And now we're terrorists..

[Autotune]

Originally Posted by Hasbinbad [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Yes, we shut down the Port of Oakland from 9am on November 2nd to 9am on November 3rd. We turned outgoing trucks around to go back into the port and wait, and incoming longshoremen were turned away from work, and incoming trucks were turned away as well. This was accomplished by main force for most of the day, as there were between 30-40,000 people physically occupying the entrances and exits, but as time wore on it was a small group of militants that stayed behind the barricade and went toe to toe with angry workers UNTIL

The president of (one chapter of) the ILWU came and spoke with us, me, actually.

He didn't really know what was going on at that point. When I explained it to him, he gave us his unconditional support, thanked us, and explained what was going on to the crowd of angry longshoremen trying to tear down our barricades. Since then, I have personally seen him at no less than 2 marches, and 3 direct actions, at least 2 of which involved a large mass of riot cops which he faced down in solidarity with Occupy. I've also seen several other ILWU chapter presidents make public statements in support of us and both port shut downs.

There was no Union support going in to the first shut down, which was 100% successful. Now we have the support (and I'm not talking fucking lip service, like I said, this guy and a bunch of his men faced down riot cops with us - several labor leaders have actually been arrested in solidarity) of every major labor union in the country going into this.

The police weren't involved at the port on the 2nd/3rd because during the day the march was literally 30k+ people, and they just don't have the manpower (homeland security feds were definitely there, but didn't lift a finger other than to make an honor force known, because they knew we were 100% nonviolent). Later at night was when they had "Mutual Aid" come oppress Occupy Oakland because simultaneous to the nighttime shifts at the port, (partially chosen to occur at this time as a distraction) was the precedent-setting takeover of the Travellers Aid building at 16th and Telegraph (very near Oscar Grant Plaza). Because we seized property from a bank, the riot cops came in in force, leaving the small band of militants at the port unmolested until the 6am shift, which included a lot more workers who were - at the time - ignorant of our talks with their president. This is what you may have seen on the news with angry workers clashing with protestors at the port.

This will of course be different on 12/12/11, and we all expect more police presence. That being said, it is a major theme of this action that if the police cause any trouble, we will extend the shutdown long past one day. They can either comply and take their lumps for the day or spend massive amounts of resources keeping us away over a much longer period of time.

I must take exception with your statement that the November 2nd/3rd shutdown didn't accomplish anything. That is the same old hackneyed propaganda everyone who disagrees (doesn't understand) with Occupy uses, and I think you're probably smarter than that. We reduced annual trade into and out of Oakland by 1/365th. That may not seem like a lot, but when you consider what the total product of the Port of Oakland is in the course of one year, you may need to rethink your "didn't accomplish much" statement.

I had actually no real clue what was accomplished or not. I put that plug in there to get a response. I had actually put it as accomplished nothing and changed to not much due to the fact that it seemed you guys won a slight victory just off what you posted first.

Anyhow, it is good to know the outcome of what you posted in greater detail than I could have probably searched and found.

So in a way, thx for the shaere.

[Hasbinbad]

Word.

[vaylorie]

You seriously need to stop comparing yourselves to the founding fathers. This is like saying every person that breaks the law for political reasons is like the founding fathers. Don't be foolish.

We have a constitution that secures lawful and peaceable protections for the majority to impact change and steer the direction of the country. You are lazy and would rather just get attention the fast and easy way by trying to shut down a port or by claiming police brutality. This is why you are irrelevant in spite of the disruptions you try to cause. Knowingly break the law to get attention instead of trying to achieve change the way the founding fathers set up for you.

I know... too hard.. why try right?

[Hasbinbad]

OK smart guy, then go campaign and vote our corporations to stop economically raping people.

See how far you get.

[Humerox]

The biggest lesson that should have been learned from the 1999 WTO demonstrations is that violence causes an unsurmountable backlash in public opinion.

This "movement" has been coming for a long time.

