Forums:
I've noticed that some of us are getting hung up on the term "99%," suggesting its use as a basis for consensus, or as a justification to keep the direction of the movement vague to the point of impotence.
Of course I speak for myself in this opinion, but I don't think it's logical to obey the thematic identity of the group when determining policy. The term "99%" refers to an income bracket which encompasses the majority within this country, and many others (likely with some variation in the actual wages involved). One perspective supposes that we can unite 99% of the population on the key issue(s) which concern its economic status, and oppression -- direct and not -- by the 1%. As such, some have been careful to avoid alienating anyone of any political or ideological stripe, in the hope of winning their support.
I'd argue that this is grossly impractical. In terms of the social ideological spectrum alone, it's difficult to imagine many conservatives wouldn't feel alienated by the atmosphere within occupied sites. The very liberal can get along with anyone for the most part, but there are social conservatives who would blanche at the very presence of people representing different beliefs and lifestyles. Further, in economic terms, I'll start by offering this statistic: 20% of Americans expect to become millionaires in the near future. Even in this economic climate, there are segments of our class which identify with, and thus act in the interests of, the 1%. The only way to win these people over would be to negate the very core of the movement's message.
There is no reasonable amount of dilution which can truly win a 99% majority. It's true that we have the support, or at least tolerance, or 70-80% of Americans in general, but there is simply no way, short of misleading people by presenting the movement as a totally blank slate, to convince absolutely every one of our economic peers. Realistically, there is a particular mindset which lends itself to demanding justice, and not everyone possesses it.
The significance of the "99%" term encompasses a class which concerns those of us involved in this movement. That isn't to say we require or demand their support when acting on what we believe to be their behalf, pushing for things we consider in their best interests, in safeguarding them from the exploitation and terrorism of corporations and corrupt government. It's not our intent to control or forcibly persuade them of anything. Rather we want to lighten their hardships along with our own, and remove the many obstacles to success which have been deliberately implemented over the past several decades. What they do from there is their choice (as is what we do ourselves).
I ask that this might be considered when deciding whether to dilute or abandon support for an idea for fear that it will alienate someone. The sad fact is that some of the 99% will be alienated by justice itself.
I think it would alienate more people to drop 99%
Submitted by Fex on
The more general we keep it, the better. It worked to start this movement, it's pretty much what this entire movement is about, I see no reason to remove a fundamental basis and idea of the movement that has drawn many together around the world.
"it's difficult to imagine many conservatives wouldn't feel alienated by the atmosphere within occupied sites" - read up on the forums and alternate news about each of the sites, there's people of all stripes yes even uber conservatives. Here's a lil' one from Boston: http://www.boston.com/Boston/metrodesk/2011/10/governor-drops-occupy-bos...
Boston governor stopped by Occupy and remarks: "“There are people here representing the hard left, the hard right, and everything in between,” the governor said."
If we truly want this movement to grow here in LA, I'd suggest reaching out to both the left and the right, indeed ignore the ideas of left and right and simply reach out to all.
If we concentrate on the broad issues and especially the deep common issues in our broken system, I think we'll be fine.
We don't need to be partisan, at all. We do need our political and economic system to be fixed. If we concentrate on taking the world back from the 1%, getting money out of politics, ending corporate personhood, etc all these great fantastic ideas that either cross political boundaries or ignore political boundaries- then we're pretty much set.
Once we have a democracy of, by, and for the people then this movement will have done it's job, we can go back to being partisan (if that's what one wants to do) when our votes in the system will actually matter.
This is friggin' Los Angeles. We're one of the most diversified cities in the world and we get along pretty well day to day and I for one love that about this city. The partisan issues are BS to me that bog down the end goal. And c'mon, we gonna let the East-side show us up? ;)
Stick by our original guns. They work. They're powerful.
"Word following word- I wrought words. Deed following deed, I wrought deeds." - The Havamal
I didn't say anything about
Submitted by cryptomnesiac on
I didn't say anything about partisanship. We're more or less in agreement that the original idea is good, but again it's too vague to be applicable to anything. Eventually, any clear move in any direction will affirm the support of some, and the rejection of others. That is inevitable. The majority of the general population supports the movement, but even in a place like NY, the opinion is split with regard to conservatives. There are going to be people who are inherently offended by some of the people there, and those that are specifically opposed even to the principle that the 99% have legitimate grievances. And yes, I'm saying some of the 99% -- the bootstrap conservatives -- will fall into that category.
If we try to appeal to them we whittle away the original convictions. So I say the 99% number is ultimately symbolic, and not an actual representation of support. That may change, but for now polarization exists on contentions that many of us find obvious (e.g. that we've been defrauded by banks).
Mike C.
Buffalo Beast - Twitter - Facebook
I think that needlessly divides us
Submitted by Fex on
However, there are still conservatives who are a part of the movement in many cities. Again sticking to our original ideas is not dividing us. They brought us together in the first place. I see no reason to divide over conservative/liberal. I disagree that our movement is inherently more liberal. Many conservatives I've talked to when presented with the basic broad issues that started the movement tend to agree with the movement.
We'd simply be isolating ourselves, excluding others, and weakening ourselves. I don't think we should try to appeal to one "side" or another, I don't think we should try to appeal to "liberals" or "conservatives." We simply do what we have been doing and appeal to *people.* Part of that is learning to live with one another and respect one another, least long enough to do this process, and we can.
Sure, sometimes people will need to remeember to tell a joke, cool off, vent, etc. Hell corporations proved that people of all races and religions can work together in the same organization. If corporations can get people of all sorts working for them and it doesn't impede work, we sure as hell can work together as people and free ourselves of their power- our freedom is more incentive to work together than the simple wage-slave-sheeple the 1% has to offer.
"Word following word- I wrought words. Deed following deed, I wrought deeds." - The Havamal
I don't feel like we're
Submitted by cryptomnesiac on
I don't feel like we're communicating here.
I'll repeat my statement, which may not even address what you're referring to (since I don't think you're addressing what I'm referring to), but was nevertheless my original point:
There are people nominally belonging to the 99% category (though not the movement) that will be specifically against the most basic positions of the movement. There are people who don't believe anything has gone wrong with the economy that building a border fence and telling young people to "get a job" won't fix. There are people who think the bankers are just "clever" and don't need to be prosecuted for fraud.
And again, my reason for bringing this point up was that I don't want people to get obsessed with the symbolism and sanctify the number itself as the thematic basis for any policy decisions. Concepts like a 99% consensus are ultimately still based upon an arbitrary number. It should be whatever number is practical; that achieves a balance between democracy and expediency.
Mike C.
Buffalo Beast - Twitter - Facebook
Pages