Visiting Occupy Tacoma…

Written by Scott

Topics: Family, Politics

Today was the day. After receiving the invite, I brought the two oldest kiddos with me for a visit to the encampment and talk with the occupiers about what the movement is about.

The bringing of the kids was partly strategic, partly logistic. The strategic part came from my own personal experiences counter-protesting in 2003 against the not-so-peaceful peace protesters. Having the kids there would reduce the chances of any sort of conflict. Logistically, well, my daughter held the video camera (since it was hers!), and son held my coffee when I used the still camera. I also had intended to, once we got home, to ask them about the experience from their perspectives, but they are both kind of at the stage of answering questions as “it was good”, which isn’t terribly helpful.

Anyway, as it turned out, there was virtually no risk of confrontation. That was quite welcomed. The closest it came to was a couple of times when we become the objects of curiosity and had people gathering around us. But both the people and the initial uncomfortable feeling dissipated quickly.

We talked. And talked. And talked some more. Then we got one of the protesters to agree to be filmed answering a few questions.  So…here it is with a bit of commentary:

Additional observations and commentary:

The people I met were decent, polite folks. But this was also not in a protesting, emotion-fueled event, but in an encampment, and there weren’t many there at the time.   Saw no direct signs of drug use there, and they did indeed keep the part fairly clean (though may be ignoring the destruction of the grass of the park from the constant walking and the tents).

And while I’d like to believe those I talked to about being a non-violent movement, there’s clearly been evidence of violence in other cities. Perhaps Tacoma will be spared, but I think, especially once they are given orders to leave the park, situations may present themselves in which we may see violence. And quite frankly, the discussion of “agent provocateurs’ doesn’t sit well with me–it’s just too much of a scapegoat cover.

I’d also like to believe that they, as Ryan expressed, want to be inclusive of the actual 99% they claim to speak for…but I don’t.At all. Why? First, there is the way in which they govern themselves–they call it a General Assembly, or GA. In the GA, they claim to use “consensus” to make decisions…which, of course, is nothing more than majority rules. They even passed along a story of “down twinkling” an anarchist-type person visiting from another Occupy group that was advocating some form of violence. (Aside from being and sounding like a juvenile way of voting or discussing, it’s nothing less than a peer-pressure created and maintained political system on a small scale.  And it’s a cliquish, exclusive thing…). But also in their own forums on the Occupy Tacoma website (as long as they leave open and transparent), there is PLENTY of infighting and struggles for power about what the movement is about, and they certainly aren’t terribly tolerant of beliefs that differ in the forums.

Aside from these observations, the answers, as you saw in the video, were vague, full of rhetoric, and lacking in substance. That’s a huge issue, especially if they intend on drawing in the others of the 99% they claim to represent. As it is now, they certainly do not represent me.

The biggest problem I still have in the Occupy Tacoma group, as an outsider, is that their mission statement states that they are nonviolent, yet they also lay claim to solidarity with other Occupy groups. But other Occupy groups have been violent, and I believe we’ll see others…but they can’t have it both ways. If they truly stand in solidarity, they are no different. And if they are no different, then they are also just as able and willing to commit violence.

Is my mind made up about them? No, not at all. Or not yet. Because it is completely unclear what they stand for, what they support, and what principles they hold.

Post comment as twitter logo facebook logo
Sort: Newest | Oldest

Here is a good blog post from Dr. Thomas Stanley. Amongst other things, he shows how the 1% hasn't really grown much since 1979. http://www.thomasjstanley.com/blog-articles/359/1%%25_versus_99%%25_Widening_Income_Gap__Not%%21.html FYI-Dr. Stanley is a well known researcher of the habits of the wealthy, and author of the classic "The Millionaire Next Door." This book describes the wealthy: spending patterns, education, businesses, families, etc. A great read...

Forgot to mention-and he makes his assertions with actual, verifiable, hard numbers!

So, Scott, have you determined that Occupy protesters don't know what they want?

Not sure. Is either than or they just aren't willing to put into non-vague descriptions. And I give that a big down twinkle.

