Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Just how different, really?

Posted 2 years ago on March 11, 2012, 4:07 p.m. EST by lolwut101 (35)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

First of all, I would like to clarify right now that I consider myself a "conservative." No, not socially conservative, more the "get the government out of my business" conservative. I guess you could say I am a bit of a soft-line anarcho-capitalist. I realize that statement may make nothing that I say after it matter, but I have confidence that some will read on and seriously consider my words.

I, honestly, do not think that the spirit of the Occupy movement is all that different from that of the Tea Party movement. There are obvious differences in tone, but to me the fundamental message of both groups is ending corporatocracy and the associated corruption in the government.

Perhaps I may misunderstand the Occupy movement's goals, however, but I have already done enough speculating.

Perhaps I am just wasting my time, but I feel that it would be constructive for Occupy members to converse with others that share the aforementioned goal. Both sides appear guilty of buying in to the trash fed by the media concerning the ideology of the other. The conservative media feeds trash about Occupiers being liberal zombies, and the liberal media portrays conservative revolutionists as socially backward hicks.

Obviously these are both stereotypes that only serve to prevent unification on common grounds. It serves to prolong the status quo, and gives the government/media/corporatocracy triumvirate the ability to divide and conquer those that dissent. It causes inappropriate class warfare among those that ought join together.

I believe that the target ought be the 0.1% (or maybe less), not the 1%.

If I am wrong, please point out how. This post is meant to provoke discussion. I am not interested in arguing about whether I am right or not, I only am expressing my perspective and hoping that it provokes thought within those that read it. I am open to criticism and will show respect to any that are open to respectful discussion.

5 Comments

5 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by Dost (315) 2 years ago

In reality, it is a fight against the Plutocracy which is a collection of very wealthy people who own corporations or who sit on their boards. There are about 400+ families that own more wealth than 50% of Americans. 15% of Americans own 85-90% of the wealth. The political structure serves as a useful means of convincing the masses that we are a democratic Republic. Elections are typically the main proof of that for most people. Our general freedoms are another. The fact that there is so much wealth and materialism in the country is the seduction which creates mindless zombies, i.e. very uninformed, dumb people. Most people are vastly ignorant. Those who deny this have no clue. The typical American KNOWs very little about politics, history, etc. Education is meant to indoctrinate along with patriotism everywhere you look. Anger over injustice, inequality, and absence of opportunities is displaced onto foreign wars and fears about Iran, etc. Orwell pointed this out well in 1984. Control of the public through the media is relatively easy although entertainment, drugs, etc. are more useful. You have to go after the Plutocracy, the Political System, the Lobbyists which RUN THE SHOW. Some of the 1% sympathize and a few are on our side. Many of the 99% are against the OWS. So, although it is cute, useful, and not a bad marketing tool, the 99% is not accurate. 20% of the country is well off or rich and owns about 99% of the wealth. Generally, they do not care a whole lot for the remaining 80% although they put on the airs of doing so when convenient.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

I think the split, unfortunately, is two-fold. The Tea Party seems to see government itself as the problem while Occupy sees the corruption of government, or the nature of the corporate system itself, as the problem.

Secondly the Ocupy movement doesn't trust, or agree with the leaders of the Tea Party at all, and believes, factually as it turns out, that the Tea Party was largely created and financed by the 1%. This charge has been leveled against Occupy, but that is simply not true.

Given these very serious differences, it would be very difficult to come up with a platform that could satisfy the desires of both groups.

I'm not saying it's impossible, but real negotation would have to take place, and since Occupy has no leaders, I'm not sure it would even be possible.

To be honest about the situation as I see it; if Tea Parttiers really agree with the goals of Occupy, they must dump Ron Paul, Sarah Palin, etc., and kick out their corporate backers. Also they would need to leave the Republican party. All of these connections are anathema to the Occupy movement, to the degree that we see the Tea Party as not only supporters of the 1%, but as the most aggressive promoters of their agenda.

Not an easy gap to bridge.

[-] 1 points by lolwut101 (35) 2 years ago

May I ask where the factual support that the Tea Party was created and financed by corporate elites happens to be? I am not claiming that you are being untruthful, I only ask for evidence.

The reason I ask for evidence, is that there is a fair amount of evidence that the Occupy movement has been funded and support by the 1% as well (individuals such as George Soros, for example).

I would like to see where the evidence really comes from.

Honestly, I am skeptical of the claims of both sides. I see it as the government-run media intentionally pitting the American people against each other.

As with all things, the Tea Party movement has been exploited by the powerful in order to promote their agenda. The Tea Party was originally a grassroots movement started in the middle class. As soon as it was seen gaining traction, it was subverted by the establishment conservatives and swayed away from the original goal.

I still believe that the fundamental goals are one and the same, names and perceived leaders aside. The elites want you to believe that people like Sarah Palin are the leaders. It serves their purposes to divide the people in order to exploit them and prevent unity.

All of the things that you have mentioned, in my opinion, are manufactured half-truths that pit Americans against each other in order to maintain the status quo.

It is a fundamental strategy war. Distract the enemy, divide them, and destroy them. We are at war with our own government and those that it supports, and by believing the garbage they feed to us we only prolong their reign.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

I understand what you are saying here, and I believe an alliance between the two groups would be VERY advantagous to restoring a legitimate system run by the people. I will have to do a little research and get back to you with what I can dig up, and also be as objective as possible about uncovering the truth. I really believe in TRUTH, because without getting to the truth, whatever it may be, we can not go forward. Only when we dellude ourselves, whether on the left, the right, or somewhere between, can they find the means to defeat us.

Thank you very much for your contribution, and I will get back to you as soon as I am able:)

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

To me the whole discussion of the 99% vs the 1% in the US is important because previous to that there was almost a pathological denial that class issues were of significance in the US. It is the beginning of a popular discussion of class in the US, but only the beginning of such a discussion. After all even union officials, who are, by definition working class leaders, still refuse to publicly acknowledge that and continue to insist that there role is "the protection of the middle class." So ultimately I don't think it's about the 1% or the .1%, I think it's about class relations and whose class interests the corporate state serves and a discussion of the 1% vs the 99% is only the very beginning of that discussion and nowhere near an end point.