If one supports the idea of OWS, but not the method, is that person no longer a liberal/progressive?

[apples and oranges]

If a liberal/progressive has constructive criticism for the OWS movement, does that mean he or she can no longer be considered progressive? Please explain why or why not.

[virgogal]

1. Of course not---we have minds of our own.

[SixthSense]

2. of course not

the whole point of OWS is to have the debate among ourselves and not have it filtered through corporate-owned media

"constructive criticism" in this context is not only welcome, it is an essential part of what is going on

[tblue]

3. Why do you ask?

???

[apples and oranges]

8. Because a lot of us are saying the movement needs to have clear goals

and become more political, but that idea is being shouted down.

[CJCRANE]

10. No one is shouting you down. Some agree, some disagree.

That's how a discussion goes.

[randome]

22. I agree with what you say.

But a lot of DUers are calling people conspirators, trolls and corporate stooges for asking questions and -it's hard to get my mind around this- for supporting OWS.

We are all on the same side.

Discussion, yes. Calling someone out with names mentioned above is not cool. It's not even classy.

:toast:

[CJCRANE]

26. I don't see any DUers

"calling people conspirators, trolls and corporate stooges for asking questions and ... for supporting OWS".

You're doing the same thing as the OP. Instead of discussing the issue - the aims and tactics of OWS - you're making it about DUers and throwing around claims that I see no evidence for.

[randome]

31. All day yesterday and the day before.

And I saw your name on a thread or two.

My point is that when aims and tactics are brought up that aren't in lock-step with what a few DUers think, people are often told they are corporate stooges or 'parroting the corporate line' or conspirators or trolls.

It doesn't stop me from saying what I want. NOTHING will stop me from saying what I want.

But it's annoying as hell and it serves no purpose on a discussion forum.

Nobody owns OWS so nobody should be labeling people simply for bringing a new idea to the table.

====================
And I didn't mean to imply you were one of those throwing labels around. :-)

[CJCRANE]

34. Fair enough.

I don't see the majority of the threads on DU so that could well be the case.

BTW if you see a post that makes a personal attack on another DUer then you should "alert" on it.

[Marrah_G]

16. You can say it does and other can say they think you are wrong.

As for the shouting down part.... much like other discussions around here, the louder group is often all in the mind of the writer. Obama fans think the board is anti-obama and the Obama critics think the board is pro-Obama.

Again- You can say it needs clear goals, but that doesn't mean that people, especially those who are in the trenches are not going to disagree with you, sometimes loudly.

[Zorra]

18. I would suggest starting your own movement if you feel that your ideas

are not being accepted by the majority of participants in, and supporters of, OWS.

Repeating memes that originated in RW think tanks and got spread by MSM will not help your case.

Many of us are Democrats who watched with outrage as our party got co-opted and neutralized when the DLC/Third Way insidously wormed its way in and altered the ideology and processes of the party so that it now represents the 1% and not the majority of the American people.

The movement has clear goals. They have been repeated ad nauseum to the point of utter exasperation.

Many of us believe that the political system is compromised. OWS is an alternative process for attaining necessary changes.

Use the Democratic Party if you want to try to effect change through status quo politics.

And good luck with that.

This is an excellent piece written by DU member Will Pitt. If you read it, and can comprehend it, you will have a much better understanding of why OWS is not exactly what you seem to want it to be:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=2329881&mesg_id=2329881

[Luminous Animal]

23. Becoming more political would mean that OWS would no longer be OWS.

You can be progressive or liberal (or both) but if you advocate for OWS to move into partisan politics, you are not a supporter of OWS.

Similarly to supporting the ACLU which is entirely non-partisan. Insisting that it move to partisan politics would be contrary to its mission statement and would put you in the position of no supporting the ACLU.

[Marrah_G]

30. OWS is already doing what it is intended to do

People are talking, they are waking up, the government is beginning to get nervous.

