Occupy Wall Street - Spreading. Check your town.

[quantumcat42]

How successful is OWS compared to yesterday's SOPA/PIPA protest?

[Griffin]

Way too early to tell. Will the SOPA thing be a short blurb and a dead piece of legislation, or will it actually signal a change in the dialogue?

[Garm]

Also, too: Amount of effort required for OWS protesters - reasonably high unless you live very close to a protest site. Amount of effort required for SOPA protesters - Click a button or dial a number.

[Dark567]

Also, too: Amount of effort required for OWS protesters - reasonably high unless you live very close to a protest site. Amount of effort required for SOPA protesters - Click a button or dial a number.

The goal is also vastly different, OWS wants to alter the dialogue, SOPA protesters just want a bill to die(and presumably not come back). Killing a bill is a clearer and easier to obtain goal.

[Garm]

Also, too: Amount of effort required for OWS protesters - reasonably high unless you live very close to a protest site. Amount of effort required for SOPA protesters - Click a button or dial a number.

The goal is also vastly different, OWS wants to alter the dialogue, SOPA protesters just want a bill to die(and presumably not come back). Killing a bill is a clearer and easier to obtain goal.

Agreed, but that makes Quantumcat's question even more pointless.

[quantumcat42]

Pointless, really? On the one hand, there's a movement with a lot of individual effort over the course of several weeks, resulting in arrests, injury, and fairly intangible benefits. On the other hand, there's a protest that lasted a day, required minimal effort to support, resulted in zero arrests or injuries, but thus far has convinced 19 senators to come out against the bill in question (including several who were previously co-sponsors). I hardly think that's a pointless comparison.

[Garm]

Pointless, really? On the one hand, there's a movement with a lot of individual effort over the course of several weeks, resulting in arrests, injury, and fairly intangible benefits. On the other hand, there's a protest that lasted a day, required minimal effort to support, resulted in zero arrests or injuries, but thus far has convinced 19 senators to come out against the bill in question (including several who were previously co-sponsors). I hardly think that's a pointless comparison.

Apples, meet oranges.

[Panonadin]

Pointless, really? On the one hand, there's a movement with a lot of individual effort over the course of several weeks, resulting in arrests, injury, and fairly intangible benefits. On the other hand, there's a protest that lasted a day, required minimal effort to support, resulted in zero arrests or injuries, but thus far has convinced 19 senators to come out against the bill in question (including several who were previously co-sponsors). I hardly think that's a pointless comparison.

Apples, meet oranges.

I'm thinking his point relates more to "Fruit, meet fruit".

[Dauric]

Pointless, really? On the one hand, there's a movement with a lot of individual effort over the course of several weeks, resulting in arrests, injury, and fairly intangible benefits. On the other hand, there's a protest that lasted a day, required minimal effort to support, resulted in zero arrests or injuries, but thus far has convinced 19 senators to come out against the bill in question (including several who were previously co-sponsors). I hardly think that's a pointless comparison.

Apples, meet oranges.

I think we hashed over the difference very early on in this thread between protests against a specific bill and the largely unfocused direction of OWS. Protesting against SOPA has a very specific goal and it's simple to know which congressthings are working towards and against those goals, where OWS was most significant in it's existence as a barometer of national discontent on a variety of issues that don't have specific solutions.

[quantumcat42]

Pointless, really? On the one hand, there's a movement with a lot of individual effort over the course of several weeks, resulting in arrests, injury, and fairly intangible benefits. On the other hand, there's a protest that lasted a day, required minimal effort to support, resulted in zero arrests or injuries, but thus far has convinced 19 senators to come out against the bill in question (including several who were previously co-sponsors). I hardly think that's a pointless comparison.

Apples, meet oranges.

I think we hashed over the difference very early on in this thread between protests against a specific bill and the largely unfocused direction of OWS. Protesting against SOPA has a very specific goal and it's simple to know which congressthings are working towards and against those goals, where OWS was most significant in it's existence as a barometer of national discontent on a variety of issues that don't have specific solutions.

Thus, "fairly intangible benefits".

EDIT: And yes, "Fruit meet fruit" is a succinct summation of my point.

[Dauric]

Thus, "fairly intangible benefits".

Again, to assume that the SOPA blackout has applicability to OWS is to assume that they rose from the same situation. They don't.

