Monday, November 7, 2011

Meet the radical group handling OWS finances

Folks here (rightfully) objected to implications that a group's endorsement of the OWS protests means the protesters themselves support that group (e.g. the American Nazi Party, Hezbollah, the government of North Korea, all of whom have endorsed OWS).

But OWS leadership has hired - i.e. proactively reached out to - a group called the Alliance for Global Justice to handle the organization's charitable donations. That does represent an affirmative endorsement of an ideology. It just so happens that the AFGJ: encourages soldiers to desert, partners with the Revolutionary Communist Party, and supports South American Marxists.

Not exactly representative of "the 99%."


Will Rusche said...

Obviously Occupy Wall Street doesn't represent 99% of the country politically - that slogan is in reference to the economic conditions they say they represent.

Furthermore, I don't see any hypocrisy with the AFGJ being used. It has ties to several far left organizations but it seems the things these groups stand for (ending the wars, stopping the bush doctrine, working towards economic equality) are all things OWS supports as a whole... this is opposed to anti semitism for example, which is not widely reflected.

Correct me if I'm wrong

Lachlan said...

It's not hypocritical at all. It's just an indicator of where the movement's leaders stand politically - namely, waaaaaay to the left of the average American.

Lachlan said...

I'll add: yes, Americans support ending wars. I'd wager they don't support troops going AWOL en masse. They support income inequality, but they don't support mass income redistribution and nationalization of key industries. The Alliance clearly does support those things.

Will Rusche said...

Again, the "99%" refers to economic status.

If OWS or any other movement represented the 99% of a population on all political matters, there wouldn't be a need for said movement.

Beau said...

@Will: In saying "we are the 99%" many in the OWS movement claim to be representing a large portion of Americans(economically).

But many of these Americans disagree with the movement and its radical ties entirely, which is what the article points out.

Lachlan said...

The point of the post is that this is a fringe political movement, as evinced by the fact that it has enlisted the services of a fringe political group.

Will Rusche said...

and what i'm saying is of course the movement's politics don't align with the full 99%. When people are in the streets, it's not because of widespread consensus.

This article, in pointing out the way OWS deviates from the majority, is doing little besides giving the reasons why social movements come into existence in the first place. That is until it begins making the case through implying that OWS is on a far-flung fringe with its connections to Communist Revolutionaries. This is where i take issue because the problem with this analysis is that if OWS was so at odds with mainstream america, why has it survived?

To pose a question, would percentage do you think OWS would be better to advertise itself as representing?

Lachlan said...

"if OWS was so at odds with mainstream america, why has it survived?"

Just a guess: because protesters refuse to leave.

TJE said...

WR, I pass along without comment or endorsement one answer to your question: