New argument against occupy movement....

[RadioRaheem84]

I think we should post and challenge any rhetoric used against the notion of the 1% vs 99%, essentially the argument that the rich own way more than the poor.

First one I heard from lolbertarian douche Penn Jillette: "It's stupid to consider yourself as part of the 99% when you represent the one percent of the world".

In other words, you live in America and thus constitute the rich of the world, which defeats the argument that you're oppressed. Another you have a good chance vs the rest of the world to make so don't whine.

[Taters]

In the same vein, "They have iPhones! Why are they protesting?! They're not poor!" A favorite refrain from Fox News.

I love that line of reasoning; that some people had smartphones completely invalidate their protests. It's almost as patronizing as "You're not poor if you own a television! And most people in America do, ipso facto they're not poor!"

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Should we even bother? Rhetoric about "the 99%" is petite-bourgeois; it focuses on relations of distribution instead of relations of production, and its adoption by certain segments of socialism is nothing more than tailism, in my opinion.

[cyu]

Penn claims to be a pro-capitalist "libertarian" - you can't really expect to take their politics seriously - or in this case, not even their basic math skills.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population the United States is the 3rd most populous nation in the world (behind China and India). Even the Congo has more than 1% of the world population.

On a related note that I mentioned to a "libertarian" leaning friend, from http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/president/note.html

"It is conventional political wisdom that you can't make a serious run for the Presidency unless you know the names of at least twenty wealthy people who can raise big money for your campaign. Political pros say this is a very elite group -- numbering no more than a few hundred around the country."

If the US had 262 million people in 1996, and 1% of Americans decided who gets to run for president, then that's 2.62 million people. If 1% of 1% decided who gets to run, then that's 26,200 people. If 1% of 1% of 1% were the deciders, then that's 262 people.

So it seems even the oligarchs among oligarchs tend to get stepped on around here.

[Sidagma]

Hahahaha. I remember buying an iPod touch with my welfare check while I was living in Zucotti just to spite those assholes.

Literally no argument against Occupy has any intellectual weight whatsoever, because it barely even qualified as a movement. It was a coalition or a platform for many, many, MANY movements on a scale that the USian left honestly don't have the ability to fathom.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Should we even bother? Rhetoric about "the 99%" is petite-bourgeois; it focuses on relations of distribution instead of relations of production, and its adoption by certain segments of socialism is nothing more than tailism, in my opinion.

This term accurately reflects the movement as a popular one, not a class one; it reflects inequality, and does not argue that this is a class divide. As a popular movement appealing to members of different non-ruling classes for various ideological and subjective reasons, symbolic rallying points like this term or the meaning of the camps are all contested. The inequality is objective, how people see it and read it is ideological. For a Marxist, it is the vast majority against the tiny minority except only a certain force within the majority, the working class, can actually lead everyone to liberation. On the other hand, what you describe pretty accurately, a petite bourgeoise interpretation, was also present at Occupy. This is part of how it was a contested rallying point and why it would be better for revolutionaries to put forward their interpretation and argument forward, contrast it with the liberal views, to the audience this concept was rallying.

Maybe it's seeing the glass half full, but if tons of people resonate with something like that it should be judged based on where consciousness was at prior, rather than expecting a spontaneous leap to some ideal class consciousness.

At this point it matters less because occupy declined and it isn't as much of a rallying point, so "inequality" or "rich and poor" work equally well.

[homegrown terror]

it has always bothered me the way the occupy movement gives a free pass to the petit-bourgeoisie and the less prolific members of the full-on bourgeoisie since they're not part of the "top 1%" of society.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Well you can't expect them to share all of your ideological assumptions. OWS wasn't really a left-wing movement but it was a lot more interesting than anything else that was happening on the American political scene at that time.


Should we even bother? Rhetoric about "the 99%" is petite-bourgeois; it focuses on relations of distribution instead of relations of production, and its adoption by certain segments of socialism is nothing more than tailism, in my opinion.

Like most social movements, large and small, short and protracted, it started out as a relatively small number of individuals united around some very basic ideas, in this case it was income inequality and a perceived lack of fairness in American economic matters. That's it, it wasn't a streamlined revolutionary proletarian party of the working class, nor was it ever going to be that. I think people should just stop being irritated about what OWS wasn't and never would be, and just try to see what lessons could be learned from it's approx. 2 month period of political relevancy in the USA. I for one learned a hell of a lot from 2011, OWS being one of the events included in that year.

[AConfusedSocialDemocrat]

Zizek has a few problems with it. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APDGh43VCxs)

[Comrade #138672]

Should we even bother? Rhetoric about "the 99%" is petite-bourgeois; it focuses on relations of distribution instead of relations of production, and its adoption by certain segments of socialism is nothing more than tailism, in my opinion.What is tailism? I have never heard about it before.

[Blake's Baby]

'Tailism' is political groups following popular movements. Opportunistic populism more or less.

[kasama-rl]

the motto of tailism is "if it moves, fondle it."

the method of tailism is "if the people are for it, we are for it."

the symbol of tailism is a small hand mirror.

We should engage, influence, learn from genuine movements among the people. But not tail them.

:rolleyes:

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

the motto of tailism is "if it moves, fondle it."

Heh, good one.


Like most social movements, large and small, short and protracted, it started out as a relatively small number of individuals united around some very basic ideas, in this case it was income inequality and a perceived lack of fairness in American economic matters. That's it, it wasn't a streamlined revolutionary proletarian party of the working class, nor was it ever going to be that. I think people should just stop being irritated about what OWS wasn't and never would be, and just try to see what lessons could be learned from it's approx. 2 month period of political relevancy in the USA. I for one learned a hell of a lot from 2011, OWS being one of the events included in that year.

I am not irritated that the OWS was not, and did not coalesce into, a revolutionary proletarian movement. I am irritated that certain sections of the left could not keep their critical distance, and that certain parties and groups continue to tail this moribund movement, and continue to use its un-Marxist slogans.

[Orange Juche]

I'm sick of the justifications for it not having a platform, that made sense for the first month or two, but after that it just became protesting for protesting's sake.

Also, it was way too nice about being "all inclusive" which resulted in Ron Paul people and Alex Jones types being let in, which I believe should have been told to their face "you don't fit in with this movement".