SOPA is in response to a specific bill. It's simple to evaluate congressional movement on any particular bill.

OWS rose out of the dispair and injustices that came from broad systemic issues in employment and the financial sector, and the systemic corruption of the political system that had eroded protections against those kinds of problems. There's no single bill, or even targeted group of bills that could address the width and depth of the problems brought to the national dialog by the OWS protests.

To further abuse the line:

Apples, meet oranges.

I'm thinking his point relates more to "Fruit, meet fruit".

It's more along the lines of "Fruit, meet the contents of an entire grocery store."

Indeed, had the SOPA issue been raised in August of last year it's likely that there would have been an anti-SOPA contingent -in- OWS, as well as SOPA/PIPA being brought up by the contingent of OWS that was railing against corporate influence in politics. The anti-SOPA blackout does not have the scope to reciprocally contain OWS.

I'm not saying that OWS was particularly successful, at least beyond highlighting the breadth and quantity of failures that "business as usual" has brought about. I just doubt that the efficacy of techniques used to oppose a single bill in congress have any one-to-one applicability to a popular protest against the fundamental shape of society and the social contract that gives rise to that shape.

[Izawwlgood]

Also, at this point, with so much press gone, and at best difference in tone being used during speeches, calling OWS a success, one that worked 'remarkably well', is somewhat silly. No one was ever contending that OWS wasn't stimulating conversation. What we (I, anyway) were contending was that it was doing a piss poor job enacting any sort of change, was shooting itself in the foot with it's protest format, and was doing some pretty unscrupulous things in the process.

But who cares. I have no idea how Occupy Congress went, saw a brief on it in maybe one publication and that's it. So, sure, OWS, I applaud the fact that you got the world talking about a handful of injustices in our world.

[quantumcat42]

Presumably, when one puts effort into something, it's for a perceived benefit. If that benefit is a moral rush of "camping out against injustice", great. If it's some undefinable quality of "change in the dialog", eh, I hope it was worth the beatings and nights in jail. Yesterday's protest is a testament to what critics of OWS were saying from the very beginning -- having a slew of ill-defined grievances makes it difficult to accomplish anything. Yesterday we saw the power of large scale online cooperation to accomplish a specific goal. I haven't heard anyone talk about OWS for weeks, although apparently there are still people camped out there.

[Griffin]

Yesterday, we saw a bill with broad bipartisan opposition lose a few supporters because major corporations with lots of pull made it their mission to take the bill down. The bills are not dead. Their components are not going away.

Nothing has actually been accomplished yet, except making a couple politicians think they might need to be less obvious about their support and a couple others realize this is something bad.

As I said before - we have no idea what the outcome of today will be. But this didn't work because of a grassroots movement like Occupy - it worked because several major corporations and power players with a lot of public pull fought tooth and nail to kill it.

This is not something Occupy could have actually accomplished, I'd wager, without being significantly larger than it was.

And not a whole lot has even been accomplished yet.

The question is along the lines of:
"Why did we bother doing all that financial aid and PR and diplomacy and UN shit when could have just invaded every country in the world and declared victory by the end of the first year, like we did in Iraq?"

[Yakk]

Bob built a car. Charlie built a branch of mathematics.

Is what Bob built more effective than what Charlie built?

I mean, you can't drive Charlie's mathematics, can you?

[quantumcat42]

Charlie thought up a video game. It was an awesome video game, with aliens and zombies and jetboots and immersive worlds and you could play like 100 different characters and it was totally the best game ever. He's going to code it up one of these days.

Bob wrote an Android game which is currently for sale in the app store.

Charlie's game is way cooler. Bob's is lame.

EDIT:
Should probably mention too --

a bill with broad bipartisan opposition

Before the 18th, it had broad bipartisan support. Before the 18th, it had 39 declared for it, 16 declared against.

[KnightExemplar]

Gonna have to say that the size and scope of OWS vs SOPA protests are different.

1. SOPA protests are a specific protest against a specific bill. We're talking about a short bill that is relatively simple to understand that was written by clearly incompetent idiots without consulting the constituents who were affected. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xrrj9Wc2L84 . Its really easy to see the stupid across this bill in its entirety by just reading the official logs from Congress and seeing how no one actually understood what was going on. At the end of the day, we can judge whether or not the protests were successful. If SOPA passes (or gains more support), then the protests failed. Otherwise, success. A simple, clear cut solution to a simple problem.