"Scott says: November 24, 2011 at 4:07 pm Funny, again, how selective OWS is being about who is and is not ‘ok’ within the 1%, especially as it relates to political leanings. " ---------- 1%er A: Pays lobbyists to affect a bill/act/law in their favour. 1%er B: Uses their profits to fund projects that help people. This could be anything from making jobs to philanthropy. Both A and B are part of the "1%" yet do very different thing with there money. Where dose the "political leanings" come in when I say: " 1%er A is just looking out for their own needs and taking advantage / abusing the position they have, while 1%er B is giving back to community and helping people" I wouldnt look at that as a political thing I would say it relates more to a "moral leanings".

So...if I understand you correctly, it's not about income, it's about lobbying. If that's the case, why the '99%' rhetoric if that's not what it's about? Why not rally against, oh, LOBBYING? Further, you make a massive assumption: that those 1%'ers you are ok with don't lobby. That's a falsehood. I'd guess you mean it's ok as long as they lobby about things that you like. Is that correct? Either way, it's completely subjective again.

Sorry took so long to reply been away for the weekend "So…if I understand you correctly, it’s not about income, it’s about lobbying. If that’s the case, why the ’99%’ rhetoric if that’s not what it’s about? Why not rally against, oh, LOBBYING?" Well yes and no. It not "waaa this person makes xxx so we hate them", but most people may have problems which CEOs getting a 24% pay incress (avg) while the average worker only got 3.3% (avg). I have no problem with CEOs and higher ups getting paid more, but lets take CEO Philippe Dauman (viacom) getting paid 1,990 times what the typical Viacom worker got. Is just pushin it alittle bit if ask me. Lets not even talk about the bonuses people are getting after taking the bailout money. I think everyone can agree on that. I think the problem you may be having in understanding the "movement" is that you are trying to pigeon hole it or trying to find a nice "sound bit" to explain it. That methood would work just fine if it was a one issue problem but it just isnt. ----- "Further, you make a massive assumption: that those 1%’ers you are ok with don’t lobby. That’s a falsehood. I’d guess you mean it’s ok as long as they lobby about things that you like. Is that correct? Either way, it’s completely subjective again." I agree there's what you could call "good and bad lobbing". You would be wrong in me thinking its ok as long as they lobby about things that I like. If you ask me lobbying has no place in goverment.

Like so many things in life, this is not a black and white issue. You're trying very hard to put a round peg in a square hole - it's never going to be a perfect fit. I understand that you don't like OWS, and that you don't support it. Fine. I'm betting a very similar argument to the one you're making now could be made if we were discussing the Tea Party, the Arab Spring, or any other movement that is for the people, by the people. I'm a liberal and I identify as a Democrat on most issues, but that doesn't mean that I agree with every liberal policy or every other Democrat on every point. I'm assuming you feel the same about Libertarians, Conservatives, etc. The only organizations that I can think of with a supreme leader, who makes these kinds of all-or-nothing decisions for all followers to abide by, are Catholicism and Islam, and even after thousands of years of existence, there is still room for interpretation and internal disagreement. Asking for that kind of consensus from OWS is simply not feasible. While there are many discussions being had over what OWS stands for, the list for what they stand against is quite clear: We're tired of the greed. Until there are less problems, there won't be less answers.

I'm not seeking black and white on the issues, but I am seeking definition on something that--at least according to the signs and protests--is critical to the movement: who are the 1%? At first, it sounded like it was based on income. Now, with the inclusion of supporters like Moore and Alec Baldwin (who, again, are from ONE political persuasion), the definition appears to be something else that only OWS gets to define, according to criteria that those of us on the outside don't get to know. So, my question, again, is who is this 1%? And who defines greed? Is it not giving a certain % of their income? And is that only to taxes, or charitable contributions? And if we demand those wealthy folks give an even more disproportionate % of their income in taxes, is OWS ready for the unintended consequences, namely in the drop in charitable contributions, etc?

Apologies for a disjointed answer - I don't work in an industry where we get holidays off, so I'm formulating this as I try to get some work done. The 1% is, as far as I am aware, based on income. I'd personally like to see people taxed proportionately, not disproportionately, which is what we see now. When Warren Buffet comes out and says his secretary paid more in taxes, that's disproportionate. If the uber rich paid a fairer share, we might see a reduction in charitable contributions, but wouldn't that just as equally be because less people would need them? You're obviously pretty upset about this, Scott, and I think you're not seeing the forest for the trees. I hope you read the open letter at the link I sent previously, and that it gives you some perspective on this. And buddy - Happy ThanksGIVING to you and your family. (HUG)

Upset, no so much. I'm just disturbed at the rhetoric. And have a fantastic Thanksgiving to you as well! You rock!

