West Granger, you are correct! All cummunism and socialism does is keep the
poor, poor and make the rest poor too. So only the top government leaders have
all the wealth! As a matter of fact Marxist beliefs make the poor even poorer,
and stifle growth and inovation. It cost West Germany billions and billions of
euros to bring East Germany up into this century, with just infastructure, so
they could be united as one nation and all free. Well as free as any European
Test them for drugs and you will see who this OWS movement attracted!
Does America now know who the 1% are?Does America now know who the 99%
Lost in DC..seriously..only in your mind.
No, it has not been a failure in that the bottom 90% finally understand they
have less equity - combined - than the top 1%. This is something we on the left
have been trying to explain for year - Occupy finally succeeded.
Consider on whose presidential watch this OWS movement had it's origin.
Therein lies the failure. There are only so many public sector jobs to go
around. Can't have every left-lib voter on government payroll.
The occupy wall street movement's principal objective was to point out Wall
Street excesses. It has met that goal and will no doubt continue to point out
the destructive practices that continue on a daily basis. I find it
untoward at the least that the DN would write an smug self agrandizing editorial
disparaging what was and is a populist movement to publicize Wall Street's
eternal greed. The editorial reeks with sublime joy that the movement seems to
have waned after its first year. If you are not for economic
fairness DN then you are against it. I guess you are against it.
@the comments on the civil rights movement: That they had something that they
stood for, in addition to what they stood against was something that helped them
succeed. The message was generally cohesive and understood. And persistent.
That's the last thing that would make 'Occupy' a failure, is if
it is abandoned when we are still seeing such problems that need addressing.
FDR in the 1930s was more right than wrong, despite the naysayers of the time,
and we need more ideas and action in our time as well. Occupy is the currently
the main focus of action in our time.
Note to Occupy Crowd: Throughout American history general the people have valued
equality of opportunity over forced "equality". The history of Socialist
style governments has consistently demonstrated that forced equality turns out
to be forced misery for the masses and wealth only for top party members in
government. Most importantly we have seen that "social justice" results
in a lack of freedom and lack of justice for citizens. Hugo Chavez promised a
democracy and redistribution of wealth but what resulted was a fascist regime
devoid of even basic God-given freedoms and rights. The people aren't
better off. The poor are still poor. Countless hosts of people have come to the
United States poor and have been able to succeed. Undocumented Mexicans come
here by the millions so their children can have a better future. Equality of
opportunity and freedom to the individual has unleashed the most successful and
compassionate group of people in the history of the world. Why would we let an
impersonal government control and stifle it all?
I think it's pitiful these people are walking around with American flags.
They are protesting America itself, the freedom to make something of yourself,
which is what capitalism is. If you're rich, you're rich. If
you're poor, you're poor. Just cause you don't have what your
neighbor has, doesn't make you less becasue you still have the same rights.
There are rights and there are privileges, and the occupy Wall Street is all
about protesting for what they don't have (privileges), all the while
causing thousands of dollars in damages. We all need to realize rights and
privileges are not the same thing!
Up to a point money will always win. The gross uneven distribution of the
wealth created by all the people and taken by the few, has provided some with
the ability to silence and deflect the cries of the people suppressed. Using
their ability to spread false information they drowned the voices of people in
the mud of communism, socialism, class hatred and the such. Somehow, sometime and somewhere the ordinary people will allow themselves to
be pushed not further. Then like the Arab world, they will revolt not only
against their oppressors but against those who made it possible for their own to
suppress them. Do we really think that all the guns, bombs, planes and tanks we
gave to their leaders would be used to benefit their own people?The
republican media says that the military is there to protect American interests.
But the voice didn’t continue the explanation that the American interest
he was talking about was business interests and their profits. By helping their
unscrupulous governments to suppress them and keep them quiet, we have become
their number 1 enemy.
Ok, so the D-News editorializes that the Occupy Movement is a dismal failure. So
what? Is its failure a good thing or a bad thing and why?
In a society as venal as America is it is hard to fight money. Money talks,
social justice walks. That is what keeps most politicians in office.
No, to say the Occupy movement is a failure one year later is not quite correct.
To say it is a dismal failure from the start would be more accurate.Screwdriver,In your note to the teaParty, I guess you forgot the results
of the 2010 elections.Pragmatist,Thanks for insulting the
civil rights movementEsquire,To say they did not have big
money backing them is not exactly true; they had the budgets of all the liberal
cities that tolerated them and the liberal media that gave them all the
press.Eric, You are right, we need a government that serves
all the people, not the current misadministration that seeks to divide us for
To "Esquire" you are right, Occupy didn't have the same backing
that the Tea Party had. They had even bigger backing, with deeper pockets. See
"$3.6 Million from Soros Backs 'Occupy Wall Street', Media Ignore
or Downplay Connection" at Newsbusters. You also have the millionairs that
founded Ben and Jerry's.I don't thing Soros got his
money's worth out of his movement.
@Eric Samuelsen "We need an economy that serves the needs of all
Americans...."And you think socialism is the answer? It sure has
a poor track record.
The Occupy message continues to resonate. That message will inform public
discourse for the next twenty years. We need an economy that serves the needs
of all Americans, not just the super-rich.
The Tea Party wants prosperity for America and every having a job, full
employment. IN order to get this we have to remove a lot of regulations , reduce
the Federal workforce and lower salaries and pensions of govt workers, cut
taxes. This idea of the mega rich running things is baloney. If you took all
the money of the rich it would hardly help us 2 or 3 months. 1% pay nearly 40%
of the income tax. If you want socialism vote for Obama.
@ Social Mod Fiscal Con, I don't argue that Occupy didn't pull it
together, probably in large part due to the fact it did not have big money
backing it like the Tea Party did (and it did, very organized Washington based
special interest groups). But that begs the question of the message, which was
suppressed by the establishment. And that's what should concern us all.
Failure is too strong a word. They did succeed in exposing themselves for what
they really are.
Editor: "...the tea party also has begun to lose energy."Don't count on it. You may not always see "Tea Party" on the
label, but we're still at work. We're thinking about our children and
our grandchildren, and this gives us plenty of energy for the long game.
A year after the first civil rights march it was a failure I suppose.
Take note Tea Party - if you don't get what you want you are a failure. So when Obama wins just rememeber this article.
@Esquire,The point of the article is that as Americans we only have so
much tolerance for a movement that can't get itself together enough to DO
something. Occupy never even came up with a cohesive statement. We all know
what Occupy stood against, but to this day nobody knows what they stood for. Whether or not Occupy was valuable should be evaluated on what it
accomplished, or what it is still likely to accomplish. As the article points
out, that is very little.
So if a protest movement fails, it is silly? Or is it that you favor the mega
rich who dominate at the expense of the majority of us? Aren't you really
saying that the powerful and wealthy are winning the battle, in a time of
increasing income disparity? Perhaps more than ever we need to run from voting
for Wall Street's candidate, your hero Romney. Instead of disparaging,
perhaps a little substance from you on the principles involved would be more