The New Generation

[Navarre]

Fellow forum member, sab39, posted this link to me on his google+ account. I thought it made a lot of very interesting commentary on society. Some of it defends us while other parts shows us in a harsh but realistic light.

It's directed more toward the 20-something generation than people my age but I found it useful for perspective. It's a bit long but worth the read, imo.

http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-ways-we-ruined-occupy-wall-street-generation/

[Gaumer]

I think its full of shit.

There's so much for me to dig into, but I think the main thing here is the author is using a misconstrued idea of what OWS actually is. The very idea that the movement is a bunch of lazy, 20-something, socialists is totally and completely false.

In their own words: "Occupy Wall Street is a people-powered movement that began on September 17, 2011 in Liberty Square in Manhattan’s Financial District, and has spread to over 100 cities in the United States and actions in over 1,500 cities globally. #ows is fighting back against the corrosive power of major banks and multinational corporations over the democratic process, and the role of Wall Street in creating an economic collapse that has caused the greatest recession in generations. The movement is inspired by popular uprisings in Egypt and Tunisia, and aims to expose how the richest 1% of people are writing the rules of an unfair global economy that is foreclosing on our future."

That sounds like some hard-working, democracy loving people who, given common-sense, the actual numbers of supporters, and the fact that I am 30-something, cannot possibly be a group that consists of only people in their 20s. This article seems like it either has bought into, or straight up is, a bold faced attempt to discredit the movement for what it is not, while it IS simply an exercise in the First Amendment.

I believe this is happening because the movement is gaining the same sort of steam that the Tea Party movement gained before it historically changed the last election, and the same sort of political machines that deemed them racists and radicals is trying to do the same to this movement, only OWS, by beating the drum of anti-capitalism over pro-democracy (i.e. "America should be a democracy first and capitalist second"), they look to reach into the pockets of many more members of the machine, not just on one side of the aisle, as the Tea Party did.



But, if I'm excluding all that I know (or think I know) about any of that, and I'm just taking the guys article out of the context of OWS, I still think he's being kind of a douchebag.

I don't feel failed or that I have failed any generation or anything like that. I don't think its necessarily an entire generations responsibility to assure that the next generation is "set on the right direction". Its arrogant, self serving and non productive to society, which is the goal in such a thing.

To believe that a generation has any clue whatsoever what the next generations goals/aspirations are going to be is arrogant.

To believe that a generation is responsible for the next one assumes that the previous generation has a responsibility to that generation, which leads to nothing but a self serving cop-out for your generations own failings.

If we're so worried about the next generation than we are obviously worried about a forward progress of societal evolution, but we worry about the future in spite of the now? Again, its an arrogant cop-out that takes responsibility from the current generation and prematurely places it on the next. A generation should take care of itself while it is here; the next generation will do what it needs to do as the time comes for it to be needed to be done.

Now I tie shit together. OWS is a prime example of the last generation not simply stepping aside and allowing this generation to take its place in society as a driving force. Its rather pushing its ideals, ideals that have proved failing in the minds of the next generation while the failing generation is too arrogant to see it themselves, on the next generation.

But, this has happened throughout history. Its nothing new. Society evolving to the state where we understand what is occurring and applying that understanding so as to get over the emotional side of things is, by my understanding, the goal.

[Thovan Spelloyal]

Not to sound like an anti-government type of person, but the current government views any and all protests as a way to demoralize the common people so that the politicians can continue to oppress the people. Quite frankly, the way we are going is the way of the old world. The US is no more a country than it is a kingdom. The rich keep getting richer while the poor get poorer. You can also look at the politicians as a form of a dictator that would put us into a form of a communist country. That is the way we are heading at least.

[Slappy]

10-15 years ago, the Gen-Xers were consideredslackers that wouldn't amount to much of anything.  Mostly stated by the Baby Boomers.
In a Recent Poll, of Gen-X, more are getting married Once and staying married, balancing both a Career and a Family, Volunteering time and money to causes, while working more than BabyBoomers did at this time.
Gen-Xers are also Happy overall.
For a group that wouldn't amount to anything we are doing quite well.  These guys will be fine, just diferent.

