Occupy without encampments? I don’t think so.

I share Robert Reich’s opinion of the corporate kingpins who are trying to drive a stake through the ailing heart of our democracy:

A funny thing happened to the First Amendment on its way to the public forum. According to the Supreme Court, money is now speech and corporations are now people. But when real people without money assemble to express their dissatisfaction with the political consequences of this, they’re treated as public nuisances and evicted…

However, Reich’s suggestion for undoing the harm done by Michael Bloomberg, the Koch brothers and other corporatists sounds hazy at best:

… If Occupiers are expelled from specific geographic locations the Occupier movement can shift to broad-based organizing around the simple idea at the core of the movement: It’s time to occupy our democracy.

It would be a big mistake to give up on the encampments around the country that have made the Occupy movement a genuine force for change.

More here.

2 thoughts on “Occupy without encampments? I don’t think so.

  1. I’m reading Orwell about his broke days in Paris and London. He noted that in Paris at least one could sit down without being arrested, but not in the UK. In London, even back then, there were fines if one loitered too long on a park bench.

  2. I’m in favor of the Occupiers putting their energy into tactics that demonstrate to average people that the Occupiers are advocating for them. There’s a lot that can be done in the neighborhoods, in front of banks, grocery stores, retail stores, etc.

    That doesn’t mean they have to quit the encampments. If anything, there should be MORE encampments, just spread out more.

Comments are closed.