[Cin]

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

Drew:

My reasons for being uncharacteristically quiet on this thread are covered pretty well in this post at HuffPo by the law professor Lawrence Lessig:

[begin his words]
Here's the fact about America: It takes an insanely large majority to make any fundamental change. You want Citizens United reversed, it is going to take 75% of states to do it. You want public funding of public elections? It's going to take 67 Senators to get it. You want to end the corruption that makes it impossible to get any of the things liberals push? It's going to take a broad based movement that cuts across factions, whether right (as in correct) or Right (as in not Left).

It's great to rally the 99%. It is a relief to have such a clear and powerful slogan. But explain this, because I'm a lawyer, and not so great with numbers: Gallup's latest poll finds 41% of Americans who call themselves "conservative." 36% call themselves "moderate." Liberals account for 21%. In a different poll, Gallup finds 30% of Americans who "support" the Tea Party.

So who exactly are we not allowed to work with, Dave? 30% of America? 41% of America? All but 21% of America? And when you exclude 30%, or 41%, or 79% of Americans, how exactly are you left with 99%?

Talk about wanting to have it "both ways"! How can you claim to speak for 99% but refuse to talk to 30%? (And just to be clear: the 30% of Americans who support the Tea Party are not the 1% "superrich." I checked. With a calculator.)

And finally as to one of the commentators on Dave's essay who finds me "poisonous," and said I said: "OWS needs to drop the 'We are the 99%' slogan because it might hurt the feelings of the rich." What I said was not that the movement should give up the slogan 99% because it offended. I said it should instead talk about the 99.95%. That's the percentage of Americans who did not max out in giving in the last Congressional election. That is the percentage that becomes invisible in the money-feeding-fest that is DC.

So if you really want to rally the 99%, you might begin by identifying those things that 99% might actually agree about. That the 30% of Americans who call themselves "supporters" of the Tea Party are racists is not a statement likely to garner the support of at least that 30%. (And again, as ABC found, it's not even true).

On the other hand, 99% of America should be perfectly willing to agree that a system in which the top 1% -- or better, .05% -- have more power to direct public policy than do the 99% or 99.95% is wrong. And must be changed. Before this nation can again call itself a democracy (for those on the Left) or a Republic (for those on the Right). This "Republic," by which the Framers meant a "representative democracy," by which they intended a body "dependent upon the People ALONE," is not.

That, too, must change. Meaning, in addition to all the things we Liberals want, we must change that as well. And my view is that if we changed that corruption first, we might actually find it a bit easier to get those other things too.

[end his words]
-----------------------

I am a Liberal but I'm a Liberal that does not believe I am living on 'occupied' land. I am living on land taken by conquest over a century ago but that cannot be changed and so to call America 'occupied' land is to make me a foreigner in my own country, the only country my family has known since at least the early 19th century. I've read a number of OWS statements that were decidedly anti-capitalist. Some of the stuff at People of Color Organize invokes the 'petty bourgeois' and speaks of destroying capitalism. This turns me off for two reasons.

As a college educated professional, I am the 'petty bourgeois' which has to be 'swept aside' in order for the poor and working-class to be free. Secondly, there is simply no way to have a *socialist* society without seriously restricting freedom and liberty. We can have social democracy but we cannot have socialism. I have also noted that skeptical or dissenting voices are written off not caring or being fine with the ways things are. I think that people of goodwill can disagree with certain rhetorical flourishes (presuming that the people using that rhetoric mean it) while still agreeing that the system is skewed toward the rich and that this creates injustice which leads to instability.

I don't want to create a socialist utopia because I know of no better way to create a dystopia than to try to create a utopia. I would argue that one of the causes of our current suffering is that the Right has been pursuing a libertarian utopia. I want to create a society where someone who is born into poverty can get an education, find themselves a job, work their way up a career ladder and perhaps retire as solidly middle-class. I want to *expand* the ranks of the 'petty bourgeois' not see them swept away.

Right now, I'm seeing the Left talk to the Left and only certain segments of the Left at that! I do not see anything that leads me to believe that people of the Right (of which I am not) are welcome nor have I heard or read anything here to make me believe that Liberals (as opposed to radicals) are at all welcome, that our voices would be heard, that our ideas would be given due consideration, or that our experiences would be considered at all worth listening to. I might be wrong but I've been reading this thread since the very beginning and I don't see a great deal that leads me to believe otherwise.

Lessig is right, we are the 99% is a great slogan. The problem is is that there isn't a concerted effort to bring most of that 99% into the fold.