The initial 99% number is more valid than the 999 concept for tax reform, but still not accurate. It isn't truly describing the super rich, since the people pulling the strings are part of the 1% but even there they are an amazingly small minority. The 1% by income are those making over 385K a year... but the people on that end of the scale are the filler. Tough to chant "We are the 99.999%!!" The average income of the top 1% moved from about 350K a year to 1.3 Million a year average after taxes and inflation adjustment from 1979 to 2007. The chart changes a bit after that, but I didn't find it quickly. Suffice to say, the super rich had their income dip when the stock market crashed but quickly recovered. For the middle 60% of America, the average income moved from 44 to 57K in the same time period... then goes down from there. I think the result was that last year they had lost 3% after taxes and adjustments for inflation. So one group basically quadrupled income, one lost about 3%. I find it interesting trying to find a fair comparison. If you feel a rising tide floats all boats, you have to realize that the guys at the bottom don't have boats and are drowning. They also don't have the assets required to build a boat. It isn't about giving them a boat, it's about getting the chance to build a boat that they don't take from you because the tide changed.

I'd reply...but not sure what the point of this was...

Just recognizing that the 99% isn't a strictly defined line in the sand. Since you aren't the problem just cause you make more, or have more. It's more about how are you getting your wealth and what are you doing with it? Elon Musk... not the problem. Poster child for what can be right about the 1% Spends his money creating things... Tesla (electric car), SpaceX (rockets, wants to go to Mars), SolarCity (photovoltaics, wants to combat global warming), Halcyon Molecular (mission to cure diseases, extend lifespan and enhance the quality of life). Mayor Bloomberg... 12th richest man in America. Outside of being an authoritarian that puts the police out there clamping down violently on dissent, and being the provider of the information systems used by those that crashed the system... not the problem? Blurs the line, Super Rich, Super influential... spends massive amounts of money to retain an office he doesn't even take the salary for... spent a lot of money getting the rules changed so he could stay in that office, watched his fortune climb by 4 billion in a couple of years. Spends a LOT of money on charitable things... Charles and David Koch... prime examples of the problem, Crony Capitalism at it's finest. Money from dad who figured out a better way to crack oil into gasoline. They spend their money on deregulating/destroying anything that gets in the way of their profits. They basically own a bunch of politicians and are the ones that funded the takeover of the Tea Party. Can't find anything nice to say about these guys, everything is about money and destroying anything that gets in the way of that goal. Perfect poster children of what is wrong with the 1% This doesn't touch on the number, it doesn't touch on the fact that it's not about people in particular, it's about a system that has been rigged by those people. My biggest concern isn't the Koch brothers... it's what our system allows them to get away with. But they are just one aspect of the problem. I've posted here and elsewhere how widespread the problems are. It isn't about just doing anything... there isn't a bandaid that will cover the wound. We have a situation where the patient (the US and the rest of the world) has sores bursting open all over from the cancer at the core and the doctors are recommending a cold remedy and some exercise.

Funny, again, how selective OWS is being about who is and is not 'ok' within the 1%, especially as it relates to political leanings. Suggests to those of us outside that OWS is what we always suspected, and it has little to do with what many of the protest signs say. Also funny, and not in a funny-haha type of way, how rhetoric against the Tea Party is so prevalent, as is the propaganda about funding, and no proof is offered or suggested. There are plenty of stories out there about some of the funding and organizational resources of OWS. Shall we go down that road, or would you like to put your unfounded accusations elsewhere? I have no vested interest either way, so the choice has no effect on me.

