I walked through the Occupy Portland encampment before it was broken up....
Admittedly my visit was 5 weeks in, but all I saw was people high on junk and some kids trying to look tough while they hacky-sacked. I'm a pretty approachable guy, but no one came up to me with a message at all. Disapointing at best. Last week Andy and I visted NYC and saw the Occupy Wallstreet encampment. We were struck by how small it was compared to the sprawling tent complex that had taken root in Portland, and we were impressed with the sheer volume of the drumming one evening. They had crash cymbals and everything. Pretty cool. At least there were some people shouting something at us there, although I can't honestly say I remember what it was.
Matt Taibbi wrote an article in Rolling Stone recently about how he came to grips with the purpose of Occupy recently. To paraphrase - it's not about a single cause it's simply about wanting something different. These kids recognize that the mindless consumerism of our age is unrewarding and they're hungry for something more meaningful. He posits that the times of being able to start your own sub-culture like the Shakers or Mormons has passed and we're all mindless zombies that can't say no to French Fries and the Kardashians. I think that's nonsense. There's plenty of artists, philosophers, entrepreneurs and the like who are doing their own thing these days, and I don't think it was easy for the Shakers either.
I can sympathize with the frustrations of watching a bunch of junkies and trust fund kids mess things up for no reason, but that's certainly not how the Occupy movement started. Nothing/no-one is perfect. The underlying point of income inequality is a very real issue that deserves far more attention than it got before the occupy movement. These guys are out there in the rain screaming their heads off. As a culture of renegades we owe it to them to turn off the reality TV and give their best intentions the benefit of the doubt for just a moment.
Just to be clear, it's not really the responsibility of protesters to have a better plan. I know that'd be awesome, but the baby boomers didn't know HOW to end the Vietnam war, they just knew it should end. The women who led the suffrage movement at the turn of the century didn't know WHAT women would vote for, they just felt that women should be allowed to vote. Our great founders didn't actually have a plan for a new government when they threw out the British, they just knew that that taxation without representation was wrong. Protesting is an emotional thing, always has been - always will be. It's actually the responsibility of the 1% with all their power and wealth to come up with the bright solutions, seeing as they will always benefit the most.
Giving these kids a hard time because they haven't figured out better answers misses the point. We should be talking about why the poor have only seen a 18% income increase since 1979 while the top 1% have seen a 275% income increase. Regardless of your political leanings, that should make you take pause. That's what we should be talking about, don't you think?
Comments:
As far as the income gap… Don't forget that those evil top 1% (people who make over 340K a year) pay over one third (34.27%) of the taxes in this country as well as create jobs and invest in our economy. They are the ones who buy websites from me and feed my family.
I was in that poor class throughout most of my twenties making ~10K a year. Now that I am older I make a lot more than that. Hard work got me where I am today.
Second, I did not see any reference above to the "evil" top 1%, just to the fact that wealth has steadily accumulated to them in a way that about 2/3 of the country is started to feel is not justified — certainly not by any definition of "hard work" that the average lower- or middle-class person would recognize. The better adjective to use in describing that has happened here is "amoral." Look it up — it applies to both corporations and sharks.
Third, the implication that the 1% isn't paying enough taxes is debatable: Fairness in taxation is better defined as a percent of one's disposable income after basic living expenses, not one's gross, and commentary by conservatives is often based on the assumption that sales taxes, gas taxes and municipal fees do not exist.
Finally, the 1% DO NOT CREATE JOBS. Demand creates jobs. Period. Any busy yard services provider who needs someone to run a leaf blower creates a job. The 1% look for profit-making opportunities in funding less well-funded business people who need money for their businesses. There's nothing wrong with that, except that as was proven after the Bush tax cuts, if there's a better opportunity in Singapore, that's where their money goes.
Hurrah, sir.
