Is The Occupy Wall Street Movement an Answer to The Tea Party Movement?

[Gaspar]

It seems that they share diabolically opposite agendas.

[Teatownclown]

It seems that they share diabolically opposite agendas.

Already threaded: http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/index.php?topic=17851.0

But since you brought it up, the Teahadists are obvious bigots and hateful while the Occupiers  believe in civil disobedience. The teabaggers want to obstruct Obama....the occupiers want to draw attention to the inequities between the income levels of financial manipulators and the middle class. Teabaggers might find themselves allying with the Occupiers, but you will not see the occupiers allying with the Teabaggers.

[swake]

It seems that they share diabolically opposite agendas.

diabolically?

[Hoss]

diabolically?

Let's remember who posted this...

[Teatownclown]

Here's a pointer to an essay by Tom Hayden that explores that theme.


Let Wall Street Beware a Risen People

...

"Sparks differ from words. Sparks ignite passion in others. Words
engage the multitudes who are paying attention, who will do their part,
if they feel this is about them. Words like: end these wars, invest in
jobs, regulate and tax Wall Street, protect the future. In just six
months, next May, both sparks and words may matter very greatly when
the powers of NATO and the G-8 will gather in Chicago for five days.
Think of it: all those responsible for the long wars, the financial
crisis, the growing unemployment and budget cuts, and the erosion of
the planet's life support systems... all of them. Think of the
possibilities, a global protest of global power. Could this be where
the winds are blowing?"

Change seems to be blowing in the wind....it's not an "answer" to the party of Teabaggers but more a repulsion of them.

[Gaspar]

Perhaps they share similar goals, just different means?
Do you think most of them understand what they are protesting?

It seems like a very confused group, organized under several causes without a clear goal.

Change seems to be blowing in the wind....it's not an "answer" to the party of Teabaggers but more a repulsion of them.

But what is the goal? 

[we vs us]

Even though I think both sides would be loathe to admit it, they have a lot of similar underlying motives.  Or maybe causes.  Economic uncertainty, a belief that Washington isn't representing its constituents, and that it has either been bought or co-opted.  

Obviously the conclusions that each group has come to are diametrically (not diabolically) opposed, but there's a shared sense that things are very very wrong with out country.

I've been reading up on Occupy Wall Street, and have come to the conclusion that this specific iteration is doomed to fail (just like the weeks of protests in WI failed to achieve a marquee success) but I also think it's the beginning, not the end of this kind of protest.  There're more than enough politically and economically disenfranchised folks out there to feed an extended movement.  

And re: the Tea Party . . . I think it's telling that they never showed up in numbers nearly approaching what we're seeing in Wall Street (or saw in WI)  and yet they seem to wield enough political power to elect upwards of 60 reps not two years after they appear on the scene.  You'd figure that if size alone of a movement indicated political influence, these folks on Wall Street would have some real clout.  And yet . . . not so much.  At least not yet.  

[Ed W]

There are huge differences.  The Tea party purports to be a grass roots organization, yet it's well-funded and centrally controlled.  It's astro-turf.  The Wall Street protesters, on the other hand, deliberately eschew central organization or even the idea of leaders.  They have little funding and rely on pro-bono legal assistance. The reason for the apparent non-organization is that there are no leaders to be singled out by the media and law enforcement, a long-held tactic of left wing protest groups.

Interestingly, the arrests of 700 or so protestors seems to follow the same pattern NYPD used against Critical Mass bicycle riders during the Republican National Convention, where the PD blocked off an intersection to force the riders onto another street which was barricaded at the far end.  They were ordered to leave the street, but couldn't due to the size of the crowd.  The cops then arrested as many as possible for refusing a lawful order or some such.  Most of the charges were later dismissed.  The same pattern is alleged to be what the PD used on the bridge, directing an overflow crowd onto the roadway, then arresting them.

Also, the TWU bus drivers announced their support of the protesters and may refuse to drive buses if the police continue with arrests.  This is getting interesting.

[we vs us]

Perhaps they share similar goals, just different means?
Do you think most of them understand what they are protesting?

It seems like a very confused group, organized under several causes without a clear goal.
But what is the goal? 

It's about as clear as the early Tea Party screamfests at the Obamacare town halls.  This one is clearly youth-oriented, and does very much sprawl in different directions.  Though if you look at the signs there's a lot of on-point focus on the economy.  Not a lot of "Free Mumia" crap floating around.  

http://nycga.cc/
http://occupywallst.org/

Good primary source reading, if you're curious.  There're some specific ideas though there's still a lot of self-organizing going on.  It's all economic in focus, though.  Especially when compared with some of the catch-all protests earlier this decade.  

