The Spirit Of Occupy
21/3/14 19:49![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
enders-shadow.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsThe fact that "we are the 99%" was a rally cry is an interesting thing to examine. Not only does it, in itself, exclude some people from their efforts, but it's also wrong [in one sense, and right in a different sense].
First things first, there are 1%ers who have the spirit of Occupy, who believe in the OWS message, and who remain 1%ers. It's not inherently bad to be at the top of something, where, inevitably, somebody will be on top. The question is what do you *do* once you have achieved alpha-male status (sorry ladies) Alpha status.
The second point is that OWS was not 99% of the people--not even in spirit. Beyond the bad 1%ers, there are also plenty of people economically in the 99% who are both physically and spiritually not with the movement. Some people don't think an estate tax is fair because they think it's double taxation. That's a view I understand, but I disagree that double-taxation is so bad. It happens with sales tax anyway, now doesn't it? Taxes need to be in place so that there is enough money to pay for the needs of the people. The needs of the people are high, so taxes aught be high--but only high where it makes sense.
It makes no sense to tax the same people that you are giving taxed money to. That's redundant duplicity for the sake of absurdity. People with millions of dollars dont need taxed money to be given to them, so tax them. People with 12K yearly income and 1 child, might just need some of that govt money. So give them some money *and* don't tax them.
Some people disagree about this. It's why the 99% did not actually congeal into one unstoppable mass. For 99% of the people would be just that.
Occupy branded better the idea of an occupation than the idea of unity. The idea of unity was woven in there, but divisions arise naturally among 5% of the people, let alone 99% of them. And while they were unified against Wall Street (and its many headed hydra-like guard dog, the political elites funded by them) that unification was insufficient given their other disagreements, over time.
The spirit of Occupy, however, is a spirit that fights for the economic protection of the 99%. That's why Wall Street was also part of the name. Not just the name, but the target. Why were people in the park? Because Wall Street was dicking them over, so they decided to make public their grievances. A practice protected by the first amendment. Remember, wall street employs the political puppets with campaign cash.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances
That right is a powerful one to exercise. More so, to do it, all day, all week.
Too serious for a friday? Have a funny cat gif [or three, cause zomg cats!]:
First things first, there are 1%ers who have the spirit of Occupy, who believe in the OWS message, and who remain 1%ers. It's not inherently bad to be at the top of something, where, inevitably, somebody will be on top. The question is what do you *do* once you have achieved alpha-male status (sorry ladies) Alpha status.
The second point is that OWS was not 99% of the people--not even in spirit. Beyond the bad 1%ers, there are also plenty of people economically in the 99% who are both physically and spiritually not with the movement. Some people don't think an estate tax is fair because they think it's double taxation. That's a view I understand, but I disagree that double-taxation is so bad. It happens with sales tax anyway, now doesn't it? Taxes need to be in place so that there is enough money to pay for the needs of the people. The needs of the people are high, so taxes aught be high--but only high where it makes sense.
It makes no sense to tax the same people that you are giving taxed money to. That's redundant duplicity for the sake of absurdity. People with millions of dollars dont need taxed money to be given to them, so tax them. People with 12K yearly income and 1 child, might just need some of that govt money. So give them some money *and* don't tax them.
Some people disagree about this. It's why the 99% did not actually congeal into one unstoppable mass. For 99% of the people would be just that.
Occupy branded better the idea of an occupation than the idea of unity. The idea of unity was woven in there, but divisions arise naturally among 5% of the people, let alone 99% of them. And while they were unified against Wall Street (and its many headed hydra-like guard dog, the political elites funded by them) that unification was insufficient given their other disagreements, over time.
The spirit of Occupy, however, is a spirit that fights for the economic protection of the 99%. That's why Wall Street was also part of the name. Not just the name, but the target. Why were people in the park? Because Wall Street was dicking them over, so they decided to make public their grievances. A practice protected by the first amendment. Remember, wall street employs the political puppets with campaign cash.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances
That right is a powerful one to exercise. More so, to do it, all day, all week.
Too serious for a friday? Have a funny cat gif [or three, cause zomg cats!]:
(no subject)
Date: 23/3/14 07:01 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 23/3/14 12:55 (UTC)There were also, in the crowds at Zuccotti, now and again, people raised with a silver spoon who recognized how unfair the advantages they got were.
I don't know how much money Zizek makes, but he sure turns out a lot of books....
Michael Moore, for whatever he's worth, showed up now and again.
Depending on how you look at the top 1%, you don't even need to be a millionaire. One stat I recall hearing was that at around 600,000/year you were in the top 1%. So maybe folks like Immortal Technique might make that much--Noam Chomsky supported us verbally (though I don't recall him attending any encampments)
There were other here-and-there rich-folk who like OWS and supported it. But they were rare, it's true.
(no subject)
Date: 23/3/14 16:46 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 23/3/14 16:57 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 23/3/14 19:32 (UTC)Triage dontchaknow.
(no subject)
Date: 25/3/14 01:06 (UTC)