

The Hypocrisy of Occupy Wall Street - m311ton
http://greaterseas.com/2011/10/the-hypocrisy-of-occupy-wall-street/

======
dfxm12
Unfortunately, this article (and regrettably most of the 99%ers) are missing
the point entirely. This isn't about "99% of us don't have enough". It is
about "The rich get richer simply because they are rich."

The article states _We created the beast that we protest against. We also
possess the power to defeat it... We have the means for change, we work hard
for it, and WE are the 99%._ The problem is we've been working hard for
decades and the middle class is getting smaller, and we aren't moving up.
Anyone can give an anecdote to the contrary, but this still isn't about
"making it", it is about the "haves" getting more, not by virtue of their
talent, but rather by keeping others down with their immense resources.

~~~
davidcuddeback
I agree that this article is missing the point. It seems to oversimplify the
protesters' message so that it can be easily dismissed as hypocrisy without
debating the issues.

It's also difficult to pin down a single message that the OWS movement is
trying to get across. This article paints it as a "down with the machine"
movement. The OWS website states that they want "to restore democracy in
America" [1]. While democracy is an overloaded word that can mean lots of
things to different people, in this context I take it to mean that the
protesters feel like the American political system isn't working for them
anymore. Although we might cite different causes, an oft-cited cause is
corporate interests. It's easy to jump from protesting against corporate
interest to "down with the machine," which is what I think this article is
doing.

Also on the OWS website, it states: "We use a tool known as a 'people's
assembly' to facilitate collective decision making in an open, participatory
and non-binding manner." If that's true, there's going to be a lot of ideas
proposed and some will seem radical. Attacking the movement based on the ideas
of a subset of the protesters avoids dealing with the issues that they're
trying to solve.

[1] <http://occupywallst.org/about/>

------
sampsonjs
From this site's About section:

"Since Jesus walked the earth, God specifically used the marketplace and its
leaders to advance the Gospel. Our goal is to explore how God has historically
chosen the marketplace to transform lives and how He seeks leaders to again
step up and share His love through commerce: the lifeblood of every community.

As you explore God’s heart for business, understand that success in the
marketplace and intimacy with Christ are not mutually exclusive. We seek to
discover what it means to be anointed for business and the unique opportunity
God has given us to transform markets with His love. Come unlock your destiny
in the marketplace and become a market-smart and spiritually sharp leader who
is empowered to advance the Gospel where it is needed most."

Jesus Christ.

------
gatlin
Last night I talked with a friend about all this. My friend pointed out many
of the things this author did: people are protesting against the machine using
things the machine created; they don't provide a solution but simply a
redundant description of the problem. I know and respect a number of people
who are protesting in my city, and they are sincere in their efforts to make
change. The trouble is, I don't think they will succeed this way. A real
solution would be to get rid of these things: forsake the extra computers, the
wireless contract, food produced and distributed by soulless corporations, the
fancy cars; join or start a local food cooperative, live in a housing co-op,
support credit unions, and aggressively buy local - even if it means severe
inconvenience. Need to organize a trip down to city hall to protest? If you
use your phone, you've already lost.

That's how the "machine" got to where it is: it provided convenience,
delivered on the backs of screwed workers, in the waves of polluted
ecosystems, in the gasps of strangled local economies, and with trodden and
corrupt opportunism at every step. You want something? Just ask. But somebody
will be paying.

I'm deliberately not taking a side here: if you think our current situation is
a problem, then the solution is to let go of convenience and standard of
living - at least until a viable alternative crops up (and I think it has in
the form of cooperation). If you don't think there is a problem, please go on
your merry way. It's your right.

~~~
OpieCunningham
_A real solution would be to get rid of these things: forsake the extra
computers, the wireless contract, food produced and distributed by soulless
corporations, the fancy cars; join or start a local food cooperative, live in
a housing co-op, support credit unions, and aggressively buy local - even if
it means severe inconvenience._

Sure, that's one solution. But it depends on how you define the problem. The
article here is rubbish and of no insight into any rational view of the
problem (nor any insight into OWS). Indeed, the basic problem is very easy to
express and comprehend: corporate control of government that results in
socialism for corporate interests. That is the fundamental problem that has
resulted in OWS. This is not new or shocking information. There is no big
mystery as to the why's or what-for's of OWS.

Forsaking convenience items is certainly not required to "solve" that problem
nor is it likely to have any impact on that problem (canceling a cell phone
plan, supporting credit unions or starting a local food co-op will have
exactly zero impact on corporate control of government). Forsaking convenience
items is only required if you conceive the problem to be a lack of "back to
the land" mentality. That may or may not be _a_ problem, but it is certainly
not any rational view of OWS' perception of the problem.