[Gaspar]

Even though I think both sides would be loathe to admit it, they have a lot of similar underlying motives.  Or maybe causes.  Economic uncertainty, a belief that Washington isn't representing its constituents, and that it has either been bought or co-opted.  

Obviously the conclusions that each group has come to are diametrically (not diabolically) opposed, but there's a shared sense that things are very very wrong with out country.

I've been reading up on Occupy Wall Street, and have come to the conclusion that this specific iteration is doomed to fail (just like the weeks of protests in WI failed to achieve a marquee success) but I also think it's the beginning, not the end of this kind of protest.  There're more than enough politically and economically disenfranchised folks out there to feed an extended movement.  

And re: the Tea Party . . . I think it's telling that they never showed up in numbers nearly approaching what we're seeing in Wall Street (or saw in WI)  and yet they seem to wield enough political power to elect upwards of 60 reps not two years after they appear on the scene.  You'd figure that if size alone of a movement indicated political influence, these folks on Wall Street would have some real clout.  And yet . . . not so much.  At least not yet.  

Not a bad observation.  I think we have a problem in this country with the understanding individual rights, and individualism in general.  As you can see in many of the posts on their site and the images on their flicker account, these are the young people that have suffered horrible injustice in their education.  They believe that individuality comes from the tip of a tattoo gun or is communicated by the shirt they wear. They don't understand that true individuality is based on who you are and what you can do to better yourself and the world, rather that what you look like, or who you choose to stand with.

When interviewed, it is painfully obvious that their understanding of opportunity is based solely on group-think mentalities.  One girl sited her reason for being there on the fact that she doesn't want to wake up every morning and worry about paying back her student loans.  Others cite Marxist ideas and disjointed emotional positions.

We have wronged these kids, horribly, but not through abandonment, but through coddling, and in tough economic times, they are the ones to suffer the most.  They have been educated to be of little worth to society.  They have been indoctrinated to resist opportunity.  They have been convinced that to succeed they need to be part of some group, and through their mere association, they will be triumphant.  Someone somewhere in their past forgot to teach them the principals that make this country great and offer them the opportunity that they would have nowhere else in the world.  Their decent is directed toward freedom.  They hate that people can make money with ideas and strategies, and hard work.  They are pissed that the banker with a 4 year degree can make more in one day than they will their entire life with a graduate degree in French Literature.

[we vs us]

Not a bad observation.  I think we have a problem in this country with the understanding individual rights, and individualism in general.  As you can see in many of the posts on their site and the images on their flicker account, these are the young people that have suffered horrible injustice in their education.  They believe that individuality comes from the tip of a tattoo gun or is communicated by the shirt they wear. They don't understand that true individuality is based on who you are and what you can do to better yourself and the world, rather that what you look like, or who you choose to stand with.

When interviewed, it is painfully obvious that their understanding of opportunity is based solely on group-think mentalities.  One girl sited her reason for being there on the fact that she doesn't want to wake up every morning and worry about paying back her student loans.  Others cite Marxist ideas and disjointed emotional positions.

We have wronged these kids, horribly, but not through abandonment, but through coddling, and in tough economic times, they are the ones to suffer the most.  They have been educated to be of little worth to society.  They have been indoctrinated to resist opportunity.  They have been convinced that to succeed they need to be part of some group, and through their mere association, they will be triumphant.  Someone somewhere in their past forgot to teach them the principals that make this country great and offer them the opportunity that they would have nowhere else in the world.  Their decent is directed toward freedom.  They hate that people can make money with ideas and strategies, and hard work.  They are pissed that the banker with a 4 year degree can make more in one day than they will their entire life with a graduate degree in French Literature.

Boy that didn't take long, did it?  Completely off the rails into anti-commie territory. 

Re:  student loans . . . it's entirely possible to wake up dreading your student loans if you're in the hole in the tens of k, you have no jobs and no prospects, and are looking at decades -- your whole working life -- of debt.  College is far more expensive now then when you and I went to college (late 80's early 90's, right?)

[Conan71]

Just curious, do these young socialists want to make more money by spreading the wealth?

Do they want money for not working so they can live indefinitely on the government dole?

Or do they simply want to limit how wealthy others can be so they no longer envy the wealthy?

[Townsend]

Now wait...have we decided they're communists or socialists?

Socialist Communists?

Communist Socialists?

[Gaspar]

Now wait...have we decided they're communists or socialists?

Socialist Communists?

Communist Socialists?

That's what their signs say.

The Workers World Party is a socialist group.

[Townsend]

That's what their signs say.

Whose?  That guy over there or that guy?