I disagree, but that can't be a surprise at this point, Scott! :) Saying that 99%ers shouldn't receive support from empathetic 1%ers is like saying the homeless shouldn't accept help from shelters. This movement is about people who have too much sharing with those who have too little. If I have more than I need, and you have too little, the right thing for me to do is to give you a bit of my overage. It's the moral thing. The ethical thing. The Christian thing. The responsible thing. The kind thing. The RIGHT thing. Period. Call it social tithing. Call it charity. Call it communism. I frankly don't care. At the end of the day, it's still the right thing. It's a false assumption that 99%ers don't want people to be rich, or for people who work harder to do better financially. We just don't want people to get rich or stay rich by taking advantage of hard working people who aren't. If Michael Moore or Bill Gates or Warren Buffet want to lend a hand to the movement, I'm more than happy to accept their kindness and welcome them to the cause, since they are demonstrating the core values of OWS. Have you read this yet? I think it puts this all in perspective. --> http://spfaust.wordpress.com/2011/10/15/repost-letter-from-a-liberal-to-a-young-marine-that-53-guy/ H.

Ok, but who in the OWS movement gets to decide this: "We just don’t want people to get rich or stay rich by taking advantage of hard working people who aren’t.". How is the movement defining this? Could easily say Moore has in the past, using non-union workers in films. Guarantee the argument could be made of ANYONE, even those sympathizers. Is it just conveniently subjective?

i will answer questions to the best of my ability. i cannot speak for who is "in" or "out" of the 99%. i heard moore on a tv show identify himself as one. and i'm assuming its based more on means of acquisition and exploitation. but i'm no expert. the point of the post is to share his take on "what they want" rather than how much he earns. people criticize the movement for having no aims, so i shared his well worded piece to promote understanding. so, as to ad hominem attack--you chose to dismiss the messenger rather than hear the message, it seems. really, we can either nitpick and obfuscate, or actually have a dialogue. i understand that you have felt attacked. that is not my purpose. i've never heard anyone supportive of ows "choose" who belongs. and yes, i believe that one chooses which position he/she supports. i'm assuming you are in the 99% by your criteria; and wonder why you seem so disdainful of people who are speaking out. people in tents are only the tip of the iceberg. i am so glad these issues of corruption and misuse of power are making news.

There is no disdain for the people; there is disdain of the positions and more importantly the reasoning behind it; and even more so the rhetoric that is often either empty or a smokescreen to something far more. That being said--let's go back to Michael Moore. The rhetoric of the OWS movement is pitting the supposed 99% against the 1%--and yet are perfectly ok with those same 1%ers joining or standing with OWS, even if it's just silly symbolism. Or even better, accepting MONEY, logistical support, and guidance from 1%ers like Moore. But it's all ok. Simply because OWS is ok with certain people because of their political leaning. Oh, and those 1%ers are all, shockingly, left-wing...and often far left. This is one of the many reasons OWS will never truly represent or enjoy the support of the ACTUAL 99%.

hi scott--i really was just trying to provide information.

...but you also did not answer the questions about the things you brought up.

Overview of OWS from the 1%er Michael Moore...thank you for proving one of my points.

why do you say michael moore is a 1%er? he does not identify himself as such, and certainly does not profit from exploiting others. explain? regardless, my point was that he has expressed, in terms that even the non-intellectual can understand, that which occupy wall street haters say has not been expressed. there it is...fed with a spoon.

Perhaps I was mistaken, but I thought the 1% status was based on wealth. And Michael Moore certainly has wealth, and lives nothing like the '99%', despite the chummy ballcap. Does this mean OWS is giving exemptions as to who is and who is not in the 1%? What are the criteria, so the rest of us apparently ignorant masses can be properly educated?

"he doesn't identify himself as such"--so we get to choose which 'side' we are on? Seems incredibly convenient.

Ok just to start with I could be wrong in everything I am about to say. I am not out occupying anything I am just a person who has been following the "Occupy Movment" and find it intresting. My opinion has been formed from reading up on topic and "debates" me and my friends have had ont he topic. You are right in saying that Moore is part of the "1%" but he is standing with the "99%" he is not the only one. Here is a link to lots of people who class themselfs as the "1%" but stand with the "99%" - http://westandwiththe99percent.tumblr.com/archive. You dont have to be part of a effect group to belive in what they are standing for and help them. In all history you will find people helping groups they are not apart of. From what I understand the whole 99% and 1% came about as 1% of the population control/own and very large chunk of the wealth. This is just going to be a simple fact of free markets you are always going to have a small % of people holding a large % of the wealth. The problem comes along when people/corporations within that "1%" use that wealth to get goverment to pass or affect laws/bills/acts to there favour members of the public could never achieve. Like I said as the start of this I could be wrong.