2. I still don't know what OWS was trying to do. Occupiers constantly got off message and brought every issue to the table... in many cases IMO, they seemed to just reiterate the complaints of the Tea Party although they were asking for different solutions.

Throughout this whole thread, Occupiers have claimed that approach #2 is superior to the focused approaches for various reasons. To me, its impossible to even define "success" with Occupy, because they didn't even solidify their goals for the movement. If they just wanted to cause a ruckus and gain attention, they sure did that. No doubt about that. But on any front, on any tangible measurable front that I care about... I honestly haven't seen any progress that can be attributed to the Occupy movement.

Basically, before we discuss whether or not Occupy was "successful", we'd have to define Occupy's goals.

[Griffin]

The problem is this:

From Maddox

The problem isn't this shitty bill, it's the people who sponsored it. So we protest this bill today, bang enough pots and pans to shame a few backers into not letting this bill pass, then what? Those same dipshits who wrote this legislation still have jobs. They're going to try again, and again, and again until some mutation of this legislation passes. They'll sneak it into an appropriation bill while nobody's looking during recess, because there's too much lobbyist money at stake for them not to. We defeat SOPA today, only to face it again tomorrow. It's like trying to stop a cold by blowing your nose.

The SOPA protests "worked", but they address a single, recurring system, and fatigue for something like this builds quickly. It is unlikely to work again.

Occupy was going after the cause, the broken system - systemic corruption, bought politicians, corporate-government collaboration, lobbying, financial malfeasance, etc., rather than trying to kill any one bill. You can argue they were ineffective, but it is facetious to argue they were ineffective because anti-SOPA protests worked.

[quantumcat42]

Do you mean 'fallacious'? No, OWS wasn't ineffective 'because' anti-SOPA protests worked; it was ineffective because it didn't really have an effect. Anti-SOPA protests were effective because they had a measurable effect. They accomplished the short-term goal they were aiming for. They didn't solve the larger problem, nor were they aiming for that. To tackle that would take the sort of long-term, sustained effort that OWS failed to be.

At the end of the day, one movement accomplished what it set out to do and did its small part to counter the corrupt system; the other got sidetracked by questions of police brutality and the use of public space, and has largely departed from the public eye without really addressing any of the myriad problems it was actually concerned with. One might look at that and make excuses about scale/scope/sustainability/etc, or one can look at it and see a tactic that has worked, and one that hasn't. Take from it what you will.

[Griffin]

Yes, indeed, at the end of the day they were different things with different goals, and that was the whole goddamn point. Bluh.

[Izawwlgood]

Occupy was going after the cause, the broken system - systemic corruption, bought politicians, corporate-government collaboration, lobbying, financial malfeasance, etc., rather than trying to kill any one bill. You can argue they were ineffective, but it is facetious to argue they were ineffective because anti-SOPA protests worked.

Yes, this is part of the problem. The Occupy movement was in effect, fighting the same battle the War on Drugs, or the War on Terror was fighting; you can't just say "We're battling Bad Things!" and expect people to shower you with accolades because the nation talks a bit more about Bad Things.

[Dauric]

The thing is that if you look at the OWS as -a- protest I think you're missing the point.

OWS was -every- protest, all at once.

As a protest this fails, and certainly if the only thing you're evaluating it against is the effectiveness of protests then certainly it failed.

But don't look at it as a protest. Look at it as a sociological phenomenon. OWS was a -very large- portion of the population coming forward with all their grievances -at the same time-. People are constantly staging protests against something or another, however Adbusters event behaved almost as a small rupture in a pressure vessel, the accumulated pressure exploiting the material weakness of the rupture to expand the hole. A protest that was a relatively minor significance became an avenue for incredible pent-up frustrations to be expressed publicly, and the event grew, quickly and without any hope of control.

The breadth and variety of OWS -as a movement- makes it ineffective for creating policy changes yes, but consider what was going on and consider what that means for society as a whole. The discontent with those in 'leadership' positions, government or 'big business' alike, came from an incredibly broad range of positions across all of society. People who had never been to a protest before in their lives took to the streets with cardboard signs that told their personal experiences with the failure of the social contract that has defined our society for generations.