[Otter Disaster]

Citing a Cracked article as any sort of serious commentary on any subject is problematic on its face.  The writer makes some interesting points, none of which understand generational dynamics. 

The Millenials/Gen Y/20 somethings take very little of their upbringing from us Gen Xers. They got their upbringing from the Baby Boomers.  Maybe the oldest Xers have kids in the Millenial age group but the Boomers set the helmet wearing, everybody gets a trophy, helicopter parenting style. Just like the majority of Gen Xers had parents from the Silent Generation, the last generation that actually lived through part of WWII and the depression.  The Oldest Boomers may have some of the youngest Xers, but the Silent set the parenting agenda. Gen Xer's kids are still about 8-10 years away from their 'moment' and are as yet ill-defined.  We can revisit how we screwed up our kids at that time, the Boomers are to blame for the 20 somethings for good or ill. 

For the best analysis of Generational dynamics, how Generations are born into cyclical archetypes and a historical context for it all check out 'The Fourth Turning' by William Strauss and Neil Howe.  It's an amazing book I read in the late 90s, it uses a historical perspective on the relationships that generations typically have with one another, how different generational archetypes parent their children into an almost opposing archetype. Here is the website and some basic info on historical 'turnings' and what that means, as well as defining the archetypes of their thesis:

http://www.fourthturning.com/html/exploring_history.html

The book, written in 1997 the book presented a fairly accurate prediction of the aging of the Boomers into old age,the Xers into middle age, and Millenials into adulthood.  I could write 10,000 words on this book just explaining its central premise.  Bottom line is that is predicted the Millenials (at the time aged 10 and under) would be activist and involved like OWS, that Xers would be pragmatic managers, and that the Boomers would be in the position of leadership in a time of nation-defining national crisis.

As for OWS, I think it has a historical precedent, namely "Blueprint for revolution: bourgeoisie agitates proletariat to overthrow ruling class."  The drivers are middle class/upper middle class liberals/leftists, agitating the lower classes and the poor in an effort to put themselves in the ruling class.  If the OWSers (the minds behind it, not the useful idiots) get what they want they'll put themselves in power punish those who were in power and the lower classes and poor will be no better, if not worse off, than they were.  See: 19th and 20th century 'People's' Revolutions (France, China, Russia, Vietnam etc.) It will end in tears.

[Gaumer]

Although I agree with the generational explanation in your post, Otter, I think boiling down OWS into manipulative class warfare is missing the entire point of the movement and is borderline conspiratorial, considering it assumes that there is are "minds behind" the movement that are steering it in any direction. Not saying that your historical comparisons are incorrect, only a bit premature. Placing this sort of context on something isn't only unfair to the movement as it stands now but takes away from the message by prematurely lumping it into something that it isn't (not yet anyways).

[Otter Disaster]

I'm not saying OWS has no legitimate complaints, it does. The fact that Banks and Corporations are in bed with government is repugnant, and it is in fact fascism, the American Way!  Wealth has been taken from the electorate (mostly the middle class) and moved to banks, unions and connected Corporations through taxation, coupled with bad monetary policy by the bank at the top, the Federal Reserve.  Much of the OWS movement seems to think that more spending and 'reform' by the very government they criticize will somehow fix the extant problems.  Sort of a paradox if you ask me.

Make no mistake OWS is a decidedly left wing movement, and to think it is a 'leaderless' movement is naive at best. Adbusters named the thing in July, months before it started and Adbusters is VERY media savvy. Prominent left/liberal blog the Daily Kos promoted the thing shortly afterward. This whole thing has been branded, and part of that branding has been the notion that this is 'spontaneous,' 'leaderless' and 'grassroots'.  That's where the useful idiots come in.  They're the ones getting clubbed by the police and sleeping in the cold.  They've been encouraged to do this. Many of those encouraging it meanwhile are sleeping at home in their warm beds (see most of the celebrity supporters and union leaders) In Adbusters initial branding of this movement, Tahir Square is invoked as something desirable here:

http://www.buzzfeed.com/chrismenning/the-truth-about-the-occupy-media-blackout

Tahir was a revolution and toppled a government, so if revolution isn't the desired result why is the first mention of OWS directly tied to a revolution?  Revolutions always start small, and have the nasty habit of getting out of hand real fast (when they don't falter and fail).