Scott, it's like Obama's Obamacare exemptions. It is all about political convenience, connections, contributions and political alignment. The 99%ers are trying to include even the Tea Party and other conservatives in their mix - people who would never ever show up to a rally with them or even find significant points of agreement on socio- political issues. In fact, I doubt the 99% even represent 25%. The vast majority of OWS activists appear to be Socialists or Socialist-curious.

what do occupy wall street protestors want? it may be as simple as what is happening here now: dialogue. they want the average citizen to stop waiting for something to change, and actively get up and express themselves and encourage change. they want to feel a part of the process, and encourage others to educate themselves about our systems, both political and economic. they want those people to stop listening to the hum of corporate news agencies, who slant the news to accommodate profit. that's a start...

So you support the tea party, then?

I mar zora nailed a huge part of what is going on. Itsonlywords, if the tea party wasn't a defacto arm of the republican party and their corporate owners they could have been this voice. As a libertarian, I CAN decry them because they got turned into a bunch of cranky old people on medicare and social security bitching about social programs while yelling not to touch their medicare. Showing up with guns on their hips, talking about their second amendment options if they didn't win an election. Our ranks have most likely drawn in a bunch of the early tea party members that weren't nuts and have a brain that hasn't been turned to mush by the media they are feeding on. I can't say I know anyone that admits to being a tea party member first hand, so can't talk further on that subject from a personal point of interaction. Their group has also suffered at the hands of character assassination by those opposing them, but unlike OWS I don't see any Tea Party actions at all. It's like "Well, we got our candidates elected as Republicans, we can go back to yelling at the TV"

Scott, to quote the best movie ever made and your use of the phrase "nailed", "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means". The Tea Party has railed against GOP folks as much as Dems, and at times even more. It is by no way any kind of defacto arm of the GOP. So that kind of characterization doesn't stand, though by using it, your stand of being some sort of social libertarian shows that it's more likely you are anything but. So in that regard, thanks for adding to the discussion so we can more clearly see your real stance.

ScottM, it would seem as though from the last part of your response that you think drum circles and uptwinkles are a more effective means of initiating change than getting Constitution-respecting candidates elected. But that surely can't be right because that would just be crazy talk. Aside from that, your ignorance of the demographics of tea party supporters suggests that you may be one of the people mentioned by mar zora who spend too much time listening to the "hum of corporate news agencies, who slant the news to accommodate profit." Maybe you should take the next opportunity to attend a tea party rally rather than basing your opinions on what you hear on the TV.

I'm a hopeful realist. One of my constant comments in the Occupy movement is to NOT let the drum circle radical veterans take over. They have a long and glorious history of losing... oh wait, that's just losing. All these groups are coming to our events which is fine, they are all part of the 99%, the unions, moveon.org, veterans for peace, etc. etc. Some are getting rather pushy about stealing our names in attempts to bolster their actions and it pisses me off. A coalition of unions and moveon is planning an 'occupy' action in DC, nothing about asking for approval by a GA, they just took the name, are getting permits and arranging buses etc... rather than helping out with what we have in common, they are going to try (and it is more than one group) to build their name value by stealing ours and applying it to their top down hierarchy driven bunch of historic losers. They plan on setting up tents on some capital lawn... and they'll be gone before the weekend is over unless they are planning on burning through the union members dues paying protestors to stay longer. That isn't OWS. That is the same type of protest that hasn't worked in decades... only with tents as props in order to make the tie to real OWS type actions. As to the getting Constitution-respecting candidates elected... at the moment THAT is the crazy talk. Almost impossible, I'd rather we insist that ANYONE in office respect the constitution and the people they serve regardless of what party they are a member of. As to attending a tea party rally, doing a search of Tacoma Tea Party mostly gets hits on a bike ride to tea shop I did participate in... but the local tea party blog was last used in 2006, most recent thing I see on other hits is from 2009. I know more atheists than tea party members. Hell, I know more card carrying Marxists. Aside from the pundits on FOX news, I haven't heard squat about them. If there is a local group of tea party members that is active let me know... I'll check them out.

I see the Tea Party (which never made me think it was something I needed to join) as another arm of the political system that needs to ber overhauled. See Truth in all things!