Again, I'm not looking at it as a "protest" from a political/policy perspective, but a "force of society" in a sociological context.


How to gauge the effectiveness of OWS? I'd say that it was successful if it released enough discontent and brought about enough change to prevent as rapid a buildup of social unrest as what led up to OWS. I'd wager that it's more likely that OWS didn't release enough frustration and anger in the population, and we're likely to see more of these kinds of mass-events. I'd also think that we're likely to see these kind of events get increasingly out of hand as greater frustrations build up. I'd like to be wrong about that, but on matters of political action in the interests of the people I'm a pessimist.

[Randomizer]

Also, who's to say that a decent number of the people at OWS didn't also participate in the anti-SOPA & anti-PIPA efforts?

[Izawwlgood]

The thing is that if you look at the OWS as -a- protest I think you're missing the point.

OWS was -every- protest, all at once.

I see where you're coming from to make this statement, and even understand the sentiment.

I think it's utter horseshit. The Tea Party was very much a protest. If you're (or anyone really, not to single you out) going to now claim that OWS wasn't a protest, but was a social movement, and thus cannot be said to have ANY concrete goals, I think you're only really supporting my initial position on the matter, that is, that nothing is going to get accomplished if all you want to do is camp in the park and wave some signs about being discontent.

The world already has places for discontent people to go; it's called a bar. If you really want to enact change, do it. I see no reason to call the Occupy movement special or successful if ultimately, all it amounted to was demonstrating how many people were discontent, that people were/are discontent, and got people talking about things, for a little while.

EDIT, I posted too soon:
If the movement, at it's very least, made people aware of how discontent they were, and got people more active in politics, then great, that's a net good thing. That doesn't mean the movement itself, OWS, was effective in whatever it's stated goals were, it just means that things which get people talking are good. By the same token, taking the subway is good because it forces you to see people who may have different opinions than you.

[Ghostbear]

The world already has places for discontent people to go; it's called a bar. If you really want to enact change, do it. I see no reason to call the Occupy movement special or successful if ultimately, all it amounted to was demonstrating how many people were discontent, that people were/are discontent, and got people talking about things, for a little while.

But it got many of the people in charge talking about those things. That is an important accomplishment. Probably not enough, in many respect, but it did succeed at changing some of the political discussion. I would call that a pretty important success. I wish they had been more of a success, far more in truth, but you can't call that a complete failure either.

[Izawwlgood]

I don't call the movement a complete failure, and all in all, I think it was a very positive influence on the world. I don't think it succeeded, and I don't think it was nearly as effective as it could have been, or even as it should have been.

[Ghostbear]

It would seem to me then, that the central disagreement is over where, in the realm between failure and success, OWS resides. Truthfully, I'm not sure it's worth quibbling about, as I feel most of the recent posters in this thread would agree with what you said: it wasn't a complete failure, it wasn't a complete success, it did some good, and it potentially could have accomplished more.

I'm not actually sure what it could have done to be more successful, considering the circumstances that OWS operated under- a single, central message would have helped, but it was so decentralized, both physically and in leadership, I don't think one could have been made easily. The camping might have helped, it might have hurt, but part of the reason it got as much attention as it did initially is because it didn't just pack up and leave every evening. Removing some of the more rowdy and difficulty elements from their ranks might have helped them, but how does a strongly decentralized group accomplish that? It had more issues I'm pretty sure, but I'm just not seeing particularly likely solutions to any of the problems that existed. Their best bet probably would have been for some particularly charismatic people to help steer the whole thing better, but that's not really something a movement can cause to happen.

[Randomizer]

I found this on cryptome.org:

19 January 2012

What Occupy Is and Is Not

Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 14:10:23 -0600
From: BishopZ <xchicago[at]gmail.com>
To: nettime <nettime-l[at]kein.org>
Subject: Re: <nettime> Occupy Wall Street and the Left

What Occupy Is and Is Not

by the Language of Unity Working Group, Occupy Austin, USA

"What we call a poem is mostly what is not there on the page." -Harold Bloom

I can not speak for the global Occupy movement, but I think we here in the US have done a poor job of representing ourselves. We are not professional media spinners, and it is unfair to judge this movement by what is shown on the television news stations. Even those sympathetic to our cause, such as the John Stewart Show or the Colbert Report, while often painting Occupy Wall Street in favorable light, have been unable to avoid widespread misconceptions.