[nadinbrzezinski]

38. I will make the same suggestion I have made to others

Here you are not going to make a difference. Serious. THAT discussion as to methods and tactics IS HAPPENING... it is evolving. You want to add your grain of salt to that DISCUSSION? Not here. The place to do that is at a GENERAL ASSEMBLY.

Believe it or not they are open to YOUR CRITIQUE... Alas you need to physically get down there.

[randome]

41. If discussing things on DU doesn't do any good...

...then why are ANY of us here?

I started off this morning wanting to bury the hatchet with all this 'you're a shill for the right-wing' crap that was launched about everywhere the past few days.

Can we all agree that the mass demonstration yesterday was a success? I want there to be more of those and yes, I understand that making that known to my local OWS group is worth doing, but that doesn't mean, as some have implied, that I don't wholly support OWS if I think for myself instead of marching in lock-step with what others want.

DUers need to stop throwing labels around or implying the people 'just don't get it' when they ask questions.

Peace.

[nadinbrzezinski]

43. You want to influence a movement

that is not going to happen here.

In fact, I am almost willing to hazard a guess.. MOST hard core OWSers do NOT read DU... in fact quite a few of them do not read the web... they lack this strange thing called a computer.

[randome]

46. I come to DU to talk.

And to learn. That's all. You're right, DU is not the world. I don't pretend that it is. However, sometimes, we can make a difference by talking among ourselves.

We can learn from one another.

That's the real point I want to make. I think.

[nadinbrzezinski]

48. And I am trying to tell you that

if you want to actually influence anything as to where it goes.. DU, DKOS, Alternet and the other universe of blogging sites, with the possible exception of FDL, (They are part of the direct logistics network) are irrelevant to OWS as a movement. They CRAVE your input... but here all you are doing is repeating talking points that yes, came from the RW, in a few cases the FAR RW wing.

We have tried teaching you. I am just telling you the RANK truth... it won't happen here.

It is a WORTHY discussion to have... but this is not the place to methods.

I understand how this is confounding... after all STAFFERS in DC DO read DU... OWSers don't, for the most part.

[arcane1]

4. Absolutely not

there's no one special specific thing that counts as "progressive", and in a free country we are allowed to have and share differing opinions.

[valerief]

5. If someone doesn't give a crap about overused media labels, should one take a physic?

:shrug:

[CJCRANE]

6. Not this meme again. It's pointless and divisive.

No one on DU has asserted what you're claiming.

[TBF]

28. It's the meme of the week and I've grown very tired of it. nt

[frazzled]

7. Need you even ask?

Of course the answer is no.

Reasons? Okay, take it out of the OWS context. Were those who opposed the government policies in the 1960s any less liberal because they rejected the methods of Weatherman? You would argue that to be a liberal at that time you had to advocate violent (i.e., bombing) overthrow of the government? Or that you had to agree that the street theater of the Yippies was the best means to achieve the ends everyone was seeking?

Methods and goals are never the same thing. So, no. Everyone has a right to an opinion on what tactics are appropriate to achieving a goal.

[grasswire]

9. time wasting question

who cares?

Those old labels don't mean much anymore.

[BiggJawn]

11. I frickin' HATE Litmus Tests...

"Here, rub this on you and let's see if you're BLUE enough..."

Pisses me off as much as the bubba's "Yew cain't be fer th' second mendment an' vote fer Obummer both!"

[Aerows]

12. Sure they can

We don't all have to agree 100%. I think for myself.

[Marrah_G]

13. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions

However, that doesn't make one immune from being spoken back to if you are ridiculing, criticizing, etc, something that others are passionate about. I think most intelligent people on the board know who are progressives and who are not. The important thing is to be able to filter out the chatter of those who just want to fight or stir up drama.

[Deep13]

14. Liberals by definition exist within the legal power structure.

"Progressive" these days implies a somewhat more radical approach.

[LWolf]

15. Where to begin?

First of all, despite the mass misconception to the contrary, "liberal" and "progressive" are not the same.

To be "progressive" is to want to make progress...to move forward on ANY agenda. It can be "liberal," or...not. For example, the DLC's think tank is the "Progressive Policy Institute."