Chris, while voting rights had been awarded to blacks, it was not the practice until 1965. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_Rights_Act, or if you don't ascribe to Wiki, feel free to google history of voting rights for black Americans. Just as we, the 99%, have the right to vote in most places in the US, we are at a huge disadvantage by our inability to hire lobbyists and pay off congressional aides and millionaire politicians, so our votes simply don't have the impact that they are meant to have. And while you profess that we have the highest standard of living in the world, I have read so much to the contrary, that it kind of surprises me to see it in print now. We may have once, but it hasn't been that way for many years. We have a much higher mortality rate, both for newborns and citizenry, than many countries, we have terrible health care in comparison, and the FDA is a joke by which many countries surpass us in consumer protection.

I would love to argue with you about these things, Mary, but I am awaiting the aforementioned disavowal of all things Marxist. Arguing with a Marxist is an exercise in futility. Let me know if we have some common ground and then we can begin to work on it from there...

Do you think I'm a Marxist? Not sure what left field that came from.

Why the need to argue, rather than discuss? Why the demand to disavow? What is YOUR definition of a Marxist that makes them so futile to argue with? I've met a few in the last decade or so and they were all really nice, intelligent, very well read, very well spoken people. From business owners to school teachers, I don't know any violent ones, just ones that know what has gone wrong with various past attempts at implementing what they feel would be an improvement on our version of capitalism. I suspect that you personally don't know which of your friends/relatives/coworkers might actually be Marxists because you start with such a blanket statement. One thing I try in all aspects of my life is to recognize when I've been misinformed. I try to ensure that in this digital world that I fact check what I have taken as common knowledge, listen before arguing. I've found that a LOT of what we were pumped full of growing up is just plain wrong, and if you dig for the "why" it becomes obvious how we got it wrong. Groups, be they political parties, or religious groups tend to want power, if they need to fabricate or twist information to get or maintain it, it is a given that they will. Look at the impact that has had on our text books. History revisionism runs rampant, attempts to displace science with religious beliefs. Politics work the same way... character assassination is much more effective than actually putting forth the argument of why you as a candidate are qualified to do the job. I really would like to hear what you think Marxism actually is. I look forward to a reply, and hope that my reluctance to decry anyone's beliefs based on something someone else has in their head isn't truly a conversation blocker. ScottM (should have picked a different name than just my first above, didn't mean to possibly make it look like I was impersonating the Blog owner.)

I am not for a soicalist government. Maybe a return to our republic as it was formed would be a start? I don't know... We are so far from what our founding fathers intended it's not even funny, yet even that wasn't perfect.

I read a comparison today that struck truth for me. It is the Civil Rights Movement of the 60s to the Occupy Wall Street Movement. Think it's a reach? The former was a movement for voting rights and equality. Is not the latter the same? Voting rights for the overwhelming majority who cannot hire a politician, and are left unable to lobby as Americans once were, and the lack of equality has been eloquently stated on this thread. One can want to work, get out and get a job or two or three, and still suffer because there is no health coverage, or retirement, or time to raise children. While there may be a lot of jobs, the jobs that pay a fair wage for a fair day's work are few.

I don't see the link. The Civil Rights movement was very focused and vocal about what they wanted.

Yes! I'm still waiting to hear someone that can tell me what the Occupy groups advocate for. People are clear what they are against (pretty much whatever the individual protester being questioned holds as a pet peeve).

please see my link below, posted 11/22/11

And the Civil Rights movement was about elevating an entire race to the level of equal humanity. Voting rights had already been given to blacks, so that was not part of it. Black Americans were being treated as second class citizens and blatant, institutionalized racism was the order of the day. They sought opportunity, not a hand-out. I have yet to hear what all of the protesters of OWS really care about, other than a general cry against the corporate America that, while flawed, has given us the highest standard of living in the world. The righteousness of the CR cause was in their desire to see all races treated equally. OWS has yet to show what they stand for, other than a French Revolution-style hatred of the wealthy.

I welcome, btw, any one of the OWS posters here to decry Marxism (and any other form of Communism-Socialism) and support truthful reform of our current system in a Democratic manner that is appropriate for a Federalist Republic that conducts business in a capitalist, free trade environment.