Please allow me a few words to a attempt a more clear painting of what Occupy is and is not.

First, our movement is radically inclusive. There are many supporters from the right, center and left of the political spectrum. We have many Tea Party-ers who are unhappy with how that movement has developed. We have many the Ronpaul supporters who do not believe he has been treated fairly by the Republican party. We have Veterans concerned about healthcare, and Green party supporters concerned about environmental issues and genetically-modified foods. And yes, there are some students, hippies, and anarchists; some homeless people looking for a handout, and soccer moms looking for a cause.

But Occupy does not support any particular political party. Instead this movement has focused on the things that bring people together. The Occupy protesters have latched on to the "99%" moniker because it is a statistical number that appears very infrequently. The US's two party system focuses, both in the media and in Washington DC, on issues which divide the populace into two halves. The media only covers controversial issues and pollsters only measure the divisions.

For instance, you will never see Occupy approach the issue of abortion. It is too derisive. Rather than championing one side, the huge innovation of the Occupy movement is its focus only on issues which unite people. We care most about people and care what most people support.

Rather than asking if government regulation should be increased, a complicated issue on which many people have different opinions, the Occupy movement seeks a language that describes the frustrations of people on both sides of the regulation debate. While Republicans and Democrats differ on their solutions, most people agree that corruption in the financial sector has lead to a crisis which should have been avoided.

Yet, Occupy has no shortage of real-world solutions, and we do not shrink from an intelligent conversation of both the problems and solutions, but that is not the conversation currently represented in the media or in Washington DC. As John Stewart said, the "well" of political debate has been "poisoned" with the "toxic language" that indicts anyone who questions corporate greed as "freedom hating." Once the conversation has been framed as pro-Amercian vs anti-American, it becomes nearly impossible to return the subject to a constructive and realistic debate about the issues.

Occupy has not defined their demands because they refuse to allow our concerns to be dismissed out-of-hand by sound bites and the curt one-up-man-ship that pervades political discourse in the popular media.

Secondly, the Occupy movement is far from disorganized. Our inclusive nature does not mean we give equal weight to everyone, regardless of the merit of their ideas. Radical inclusion simply means we are willing to listen. We still have goals, rules, process, critical evaluation and all the systems required to be successful.

The rumors of Occupy's demise have been grossly exaggerated. The Occupy uprising in America united many people with common interests and there is nothing that could happen to dispel our common connection. We have collected in small groups that meet regularly in coffee-shops, salons and restaurants, far from the tent cities and violence which appears in the TV news. And until there is some outlet for our common concerns, until our demand is met, we will continue to organize, build and convert more to our circles.

In conclusion, our efforts to find those things which concern All of US, our attempts to find language to articulate the most popular of reforms, we have found one thing that seems nearly universal across all demographics within the US and likely beyond: nearly everyone agrees that there is a problem. Everyone agrees that things can not continue as they have been.

The only question is what to do about it. The answer Occupy offers, and its amazing innovation over the last 20 years of politics and activism in America, is the simple statement: doing nothing is not an option, and we will hold vigil until something is done.

-----

The Occupy Flowchart:

Q1. Do you think there is a problem?

A. Yes, goto Q2

B. No, stay home

Q2. Do you know what should be done about the problem?

A. Yes, Come to Occupy

B. No, Come to Occupy

C Unsure, Come to Occupy

[Randomizer]

Occupy Wall Street is promoting a general strike on May 1st, where people don't go into work or go shopping.

From occupywallst.org : 6 Ways to Get Ready for the May 1st GENERAL STRIKE

May 1st, also known as International Workers' Day, is the annual commemoration of the 1886 Haymarket Massacre in Chicago, when Chicago police fired on workers during a General Strike for the eight-hour workday. In many countries, May 1st is observed as a holiday. But in the United States, despite the eventual success of the eight-hour-workday campaign, the holiday is not officially recognized. In spite of this, May Day is already a powerful date in the U.S. In 2006, immigrant's rights groups took to the streets in unprecedented numbers in a national "Day Without An Immigrant" - a general strike aimed at proving the economic power of immigrants in the U.S. At least one million people marched in Chicago and Los Angeles alone. Hundreds of thousands more marched throughout cities across the U.S.

