[gatlin]

There is a massive area between the two extremes, and I will assume you are putting me at one of them. This means I failed to communicate.

If my food, entertainment, services, and small expenditures are predominantly local and my money is in a credit union I and my community have control over, then 1) I haven't gone "back to the land" but simply back to my home, and 2) that is money not going to any of the companies legislating their own irresponsible bailouts.

Supporting strong local organizations owned and directed by local members can and absolutely would stymie Wall Street and corporate socialism.

[OpieCunningham]

You stated a "real solution" was what I summarized as "back to the land", including dropping wireless contracts. That says to me you view other solutions as not real. That's an indication, not explicit certainly, that at some level you believe there are only 2 extremes available, as I described.

Another solution is to demonstrate displeasure with the operation of government and methods of corporate interests. Engage enough citizens and sustain that demonstration. At some critical mass of both energy (people) and time, politicians will begin to notice and adjust their implementation of governance.

This is a known good solution. See: civil rights protests in the 1960's as just one example.

[gatlin]

I explained in my reply that my solution is a fairly middle-ground endeavor: if you can avoid giving your money to The Problem, then do so. Notice I didn't say radically change your life.

The Civil Rights movement was monumental but it didn't eradicate racism, the strong correlation between race and class, the achievement gap, or any number of equity issues. It caused us to shift what we consider to be normal and acceptable. Another component was people ditching the prejudices of their forefathers and doing something differently than before. Protest was complemented by action, which has been slowly changing the dynamics I described.

Our exchange has helped me realize that I should frame my solution as a complement to the protests. Protests, by themselves, can be ignored, spun, and crushed under rubber soles. Action in the form of starving the machine you're protesting against complements this and shows that you are listening. It combines the "We're mad as hell" with the "we're not going to take it anymore."

OWS is definitely galvanizing us to come up with a solution, but I don't think it is one on its own.

[OpieCunningham]

The Civil Rights movement was monumental but it didn't eradicate racism

No. But it did lead to the government creating laws and regulations called the Civil Rights Act, which enforced desegregation and more. A dramatically major step towards adjusting society to address the existing problem.

Considering effectively zero laws and regulations of merit have been implemented since 2008 in regards to the out of control behavior on Wall St, a comparative measure to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 seems to be in order. You're not going to get one by canceling you AT&T wireless plan and growing vegetables in your back yard.

Of course, I don't mean to imply that the things you're doing aren't positive. Certainly they are. My point is simply that OWS is significantly more powerful in nature.

[gatlin]

You have been very respectful, and I appreciate that, but on one hand you build up OWS and on the other reduce my solution to "cancel AT&T and grow vegetables." I believe that you could have more charitably summarized it as "stop giving money to these companies." One way to do it is to patronize locally owned alternatives and starve them. There are others, as well.

I could cut down OWS pretty harshly, too, but I do see its merit. It's one side of the Protest & Act coin. I would prefer people do both, not just complain loudly.

The Civil Rights act, fwiw, didn't solve any of the race-related problems I identified either. It was the perspective shift that protesting brought, and it opened doors. OWS might result in tighter regulations and laws which formally denigrate or outright restrict the kind of business which led to these problems in the first place but that only stops those who care about the law or are careless in their chicanery.

It does not resolve more fundamental issues: how did these people get this much power? How do we disrupt the cycle of people getting rich and using their wealth to keep others down? How do we keep people informed about complex financial risks? How do we bolster local economies? How do we get control of the institutions which have so much control over our lives?

OWS will not solve any of those things. It has successfully raised awareness but now we have to put our money where our mouths are.

[OpieCunningham]

OWS will not solve any of those things.

I'd loosely categorize "those things" as greed. Nothing will solve greed just as nothing will solve racism. Government regulation is uniquely able to diminish the negative consequences of both greed and racism. The fact that government regulation is not able to eliminate greed and regulation is in no way a knock against government regulation. OWS is the most powerful method available to instigate government regulation.

BTW, I'm using examples of your philosophy to demonstrate the inherent limitations of it, in comparison to mass protestation. Boycotts are primarily effective on a local scale, not a national scale. If your intent is to stop a mom & pop from some ill behavior, a boycott is more effective than staging a sit-in outside their place of business. I can think of no national boycott that has instigated as much change as the civil rights protests of the 60's or the suffrage movement in the late 19th/early 20th centuries.