Congrats, Occupiers -- You ARE the 1%!

[JihadJane]

OWS had its moment, and squandered it, I'm afraid. They've come to stigmatize the positions they had hoped to popularize.

Maybe in your head. Not in mine and not in many other people's heads either.

Social stigma is a subjective thing, often related to prejudice.

 

[Piggy]

I have two major disagreements with your analysis in this thread, Piggy. First, that the Tea Party was just some random people who got together because they shared a common view and the Tea Party arose organically out of that. The Tea Party was anything but spontaneous. It had major funding from FreedomWorks. And not just funding; this is the wiki summary paragraph:

All of those skills and resources were behind the Tea Party from the get go.

Second, the Tea Party had outsized media coverage that magnified their actual numbers and impact. Remember one of the days when there were rallies around the USA. Fox had the stars and coverage at many of them and promoted the events for WEEKS ahead of time. There were similar rallies by opposing groups that had larger numbers but virtually no coverage.

What is OWS to learn from this? Be astroturf? Find a sugar daddy? Have a major cable channel in your back pocket?

But I do agree with you in one area. They made the mistake of letting their protest take a back seat to just occupying. IOW, occupying became the goal, not changing the corrupt political system that originally was the coalescing factor.

The TP started as grass-roots, but were quickly co-opted. Or, from another point of view, they quickly attracted supporters with money and influence.

Should the Occupiers try to do the same?

YES!

Of course they should.

That's how they get influence, get people in office, get heard and have their ideas acted on.

If they continue to refuse any sort of organization or leadership or connection with folks in positions of power, if they continue to think that street theater and arrests and being annoying to everyone else in their cities is the answer, then they're going nowhere but out.

If they had played their cards right, they could have had Bloomberg meeting with them, not tossing their tents into dumpsters.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Two things:

1. The 99% hasn't been protesting.
2. The folks who have been protesting, have been successful at getting the media to pay attention to them. THEM, not their issues. They seem to be fine with that.

This.

I sometimes think they actually believe they speak for the 99%. I have a feeling they will get a wake up call next November.

 

[JihadJane]

The TP started as grass-roots, but were quickly co-opted. Or, from another point of view, they quickly attracted supporters with money and influence.

Should the Occupiers try to do the same?

YES!

Of course they should.

That's how they get influence, get people in office, get heard and have their ideas acted on.

If they continue to refuse any sort of organization or leadership or connection with folks in positions of power, if they continue to think that street theater and arrests and being annoying to everyone else in their cities is the answer, then they're going nowhere but out.

They don't think this. You do.

If they had played their cards right, they could have had Bloomberg meeting with them, not tossing their tents into dumpsters.

You are very confident with your advice. How much experience do you have participating in direct political action?

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

So they'll remain relevant for at least for 2 more weeks while you're still paying attention.

I suppose laughing at = paying attention. I also laugh at Beavis & Butthead cartoons and Three Stooges shorts. I suspect the Occutards would prefer not to be laughed at.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

That might explain the confusion. It's just a figure of speech. They don't mean literally that they are 99% of the population (clearly 99% of the population wouldn't fit in the parks where they're protesting).

"We are the 99%" just means that they're members of the 99% of the population that aren't the "super-rich."

-Bri

No. They presume to speak for the 99%. They don't.

 

[Bri]

In that case I will concede this point.

My point about not wanting to contribute to the solution still stands though.

I disagree that they don't want to contribute to a solution. I think they have offered a lot of solutions. I'm not sure that a group that size could (or even should) attempt to come up with a single set of solutions or demands.

It's more likely that the best solutions will naturally rise to the top, and a significant number of the protestors will then get behind those solutions and eventually (if they're successful) behind political candidates who support those solutions.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

I suppose laughing at = paying attention. I also laugh at Beavis & Butthead cartoons and Three Stooges shorts. I suspect the Occutards would prefer not to be laughed at.

If you're insinuating that everyone is laughing at them, I suspect you're wrong. I suspect that you're saying that you're laughing at them in order to diminish them. Ironically, that means that you feel that they need to be diminished.

No. They presume to speak for the 99%. They don't.

I don't think that claiming to be members of the 99% is the same thing as presuming to speak for all members of the 99%. "We are the 99%" is not the same thing as "We speak for the 99%."

-Bri

 

[JihadJane]

I disagree that they don't want to contribute to a solution. I think they have offered a lot of solutions. I'm not sure that a group that size could (or even should) attempt to come up with a single set of solutions or demands.

It's more likely that the best solutions will naturally rise to the top, and a significant number of the protestors will then get behind those solutions and eventually (if they're successful) behind political candidates who support those solutions.

-Bri

If they work within the political system how will they overcome its inherent corruption?

 

[Bri]

If they work within the political system how will they overcome its inherent corruption?

Are you suggesting that they should take up arms against the government?

-Bri

 

[GreyArea]

The biggest problem here is that there is no true "public space." It's all owned by someone with an interest for keeping you out.

One possibility is that a subset of the protestors (or maybe multiple subsets) will come up with what they view as viable solutions.