Now, in response to call-outs from Occupy Los Angeles, Occupy Chicago, Occupy Oakland, and other General Assemblies and affinity groups, the Occupy Movement is preparing to mobilize a General Strike this May 1st in solidarity with struggles already underway to defend the rights of workers, immigrants, and other communities who are resisting oppression. Dozens of Occupations in cities and towns throughout the United States, Canada, and Australia have already endorsed May Day.

Poster:

Spoiler:

Also, a decent number of people from the Occupy Wall Street movement have decided to run for office themselves: 10 "Occupy" Candidates Running for Congress and Occupy Columbia protestor announces run for SC House

[Panonadin]

Man I wish I just had the option to "not go into work".

Just when I couldn't disagree more with almost everything they do.....

Inb4 people involved in the occupy movment becoming violent and others blaming the police for being in the city limits during a protest.

[Garm]

Man i wish I just had the option to "not go into work".

Just when I couldn't disagree more with almost everything they do....

Inb4 people involved in the occupy movment becoming violent and others blaming the police for being in the city limits during a protest.

Got anything constructive to say or is this just pointless trolling?

[Panonadin]

Got anything constructive to say or is this just pointless trolling?

You mean as constructive as this post?

Basically my post can be broken down to,

I don't agree with about 99% of the stuff "Occupy" has done/been doing. I don't have the option to just not go into work for a day without calling in sick/not getting paid and I forsee the after math involving people complaining about breaking the law and getting punished for it.

Which is basically what I said in less words with bit more smart assness(thats a word right?)

I don't know what your definition of trolling is, but you're Interpreting it wrong.

[CorruptUser]

General boycotts are kinda pointless. Don't shop on May 1st? Well, you still eat just as much whether or not you buy more food today, delaying refilling your car just adds one extra day's worth of gas next time you fill up, etc.

If you really want to make a dent, switch out which businesses you frequent. For example, hate the banking system? Use credit unions. Don't like grocery stores? Find a co-op or buy more from farmers markets if you can.

[Princess Marzipan]

Panonadin, no one listens to you in this thread, you know.

General boycotts are kinda pointless. Don't shop on May 1st? Well, you still eat just as much whether or not you buy more food, delaying refilling your car just adds one extra day's worth of gas next time you fill up, etc.

The effect of enough people opting out of the system on that day can show, if critical mass is attained, that the cooperation of the masses is required lest shit break down.

It's not about a long term effect, it's about showing what solidarity can accomplish in the short term and offering a data point from which long term detriment can be extrapolated. "Oh, was it difficult when x% of your employees didn't show up to work and you saw a y% decrease in business over a single day? Wow, I guess it's better for you if we actually feel we have anything to gain by participating - 'cause right now we don't!"

[Jessica]

Panonadin, no one listens to you in this thread, you know.

Hey now Nougat, lets be fair now. We all know no one listens to Panonadin in any thread.

That's not even remotely helpful to this thread. Please stay away from the personal attacks. -hawk

[Panonadin]

The foe button is available to you.

Awwwww but then you wouldn't be able to stroke your ego on the internets.

[Garm]

Got anything constructive to say or is this just pointless trolling?

You mean as constructive as this post?

Basically my post can be broken down to,

I don't agree with about 99% of the stuff "Occupy" has done/been doing. I don't have the option to just not go into work for a day without calling in sick/not getting paid and I forsee the after math involving people complaining about breaking the law and getting punished for it.

Which is basically what I said in less words with bit more smart assness(thats a word right?)

I don't know what your definition of trolling is, but you're Interpreting it wrong.

So your point is "I don't agree with them. I think what they're doing is stupid. Even if I did agree with them, which I don't, I couldn't participate which makes me more angry at them?" I was just trying to figure out why you took time out of your day to post in this thread.

I think it's interesting that they're doing this on May 1st. The reason that Labor Day in the U.S. was moved to September is to avoid this exact situation. I don't think that critical mass is possible in a time when interest in supporting Labor is so low. There are a lot of misconceptions about the role of Unions and honestly, in the information side of our burgeoning service economy, there's very little need for them (tho' maybe video game developers/testers should unionize ). People aren't generally going to walk out of their cubes for a protest. Or if they do they'll burn a day of PTO... much less effective as a form of protest than not showing up.

