one percenters!". Yeah, let's bring the dentists of the world to justice for their role in the housing crisis. Again, the role the media plays is one of spreading confusion and disorder. You have a large number of low-power people with a shared common interest -- preventing themselves from being "farmed" by a parasitic financial system -- and if they could be coordinated and work together, would suddenly become a powerful mass. The media works to prevent that coordination by spreading confusion as to the aims of the group, or even better getting the masses to fight amongst themselves.

derefr 13y ago
> The aim went from something fairly specific, like lets bring Goldman Sachs to justice for starters, the other major investment banks and the Federal Reserve ... to "let's get those one percenters!". Yeah, let's bring the dentists of the world to justice for their role in the housing crisis. Don't attribute to malice, stupidity. Dissolution of purpose is just what tends to happen when a movement gets popular as a fad for people to join--people who are there just to be cool, and to maybe be told what to do and help a tiny little bit--but with no particular greater goals in mind. You can't get people on-board with a specific purpose they don't care for, but maybe if you tell them some vague agreeable bullshit, they'll join. Guess what? Now all your movement is there for is vague agreeable bullshit. It was particularly bad with Occupy because the core members had a weird fetish for allowing the movement to be steered democratically--and so they basically asked what all the people who didn't care all that much wanted to do, took an average, and did nothing.
- smky80 13y ago
  > Don't attribute to malice [what can be attributed to] stupidity. No, there really are people acting with malice out there. Pretending it is all just the result of stupidity just runs cover for those people.
- Andrew_Quentin 13y ago
  Fetish is quite a strange word to use. They put in practice anarchist principles and showed that such principles do actually work in practice as they managed to grab the focus of the world for maybe a month or two and communicated a very focused message, there is a difference between 99% of the people and a tiny 1%.
  - derefr 13y ago
    > they managed to grab the focus of the world for maybe a month or two and communicated a very focused message, there is a difference between 99% of the people and a tiny 1% This... wasn't the goal of the core group going into the "turn Occupy Wall Street into a movement" project, though, which was my point. It's sort of like setting out, in 0 A.D., to turn Christianity into a movement--but everyone who joins you ends up evangelizing for Scientology (or whatever the equivalent at the time was), because that's what they think you're talking about, and that's easier to sell. So, you've spawned a successful movement... to evangelize Scientology. Not a success. Also, the word choice was deliberate; every piece of literature you can find on movements throughout history would suggest that there is a strong correlation between success in spreading awareness/change, and having charismatic leadership: a "face" to put to the movement, and a person that could be looked to--either for guidance, or just as a role-model--when one is confused about what the movement should be focusing on. This is important not for any sort of top-down leadership/command role--it's not a 1% hegemon--but rather the "face" exists so that new members have someone to base their understanding on what the movement "is for" off of, instead of just looking at what the people around them are doing (usually nothing.) To know this, and persist in attempting to use a self-defeating "no one is special; we are all of us together" approach, goes past ideology and into role-playing. They weren't trying to accomplish anything; they just wanted to enjoy the feeling of doing something anarchic, even if it wouldn't accomplish anything.
    - Andrew_Quentin 13y ago
      Its far from role playing. As I said they were putting anarchist principles in practice. You say they need a leader, they showed they did not need a leader. I did not see them being hijacked by anything but the police force. They had a message, they communicated that message, everyone heard the message. That the people were unwilling to support them more vocally, but instead were successfully divided by the media, was not a failure on the part of occupy, but an example that propaganda is very, very effective against the masses.

by smky80 13y ago

derefr 13y ago

> The aim went from something fairly specific, like lets bring Goldman Sachs to justice for starters, the other major investment banks and the Federal Reserve ... to "let's get those one percenters!". Yeah, let's bring the dentists of the world to justice for their role in the housing crisis. Don't attribute to malice, stupidity. Dissolution of purpose is just what tends to happen when a movement gets popular as a fad for people to join--people who are there just to be cool, and to maybe be told what to do and help a tiny little bit--but with no particular greater goals in mind. You can't get people on-board with a specific purpose they don't care for, but maybe if you tell them some vague agreeable bullshit, they'll join. Guess what? Now all your movement is there for is vague agreeable bullshit. It was particularly bad with Occupy because the core members had a weird fetish for allowing the movement to be steered democratically--and so they basically asked what all the people who didn't care all that much wanted to do, took an average, and did nothing.

smky80 13y ago
> Don't attribute to malice [what can be attributed to] stupidity. No, there really are people acting with malice out there. Pretending it is all just the result of stupidity just runs cover for those people.
Andrew_Quentin 13y ago
Fetish is quite a strange word to use. They put in practice anarchist principles and showed that such principles do actually work in practice as they managed to grab the focus of the world for maybe a month or two and communicated a very focused message, there is a difference between 99% of the people and a tiny 1%.
- derefr 13y ago
  > they managed to grab the focus of the world for maybe a month or two and communicated a very focused message, there is a difference between 99% of the people and a tiny 1% This... wasn't the goal of the core group going into the "turn Occupy Wall Street into a movement" project, though, which was my point. It's sort of like setting out, in 0 A.D., to turn Christianity into a movement--but everyone who joins you ends up evangelizing for Scientology (or whatever the equivalent at the time was), because that's what they think you're talking about, and that's easier to sell. So, you've spawned a successful movement... to evangelize Scientology. Not a success. Also, the word choice was deliberate; every piece of literature you can find on movements throughout history would suggest that there is a strong correlation between success in spreading awareness/change, and having charismatic leadership: a "face" to put to the movement, and a person that could be looked to--either for guidance, or just as a role-model--when one is confused about what the movement should be focusing on. This is important not for any sort of top-down leadership/command role--it's not a 1% hegemon--but rather the "face" exists so that new members have someone to base their understanding on what the movement "is for" off of, instead of just looking at what the people around them are doing (usually nothing.) To know this, and persist in attempting to use a self-defeating "no one is special; we are all of us together" approach, goes past ideology and into role-playing. They weren't trying to accomplish anything; they just wanted to enjoy the feeling of doing something anarchic, even if it wouldn't accomplish anything.
  - Andrew_Quentin 13y ago
    Its far from role playing. As I said they were putting anarchist principles in practice. You say they need a leader, they showed they did not need a leader. I did not see them being hijacked by anything but the police force. They had a message, they communicated that message, everyone heard the message. That the people were unwilling to support them more vocally, but instead were successfully divided by the media, was not a failure on the part of occupy, but an example that propaganda is very, very effective against the masses.