That shouldn't be hard to find, but I'm not going to do it. I'm a social libertarian myself, but wanting people to decry Marxism is easy, getting someone to do it that actually understands the theory and not just the propaganda our system has taught since the 50's is another. I'm planning on re-examining my 'knowledge' on what Marxism actually means. There is a big difference between worker owned means of production and Stalin. Much like Nazi including the word Socialist in it's party name didn't actually make them Socialists. Our media pundits have demonized word after word in attempts to make anyone that does not agree with their particular viewpoint an enemy who is dangerous. Liberal! Socialists! Communists! Leftists! I'd like to see more people (and believe it's happening) open themselves up to discussing what parts of a system have worth and what parts do not. Thomas Paine went from the writing the gas on the fire of our Revolution with "Common Sense" to designing an early version of a social security /pension system paid for by property owners and inheritance taxes in "Agrarian Justice" which to any conservative pundit = pure communism. Rather than claiming it can't work, I'd like to see more talking about what can work. A capitalist system where income disparity becomes to great also always ends in violence. Come to think of it, historically ALL systems end up failing as they get corrupted. ALL of them. Being that the Occupation group is made up of a broad cross section of people... with the levels of education you'd expect at any gathering of common folks, rather than those that have spent a lifetime studying economics, history, political science, etc etc... I feel it's quite fair that the interviewee joined the march and decided that he needed to get more educated. That is the point, not being able to stand toe to toe with people that have spent their college years or lifetime debating this stuff. We are all bringing our knowledge or what we think we know (plenty of misinformation just like in any other large evolving group). Sharing that and fact checking is critical. Continuing the status quo that has developed for the purpose of consolidating political/economic power is a dead end for our society, it's destructive and divisive and turns us all into pawns. I hope we can do better.

On another topic. Who would take their children to a place where they feel there could be violence?

Please re-read the post. The word violence was not used in the explanation of why I brought them. Also check my reply to Heidi's comment.

Scott, thanks for your cogent, balanced and humble approach to all of this mess. Certainly not every OT participant should be painted with the broad brush of violence, ignorance, entitlement or Marxist. However, given the generally Socialist bent of the protests (when you can get a central theme from the crowds, it seems to go there), and their utter lack of a critical eye toward government, who has instigated our current circumstances alongside many greedy "insiders" in the corporate world (not whole corporations, any more than whole protest groups), it would seem that they should take a closer look at history. Socialist protests have always been at first peaceful. As Stalin called them "useful idiots" do the peaceful up-front work of agitation. Then they are infiltrated and overtaken by the violent elements - the SEIU, SWP, ACP and AFL-CIO types - who take over during the initial instability to try to create greater trauma to the American system. It worked in the Russian Revolution and the Maoist purges, and it worked here to an extent in the 20's. Again, I do appreciate the peaceful protests. I also see the corruption going on in Washington and in corporations that work deals with their government cohorts to line their pockets. But that is not the entire business workforce out there. The vast majority of businesses, as you know Scott, struggle to make it under heavy regulation and taxation. And our middle class, btw, makes more than the middle class of any nation. Our poor are richer than the middle class of most nations and have access to services unheard of in other countries, due to the largesse of our wealthy. But most of our wealthy members are not criminally wealthy. They have earned what they have through hard work, good decision-making and lots of sacrifice. I won't envy their position. I believe what most of America struggles with right now (given what they've seen on t.v., granted) is the seeming entitlement demands of those who put forward a Marxist ideology and then try to claim they are part of a 99% of Americans who clearly do not subscribe to any kind of Socialism - or entitlement. If they wish to galvanize the rest of the 99% (given that less than 1% of the nation is actually protesting), then they will need to drop the Marxist ideology. But they will not do this, because they are the vanguard of the violent Communists that will follow them. I would support those who believe in our American system "revisioned" to topple the few who are gaming the system, in both government and business, but I will not support any group that protests for "fairness and equality" from a Marxist perspective. That is not only anti-American, but it is completely counter-productive to bringing prosperity to all people who will work for it. Instead, it will fairly bring poverty to all, equally. Just look around the world at those systems that delve deeply into Marxism. Case closed.

Trackbacks

  1. [...] Scott then blogged his impressions of this encounter on A Dad First, complete with an annotated videotaped interview, which you can see by clicking here. [...]

  2. [...] Scott then blogged his impressions of this encounter on A Dad First, complete with an annotated videotaped interview, which you can see by clicking here. [...]