[Dauric]

I think it's interesting that they're doing this on May 1st. The reason that Labor Day in the U.S. was moved to September is to avoid this exact situation. I don't think that critical mass is possible in a time when interest in supporting Labor is so low.

Wait... Wait... So you're saying that "Labor Day" is about celebrating... Waitaminute, hang on... I'll get this, don't tell me.... It's about celebrating this "Labor" thing? Right?

'Cause I always thought it a celebration of making people separate themselves from the cash that represents their labor to keep them poor and shit...

</sarcasm>

Somewhat less flippantly I'm not sure that, for the U.S. population at large at any rate, May 1'st or Labor Day really have that strong an association to labor rights history, or indeed that most people really have a firm grasp of labor rights history in the first place*. Ultimately I think you could hold it on June 24'th and the majority of people wouldn't recognize the significance or lack thereof, and I'm not sure that interest in supporting labor really peaks around Labor day or any other day.

*And I'm not really saying this is the fault of education, but more that there's not a lot of public consciousness/annual traditions about the early days of unions or mine worker riots and massacres. People might know trivia about the Triangle Shirtwaist Disaster, but Labor Day doesn't really have a lot of cultural trappings to reinforce the association.

Of course this may just be my own interpretations of my own observations and someone could pull data that shows there is significant association of labor rights and history with Labor Day. However to my own uneducated eye Labor Day seems to have a lot more culturally to do with getting in one last outdoor grilling session before the winter snows lock us all in our domiciles, and quarterly fashion and houseware sales.

[Ghostbear]

I don't agree with about 99% of the stuff "Occupy" has done/been doing. I don't have the option to just not go into work for a day without calling in sick/not getting paid and I forsee the after math involving people complaining about breaking the law and getting punished for it.

Which is basically what I said in less words with bit more smart assness(thats a word right?)

I don't know what your definition of trolling is, but you're Interpreting it wrong.

I'm gonna give this a shot.

The problem isn't that you disagree with Occupy movements (discussions wouldn't be so fun if everyone just sat down and said "I agree", afterall), it's the manner and tone that you conveyed it with. It's that, if not for the fact that it's dealing with a 1 day work strike, the meat of your post could have been perfectly paraphrased as "Get a job you damn hippies!". Then you ended it with "everyone who disagrees with me is irrationally violent about such and shoves all the blame on other people, because they're stupid hippies and refuse to take some responsibility". Which isn't a good way to make people who disagree with you say "Yeah, I want to discuss this topic with that person!". It doesn't foster any kind of actual discussion (other than some self congratulatory kind, which is just as bad as "I agree" festivals), and just comes across as trying to get a reaction out of the people who disagree with you.

If you want to discuss if this is a good idea, if it will have a positive influence, if it's feasible, or if it matters at all, I think everyone here would be glad to do so. But they won't want to if you paint them as, essentially, irresponsible children when you state your disagreement.

[KnightExemplar]

I certainly wish the best for Occupy on their general strike. But I don't really see it as an effective means of protest. Perhaps if their general strike also had some organization somewhere... it would make sense. (ie: skip out on your job and join us on some street to protest). I don't really see the point of just skipping out on work / school / shopping for a day. To me, it sounds like a good way to prove to your boss that you are unprofessional and that politics can get in between you and your job.

If you disagreed politically with what your employer does... perhaps a strike makes sense. After all, a strike is designed to hurt your employer and demonstrate the power of the workforce. IE: the workforce demands higher pay or less hours... and then use a strike to demonstrate that they're serious about those claims. But a general strike? Why am I hurting my employer? My direct bosses wouldn't understand why I'm hurting them, and I doubt that it'd send a message anywhere in the corporate structure anyway. Plus, it isn't like they're responsible for the mess that this country is in. Furthermore, there aren't any direct actions that companies in general can do to improve the situation. Even then... would the correct message be spread? I might be the only guy in my office who would know about the general strike on May 1st. My bosses may think its just another sick day or something.

Furthermore, it sends the wrong message. Occupiers stayed home instead of going to work / school today. Occupy already has the image of "lazy". (correct or wrong, this is a major complaint of Occupy and their demands). This strike will only exacerbates the image of laziness.