Yesterday I was watching a live stream on UStream of the protests and reading the Twitter stream that went with it.  When police began the arrests at Zuccotti yesterday that stream exploded and at one point someone known to many of the posters was arrested and reported injured.  Much concern was expressed, then someone began reporting that the individual was dead from her injuries...Another explosion, but luckily cooler heads prevailed and confirmation demanded from many.  Shortly after someone confirmed the girl was hurt but fine.  My point is, the death of a protester, true or not can prove a flashpoint for violence, and I truly think there are elements of OWS who want that exact thing. OWS has generally been peaceful to date, but there are some that want the protesters to get violent so the police get MORE violent, and they want it all televised to gin up sympathy for the movement. 

We're experiencing a moment unseen in living memory, and we're only at the start. The economy is stagnant at best right now, but if the EU doesn't figure out the mess it's in, if we don't get government spending under control, and if the Fed doesn't stop printing money to pay for it all, then the whole system is set for implosion. If that happens OWS could set the stage for widespread violence with police and civilians who hold opposing views. Mark my words, this will end in an orgy of violence, and there are plenty of people who will be happy to see it happen.

[Gaumer]

I think we agree more than we disagree.

I'm not going to argue the facts you've laid out about influence of Adbusters Daily Kos and the like, but I still think its unfair to brand thousands if not hundreds of thousands of people world-wide based on the labels of the entities that have supported it, even if its from the beginning. Historically support for things like this has come from news sources of one sort or another.

I will say that the statement of much of the OWS wanting more spending cannot possibly be a valid statement, as one would have had to see opinions from much of the people in the movement, but I think that's more of the same labeling being applied out of context.

All I'm saying with that is I think we should listen to the message and either agree or disagree with it without other things influencing that message. OWS is two months old, hasn't really tried to change policy as much as spread a message with a voice that many feel has not been heard.

But like I said, we agree more than we disagree I think. I think OWS is in such an infancy that its almost impossible for people to be making points that seem to be made all the time in the news and such but, because its so young and the message of the movement is so strongly shared by a majority of people I think it has a real danger of being hijacked and ruined by those who want to see such a thing happen.

OWS can be ruined by so many things when the heart of the message is a good one and the exercise in free speech is so needed right now.

[The Mighty King Cobra]

Honestly?

It's a funny article because it's based on generalizations, over-simplifications and pure stereotype, just like any derogatory joke.  Polish jokes, blonde jokes, priest & a rabbit jokes; all rely on the same basis as that article does.  Not saying it's bad, and there's always germs of truth in those sort of emulsifications of human nature, but I'd hesitate to categorize it as insightful social commentary. 

And as always, I'm out of my depth talking politics and class warfare with Otter.

[Gaumer]

Honestly?

It's a funny article because it's based on generalizations, over-simplifications and pure stereotype, just like any derogatory joke.  Polish jokes, blonde jokes, priest & a rabbit jokes; all rely on the same basis as that article does.  Not saying it's bad, and there's always germs of truth in those sort of emulsifications of human nature, but I'd hesitate to categorize it as insightful social commentary. 

And as always, I'm out of my depth talking politics and class warfare with Otter.

Agreed.

But I think that removing the politics and class warfare that have been unjustly attached to the movement is the best way to go about discussing the movement.

[Slappy]

Honestly?

It's a funny article because it's based on generalizations, over-simplifications and pure stereotype, just like any derogatory joke.  Polish jokes, blonde jokes, priest & a rabbit jokes; all rely on the same basis as that article does.  Not saying it's bad, and there's always germs of truth in those sort of emulsifications of human nature, but I'd hesitate to categorize it as insightful social commentary. 

And as always, I'm out of my depth talking politics and class warfare with Otter.

Agreed.

But I think that removing the politics and class warfare that have been unjustly attached to the movement is the best way to go about discussing the movement.

Unfortunately the movement is based upon class warfare.  There are others out there just as angry about the banks, etc... but have chosen a different means to combat it.  Another unfortunate fact(?) is that the crazies are hijacking a movement that largely can not run properly due to their rules of a meeting or lack there of.  They presently have so many ideas that they can  not ficus on one.  Kind of like Ed Wood.  There is the vision but no real way to get there.