Are there any currently-existing public spaces where OWS people can meet for the long, slow process of horizontally developing solutions? In person, on a regular basis?

There may be a way to have a thousand "break-out" sessions for just this issue, but in what kinds of spaces?

Primaries are coming up very shortly and people really need to turn out for them to make a difference on the parties nominate.

Or maybe a significant number of them will back the political party that they feel is most likely to come up with a solution and may affect voting for certain candidates...

There are no social-democratic parties in the United States.

...in a similar way that the Tea Party did.

The Koch/Armey Party were already just a subset of the Republicans, so they had a natural "fit".

On the other hand, the OWS people may have some Democrats among them, but (1) many others have no party to call "home" in the U.S., and (2) the Democratic Party has no interest in listening to any solutions the OWS may propose. As we have seen with health insurance reform, if the Democratic Party even thought about even mild social-democratic policies, they would be in for another round of demonization, and in an election year. It's amazing how one hundred years of social engineering can create a population that jumps at the "socialist" epithet.

Or maybe one party will simply start campaigning on solutions and will attract enough of the 99% to win elections.

There are too many obstacles to setting up a successful third party. The chief obstacle is, in my opinion, the electoral system itself as it currently exists. But that's probably a discussion for another thread.

 

[JihadJane]

Are you suggesting that they should take up arms against the government?

-Bri

No, but the hierarchical structure of traditional politics is antithetical to the OWS vision.

A more profound revolution may be required. The tooled-up, violent nature of the US State (as demonstrated even against unarmed, non-violent protestors) would seem to rule out using arms as a revolutionary tool (unless, of course NATO decides to impose a "No Fly Zone" on the country ). One of the main strengths of OWS is its commitment to non-violence.

 

[Bri]

The Koch/Armey Party were already just a subset of the Republicans, so they had a natural "fit".

Oh, I think many Democrats sympathize with the protestors, but they (wisely) want to see where it's going to go before they come out publicly. BTW, the same thing occurred with the Tea Party -- few mainstream politicians came out in full support of the Tea Partiers at first.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

No, but the hierarchical structure of traditional politics is antithetical to the OWS vision.

A more profound revolution may be required. The tooled-up, violent nature of the US State (as demonstrated even against unarmed, non-violent protestors) would seem to rule out using arms as a revolutionary tool (unless, of course NATO decides to impose a "No Fly Zone" on the country ).

I disagree with you. I think the only way for them to affect change is to (eventually) do so within the political system.

One of the main strengths of OWS is its commitment to non-violence.

This part I agree with. They should also try to be more cooperative about allowing the park to be cleaned, etc. (not all of them are uncooperative, but some of them are and those are the ones that tend to make the news).

-Bri

 

[BenBurch]

Sure, but never before have the top 1% owned 40% of the wealth in the country. ...

Well, I think the Tudors and their adversaries did. But we decided that we didn't want nobility when we founded this country.

 

[JihadJane]

I disagree with you. I think the only way for them to affect change is to (eventually) do so within the political system.

That depends of how large the movement becomes. In turn, this probably depends mostly on the state of the economy and the speed of its disintegration into deeper and deeper crisis.

The current political system has become rigged to serve only the interests of the people with the most money.

This part I agree with. They should also try not to be more cooperative (not all of them are uncooperative, but some of them are and those are the ones that tend to make the news).

-Bri

I'm assuming that you talking about cooperating with a policy of non-violence? The movement attempts to self-police but only with partial success. There are plenty of angry people around, with justified grudges against the police, and violent conflict creates its own momentum.

Additionally, it is likely that a number of the uncooperative ones will be State-employed provocateurs. It is in the interests of the State machine to provoke as much violence as possible in order to discredit the movement and justify harsher repression.

Historically, though, violent police attacks have tended to strengthen non-violent protest movements in the US.

Well, I think the Tudors and their adversaries did. But we decided that we didn't want nobility when we founded this country.

Never mind. They were bound to make a comeback in the end!

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

If you're insinuating that everyone is laughing at them, I suspect you're wrong. I suspect that you're saying that you're laughing at them in order to diminish them. Ironically, that means that you feel that they need to be diminished.

No, I'm laughing at them because they are stupid.

I don't think that claiming to be members of the 99% is the same thing as presuming to speak for all members of the 99%. "We are the 99%" is not the same thing as "We speak for the 99%."

-Bri

You should tell them that.

 

[Bri]

No, I'm laughing at them because they are stupid.

If you say so.

You should tell them that.

I think it goes without saying that nobody speaks for anyone but him- or herself. Do you have evidence that a significant number of the protestors presume to speak for nearly all other Americans?

-Bri

 

[timhau]

I don't think that claiming to be members of the 99% is the same thing as presuming to speak for all members of the 99%. "We are the 99%" is not the same thing as "We speak for the 99%."

But why aren't they saying "We are part of the 99%" or "We belong to the 99%" instead of "We are the 99%"? Why the "This is what democracy looks like" shouting matches?

 

[Neally]

If they work within the political system how will they overcome its inherent corruption?

Any system will have a degree of corruption. That doesn't prevent a group from advancing and getting their agenda into law. The Tea Party did it.