Many can accurately claim to be a "progressive," whether or not they are a "liberal."

Secondly, "liberal" can mean many different things. Socially "liberal" is not the same thing as economically "liberal." "Neo-liberal" is not the same thing as a more traditional definition of "liberal."

Finally, the multiple meanings these terms have mean that they can be manipulated for the purposes of propaganda, and they have been for a very long time.

You can be anything you want. You can call yourself anything you want. There is no one valid definition of liberal/progressive.

What "idea" of OWS do you support? What action do you support, if you do not support using our rights under the first amendment to call attention to our ideas when the powerful don't acknowledge them?

[mmonk]

17. Not everyone agreed with protests and marches in the past either.

Don't think it necessarily meant they were one way or the other. A person is who that person is.

[msongs]

19. the OP chooses NOT to "please explain why or why not?" lol nt

[Vincardog]

20. What "method" is it of which you speak? What exactly is your complaint?

[Marrah_G]

29. I think he is talking about those who support Occupy Wall Street but dont support actually Occupying

confusing.... yes.... But they seems to rationalize the two....

[Vincardog]

32. WTF has that got to do with their bonafides as Liberals?

[apples and oranges]

44. Because a lot of posts are saying that the criticisms come

from so called liberals. Just skim GD and you'll see what I'm talking about. One thread even said that it's not possible to support Obama and OWS.

[Vincardog]

47. IF "it's not possible to support Obama and OWS" I think BO's Liberal credentials need to be checked

[Marrah_G]

49. Umm it doesn't

I was speaking about the supporting OWS part

[Huey P. Long]

21. No not at all, you just prefer the traditional impotent methods.

[mmonk]

24. LOL

[HappyMe]

25. Why not?

People are just people. You can pick & choose your battles/causes, beliefs as you wish. Label yourself something or not. Why the hell would anyone care? If somebody gets in your face about you following or not following something in complete lockstep, they need to back off. Who the hell are they to tell you what to think.

[Marrah_G]

27. If you support the Idea of OWS then you support the tactic of Occupying

If you don't think they should be Occupying..... then you aren't really a supporter

[randome]

33. You sound like the voice of authority on OWS, then.

The point is the movement should be open to everyone's opinion. Otherwise, it doesn't represent the 99%. It represents the 90% or the 80%.

[Huey P. Long]

37. Another non-'it getter'. Even if you are against OWS, it is likely

you are still part of the 99%ers. The percentage has nothing to do with supportor backing.
Economic, as in not a megamillionaire. Now you can choose to be against them, and FOR the 1%, sure. Up to you.

[Marrah_G]

50. I am not an authority on anything. I was simply speaking logic

How can one say they support Operation Wall Street, yet do not support the Occupy part. It just makes no logical sense.

[sabrina 1]

35. If you have some ideas you want to express about OWS regarding

method, then go to a GA and present them. The beauty of this movement is that everyone has a voice, and everyone can submit ideas and be heard. And if there is no occupation near you, you can start one. The possibilities are limitless.

It is a people's movement. If you are a real person, not a corporate 'person', you are automatically included.

[randome]

40. I have no problem with OWS at all.

The only problem I had during the last couple of weeks was with DUers who labeled everyone who questioned tactics and methods as a corporate spy or a conspirator.

The idea that everyone has a voice is one I wholeheartedly agree with. Sometimes DU can seem like an echo chamber, though, and voices are discounted.

:toast:

[apples and oranges]

45. That's exactly what I'm talking about. Thanks!

[Earth_First]

36. Sounds like you have an issue with the way that the general assembly concesus dictates the methods

in which #OWS operates.

I won't bore you with the way that the general assembly model works, however, these methods are not just arrived upon...

[Modern_Matthew]

39. Labels schmabels. nt

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

42. Kinda like being a union member that doesn't support strikes.

[Marrah_G]

51. That was the point I was trying to make

Or a Catholic who doesn't believe in God, etc etc