[Gaumer]

I agree they need to get their shit together but, as I believe Otter has pointed out, if you don't wade in slow you have a danger of becoming the very thing you started out protesting against.

But hijackings from all sides are going to continue to be attempted as long as there's no solidifying voice.

Its a puzzle.

[Otter Disaster]

Don't think there are those who want to rule over their lessers in OWS?  Don't think there are some who see others as 'useful idiots'? It may be satire, but man it"s effective in exposing the hypocrisy among those who want to run the show:

http://bit.ly/uUt3NR

Here's a CNN interview from a powerful Occupy supporter:

http://cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/us/2011/11/16/nr-intv-van-jones-ows.cnn.html

Van Jones, the former Green Jobs Czar for the Obama administration, and currently a senior fellow at the Center For American Progress is an ardent support of the movement (but certainly not a 'leader').  I quote, 'We are going to be recruiting 2000 candidates to run for office now under this 99% banner'. Who is doing the recruiting?  I thought it was 'leaderless' and bottom up?  Of course it isn't, and it never has been, although Van Jones reasserts this fantasy for the benefit of 'the movement'.  Jones, while far more articulate than the useful idiots in the Comedy Central piece asserts that it isn't leaderless, it's 'leaderful'. This is condescension of course.  When these 'volunteers' run, it will be Jones and other Democrat apparatchiks who help them run their campaigns, give them their talking points, and ultimately introduce them to the connected donors who will then own their votes. Movement neutralized and mostly co-opted. See the Tea Party movement. Given recent public perception of the movement, I don't see it doing all that well electorally if it uses the 99% 'branding' but you never know. Pundits and candidates (even old-school party faithful Republicans) drastically underestimated the political power of the Tea Party, but the 2010 midterm elections proved that movement had legs.  We'll see.

[Gaumer]

Don't think there are those who want to rule over their lessers in OWS?  Don't think there are some who see others as 'useful idiots'? It may be satire, but man it"s effective in exposing the hypocrisy among those who want to run the show:

http://bit.ly/uUt3NR

Here's a CNN interview from a powerful Occupy supporter:

http://cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/us/2011/11/16/nr-intv-van-jones-ows.cnn.html

Van Jones, the former Green Jobs Czar for the Obama administration, and currently a senior fellow at the Center For American Progress is an ardent support of the movement (but certainly not a 'leader').  I quote, 'We are going to be recruiting 2000 candidates to run for office now under this 99% banner'. Who is doing the recruiting?  I thought it was 'leaderless' and bottom up?  Of course it isn't, and it never has been, although Van Jones reasserts this fantasy for the benefit of 'the movement'.  Jones, while far more articulate than the useful idiots in the Comedy Central piece asserts that it isn't leaderless, it's 'leaderful'. This is condescension of course.  When these 'volunteers' run, it will be Jones and other Democrat apparatchiks who help them run their campaigns, give them their talking points, and ultimately introduce them to the connected donors who will then own their votes. Movement neutralized and mostly co-opted. See the Tea Party movement. Given recent public perception of the movement, I don't see it doing all that well electorally if it uses the 99% 'branding' but you never know. Pundits and candidates (even old-school party faithful Republicans) drastically underestimated the political power of the Tea Party, but the 2010 midterm elections proved that movement had legs.  We'll see.

I agree they need to get their shit together but, as I believe Otter has pointed out, if you don't wade in slow you have a danger of becoming the very thing you started out protesting against.

But hijackings from all sides are going to continue to be attempted as long as there's no solidifying voice.

Its a puzzle.

But if the message of any movement is simply hijacked and politicized by the same old same old who just want to roll it into the same old same old, how the hell is anything supposed to change for the better?

Taking the historical context and evidence that leads to this pessimistic view, however exactly right on it may be, makes me sad. Its like giving up on pushing change because I'm too smart and know its going to fail miserably and do more harm than good. Of course, supporting it in spite of knowing that is sort of fooling yourself...

And as always, I'm out of my depth talking politics and class warfare with Otter.