However, I must beg to differ about corporations (not sharks) being purely "amoral." While there is certainly and quite obviously lots of truth to that (in short, I see and even agree with much of your point there), nevertheless, much that has been labeled "evil" in our times, the recent past and back, might also have been seen as amoral (by…well…certain people). For example, if an American cola company in Africa sees an opportunity to acquire water rights and thus make money selling that water, it is, in fact, its duty, I believe, to do so--according to its own legal obligations--i.e., to make money for its shareholders/investors. If, in the pursuit of this purely seemingly rational and amoral objective this particular mega-corporation needs to procure the services of private paramilitary units to cordon off the water supplies and, if necessary, harm or even kill the locals who don't want their drinking water owned by outsiders, well, from their, the locals’ point of view, my guess is the cola corp's actions wouldn't be exactly A-moral. Living in brutal and brutalizing conditions, while often a seemingly merely incidental consequence of corporate conduct (i.e., conduct not intending to hurt others as the goal, but, instead, merely to benefit shareholders), is not exactly an "amoral," if you will, experience. Your kid's bloated belly, malnutrition, HIV, malaria, tuberculosis, hepatitis, starvation, and shrunken head and bloated, popping eyes might prompt one, if a mother for example, to feel that perhaps there is at least An element of some moral issue involved. No?
Thank you sir.
Kind regards--.
I think part of what this movement is demanding is for everyone to play by the same rules and pay their fair share. As well, there exists such an income disparity that people can no longer afford what we used to, hence a stagnating economy. It's not for lack of hard work that people are not able to get ahead, it's for low compensation and poor education. There are anecdotal stories like Crush's that prove this wrong, but those are the exception, not the rule; it's basic statistics.
In order to get us out of this boom and bust mess the imbalance must be fixed, or we will continue our decline as a nation.
Thanks for the thoughtful post Franz.
Since I'm new to Concrete 5 and just started my project, Occupymao, I thought I would jump in here and say a few words.
My journey to Concrete 5 and Occupymao.com started about a year ago with Jon Stewart's and Stephen Colbert's Rally to Restore Sanity (and or fear). I was well taken with the idea that I created a web site called Rallymao.com where I collected all the cities that were holding a satellite rally to coincide with the main rally in D.C.. I got to know a number of people around the U.S. and after the rally was over, many of us wanted to try and do something to keep the idea going and start a movement. Starting a political movement or political association of some kind is very hard to do for various reasons. And money is probably not as high on the list of things to do as you would think. A few attempts were made and they failed for various reasons.
The last attempt failed not to long ago, right before the Occupy wall street thing came about. I was interested and found a facebook group of Occupy supporters in my state. They were a mixed bag. Some Ron Paul evangelists, some conspiracy theorists, and some who were angry and wanting change. I wasn't impressed. In fact, I became fairly opposed to the whole idea. OWS did a terrible job of managing the image and message. I think this was intentional however. I do believe the idea attracted a lot of people who motivations could be questioned. It was New York City, for crying out loud. I don't have anything against NYC. It's just that NYC has every type of person imaginable in large numbers.
I have been a republican for most of my adult life. But, during the late 90's, that started to change. I wouldn't say that I left the republican party. I would say the republican party left me. I won't go on about what I believe, except to say that I believe we in the U.S. are at a turning point in history.
I had a helper with rallymao.com, and she asked me a few days ago about doing occupymao.com. I was kind of iffy on it at first. But then I thought I wanted to do something. Sure, there maybe young people who want to have their own Arab Spring here in the U.S.. There maybe some who want to live what there own 60's experience. And there will be loons. But, there are large numbers of people across America drawn to Occupy who feel that things aren't right and current politics is not making things better.
So, I decided to join the fray in the way I know how. And if I can help shape the discussion and help drive the search for reasonable solutions, then that's what I'll do. When you get down to it, our problems will not be solved by style or image or beliefs. It is what we accept as a solution. Occupy is creating debate, and that's good for finding the solutions we will accept.
It' so sad when otherwise intelligent people (I mean, they founded C5, right) speak when they should think. The ONE piece of data you used to "support" your argument is deeply flawed - perhaps intentionally so. The data - run through NPR's liberal filter now less - is based on HOUSEHOLD or FAMILY income. Yes, it's down. Why, because of George Bush and Bernie Madoff? No, you idiots, it's down because HOUSEHOLD sizes are down. This is a classic ruse, mistating known facts, to redirect the argument. It works, almost everytime, and that's why people too lazy to look at the data themselves, like C5 founders, believe stupid things. PERSONAL INCOME IS UP!!!! You're welcome. Capitalism *works*! The lazy, shiftless, anarchist punks in Zucotti Park should give it a try.
Facts are wonderful things. Let's get to know them a little better.