Cheers
Aj

I doubt very much when people say they are the 99% that they believe they are actually the whole 99% but rather just a part. The part that is energized and seeking a way to wake up the rest of the 99%. I also haven’t heard there are people who the movement will not work with. But perhaps there are. What do I know. However, being a leaderless movement, or a movement in which everyone can lead, I can’t imagine one or two people can make a decision about who the movement can or cannot work with.

I think Dave Zirin is a bit of a self righteous prick and I think Lawrence Lessig is a bit of a dreamer. And I think Lessig has more of a problem with Zirin that he does with the Occupy movement itself. Especially given he spoke at Occupy Wall St and Occupy K St. Granted he does have a bit of a theme going –

“We should use the energy and anger of this extraordinary movement to find the common ground that would justify this revolution for all Americans, and not just us. And when we find that common ground, we should scream it, and yell it, and chant it, again, and again, and again.” Lawrence Lessig

Perhaps a themed Lessig is not exactly an over the top all out supporter, still, I can’t imagine any right minded person could really disagree with a theme of common ground that would justify this revolution for all Americans.

Well, maybe someone could disagree with his use of the word revolution. I think Mr. Lessig didn’t actually mean revolution. There is such a chasm between reform and revolution that a good many of the 99% would fall in trying to cross ideas from one side to the other.

Or maybe I am speaking for myself.

I know I stare at that chasm between reform and revolution and wonder. What side am I standing on? Although I seem able to make the leap back and forth it does leave me breathless. I have stood here or there it seems for as long as I can remember. But for some reason, at this particular time in history, I see something different. Another possibility.

But again I could be wrong. It might just be the same old. But I am a sucker for reform. And who wouldn’t be. The devil you know and all that. What could possibly be different with something new when it’s the same flawed human beings creating it. Why not fix what we have? But is that even possible?

Yet, I can’t help but hope.

Still, I have a hard time with movements and political parties. Historically political parties were often created or strengthened by siphoning off the revolutionary potential of various social movements from the streets to the voting booth. Political parties by their very nature acknowledge the authority of the state and the hierarchal structures of our society. Though they may seek to make changes to the aesthetics of our system, they do not challenge the system because they are very much a part of it. All they can do is treat the symptoms. They may spout rhetoric for the 99% but they represent the 1%.

So where do I stand. Reform or revolution. I guess I will just wait and see what transpires in the coming months and years. But in the mean time…

I don’t think Lessig’s idea of a united 99% is so much horseshit, as Zirin so foolishly claimed. I don’t know that the occupy movement will find allies in the tea party, but if they do that would be awesome. I do think they very well might find allies within the 99% who identify as republicans. And they will find them within the 99% who identify as democrats and independents and green and so on. I think most right-minded people see a big problem and get that there are bad times ahead for the 99%. I understand it will hit some of us harder than others. In the end though I’m not sure we will be able to tell the difference. The poor don’t have far to fall before they hit bottom, so maybe it won’t hurt so bad. Yet, the bottom is just that. The bottom. Squeezed dry, over and out. However, the poor don’t have much real opportunity to accumulate debt, the great equalizer. Debt will erase your class in a heartbeat. The rich don’t need debt and the poor can’t afford debt. Guess who that leaves?

The middle class or what is left of them, are likely to be crushed beneath the weight of debt. I think when you stumble and smash yourself on the rocks of austerity, it’s hard to tell the bottom from a rocky ledge only part way down. And I don’t know how much comfort there is in knowing you can still fall further.

As far as posting on a forum or talking to your peers or spreading your ideas, opinions and beliefs in any way possible, I say go for it. But the reality is that not everyone’s ideas, opinions, beliefs are equal. For example (and granted to save time I chose an easy one), some people believe evolution is not a proven fact but just a theory and they feel creationism is a valid theory as well and deserves equal time and should be taught in schools etc. Others understand that evolution is a proven theory given all the data available, it’s a fact and in order for it to stop being a fact someone would have to disprove it. These two beliefs are not equal. There is a truth here a right and a wrong. Evolution is a fact and a belief in a fact should not be made to share equal time with belief in a fallacy. There is not data or proof to support creationism. So while I understand and accept that some people believe in it, I don’t have to consider it as something that should have equal value. However, that doesn’t mean that when it comes to ideas and opinions based on knowledge and facts, and with reasons behind them I don't want to hear them unless they mirror mine. I don’t have to agree with everything everyone says. And I’m very capable of changing my mind when I hear a good reason to reconsider what I believe.

Everyone’s experiences are valuable.