When people across America, whose lives have been shattered and destroyed, come to realize the true face of the global "free market" system, the legitimacy of Wall Street, the Federal Reserve and the US administration will be challenged.

A latent protest movement directed against the seat of economic and political power is unfolding.

How this process will occur is hard to predict. All sectors of American society are potentially affected: wage earners, small, medium and even large businesses, farmers, professionals, federal, State and municipal employees, students, teachers, health workers, and unemployed. Protests will initially emerge from these various sectors.

That was written in 2009. The source is Preparing for Civil Unrest in America - Legislation to Establish Internment Camps on US Military Bases. for anyone that cares to look.

The government will crack down, and at that point the movement is doomed.
Not because it isn't legitimate, but because there is real fear it may grow beyond control.

The term civil resistance, alongside the term nonviolent resistance, is used to describe political action that relies on the use of non-violent methods by civil groups to challenge a particular power, force, policy or regime. Civil resistance operates through appeals to the adversary, pressure and coercion: it can involve systematic attempts to undermine the adversary's sources of power. Forms of action have included demonstrations, vigils and petitions; strikes, go-slows, boycotts and emigration movements; and sit-ins, occupations, and the creation of parallel institutions of government.



It does NOT include violence or destruction.

OWS may not be the face of the movement when it's all said and done, but people are tired and want real change. Real change, not administrations that promise it and don't deliver.

[to0p]

Originally Posted by Hasbinbad [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

vote our corporations to stop economically raping people.

Go live in Russia or China, then you might be able to stop taking your Rx anti-depressants

[Daldolma]

The reason the Occupy movement will inevitably fail is the same reason it has become so successful in the first place. The lack of stated goals has allowed a lot of people with diverse interests to join the movement. But the lack of stated goals also prevents the common citizen, who is not outraged enough to protest, from supporting the movement in less drastic ways. The Occupy movement may seem large, but it's a relatively small proportion of the voting public.

The delusions of revolution are misplaced. This is a stable, prosperous country with overwhelming military might. If violence becomes a prominent part of the protests, OWS will die out quickly.

There are changes that could be realized by OWS if they were to settle on a few. For example, the reinstatement of Glass-Steagall. The public would be open to this, if sufficiently educated on the subject, and it would solve some of the core issues being protested against by OWS. OWS could also probably garner enough public support to significantly increase taxes on the wealthy.

But other goals are unattainable. A solution to wealth inequality is not something the majority of the nation would support. There is no consensus on that subject.

Regardless, blockading the port of Oakland isn't helping anything. The people most harmed by such a blockade aren't Wall Street bankers or the financial elite. If you want to harm the financial elite, boycott the stock market and keep your money in a box under your bed, instead of letting them play with it.

[Aadill]

Originally Posted by Daldolma [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

There are changes that could be realized by OWS if they were to settle on a few. For example, the reinstatement of Glass-Steagall. The public would be open to this, if sufficiently educated on the subject, and it would solve some of the core issues being protested against by OWS. OWS could also probably garner enough public support to significantly increase taxes on the wealthy.

Pretty much. The problem media does a good job of picking up on "the other stuff" and diffusing the message.

[ColdFritter]

No truce with the shadow.

[Daldolma]

Originally Posted by Aadill [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Pretty much. The problem media does a good job of picking up on "the other stuff" and diffusing the message.

Well, you could blame that on the media. I wouldn't. I'd blame it on OWS itself. OWS has made it clear that they do not want to target any specific reforms. Because of that, they leave themselves susceptible to being manipulated. Any idiot with the time to sit in a park can make a sign and misrepresent OWS, and the media isn't incorrect in questioning whether that person is a representative sampling of OWS.

Until OWS narrows its scope to a few key issues, it will be impossible to garner enough public support to actually enact change. The Tea Party is a good example of this. Whether or not you agree with their proposed policies, they took a nebulous dissatisfaction with government and narrowed it down to a set of policy points that allowed them to zero in on candidates and impact elections, and in turn, legislation.

OWS can't have that impact until it decides exactly what it is that it wants to do.