The article here and most other viewpoints (which are mostly critical of OWS)
that I've seen appear to wish to narrow down everything to two absolute
extremes: either everything stays exactly how it is, or everything is
destroyed. There is a massive area between those extremes. It's that area that
OWS is targeting.

~~~
gatlin
There is a massive area between the two extremes, and I will assume you are
putting me at one of them. This means I failed to communicate.

If my food, entertainment, services, and small expenditures are predominantly
local and my money is in a credit union I and my community have control over,
then 1) I haven't gone "back to the land" but simply back to my home, and 2)
that is money not going to any of the companies legislating their own
irresponsible bailouts.

Supporting strong local organizations owned and directed by local members can
and absolutely would stymie Wall Street and corporate socialism.

~~~
OpieCunningham
You stated a "real solution" was what I summarized as "back to the land",
including dropping wireless contracts. That says to me you view other
solutions as not real. That's an indication, not explicit certainly, that at
some level you believe there are only 2 extremes available, as I described.

Another solution is to demonstrate displeasure with the operation of
government and methods of corporate interests. Engage enough citizens and
sustain that demonstration. At some critical mass of both energy (people) and
time, politicians will begin to notice and adjust their implementation of
governance.

This is a known good solution. See: civil rights protests in the 1960's as
just one example.

~~~
gatlin
I explained in my reply that my solution is a fairly middle-ground endeavor:
if you can avoid giving your money to The Problem, then do so. Notice I didn't
say radically change your life.

The Civil Rights movement was monumental but it didn't eradicate racism, the
strong correlation between race and class, the achievement gap, or any number
of equity issues. It caused us to shift what we consider to be normal and
acceptable. Another component was people ditching the prejudices of their
forefathers and _doing_ something differently than before. Protest was
complemented by action, which has been slowly changing the dynamics I
described.

Our exchange has helped me realize that I should frame my solution as a
complement to the protests. Protests, by themselves, can be ignored, spun, and
crushed under rubber soles. Action in the form of starving the machine you're
protesting against complements this and shows that you _are_ listening. It
combines the "We're mad as hell" with the "we're not going to take it
anymore."

OWS is definitely galvanizing us to come up with a solution, but I don't think
it is one on its own.

~~~
OpieCunningham
_The Civil Rights movement was monumental but it didn't eradicate racism_

No. But it did lead to the government creating laws and regulations called the
Civil Rights Act, which enforced desegregation and more. A dramatically major
step towards adjusting society to address the existing problem.

Considering effectively zero laws and regulations of merit have been
implemented since 2008 in regards to the out of control behavior on Wall St, a
comparative measure to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 seems to be in order.
You're not going to get one by canceling you AT&T wireless plan and growing
vegetables in your back yard.

Of course, I don't mean to imply that the things you're doing aren't positive.
Certainly they are. My point is simply that OWS is significantly more powerful
in nature.

~~~
gatlin
You have been very respectful, and I appreciate that, but on one hand you
build up OWS and on the other reduce my solution to "cancel AT&T and grow
vegetables." I believe that you could have more charitably summarized it as
"stop giving money to these companies." One way to do it is to patronize
locally owned alternatives and starve them. There are others, as well.

I could cut down OWS pretty harshly, too, but I _do_ see its merit. It's one
side of the Protest & Act coin. I would prefer people do both, not just
complain loudly.

The Civil Rights act, fwiw, didn't solve any of the race-related problems I
identified either. It was the perspective shift that protesting brought, and
it opened doors. OWS might result in tighter regulations and laws which
formally denigrate or outright restrict the kind of business which led to
these problems in the first place but that only stops those who care about the
law or are careless in their chicanery.

It does not resolve more fundamental issues: how did these people get this
much power? How do we disrupt the cycle of people getting rich and using their
wealth to keep others down? How do we keep people informed about complex
financial risks? How do we bolster local economies? How do we get control of
the institutions which have so much control over our lives?

OWS will not solve any of those things. It has successfully raised awareness
but now we have to put our money where our mouths are.

~~~
OpieCunningham
_OWS will not solve any of those things._

I'd loosely categorize "those things" as greed. Nothing will solve greed just
as nothing will solve racism. Government regulation is uniquely able to
diminish the negative consequences of both greed and racism. The fact that
government regulation is not able to eliminate greed and regulation is in no
way a knock against government regulation. OWS is the most powerful method
available to instigate government regulation.

BTW, I'm using examples of your philosophy to demonstrate the inherent
limitations of it, in comparison to mass protestation. Boycotts are primarily
effective on a local scale, not a national scale. If your intent is to stop a
mom & pop from some ill behavior, a boycott is more effective than staging a
sit-in outside their place of business. I can think of no national boycott
that has instigated as much change as the civil rights protests of the 60's or
the suffrage movement in the late 19th/early 20th centuries.

