It’s not just Wall Street and the financial sector that is America’s economy-killing problem. It’s not just the 1% richest Americans. It is the power of the much larger American white overclass, a social class which is at least 5%, maybe 10%, of the general population.
The OWSers don’t seem to understand, quite yet, that it is that they have taken on, that they must defeat to win. Not to destroy it – progressives do not need to destroy the overclass as a class and it would be crazy to try, it is a class that performs valuable functions. Remember why Mandela was very concerned that the white people should not be frightened out of post-Apartheid South Africa.
No, to win, progressives need only put an end to the disproportionate political power of the overclass, to the fact that it wields influence far out of proportion to its numbers (and, consciously or not, in its own class interests as a general rule). But that’s a daunting enough challenge by itself.
1%, 5%, it’s not about accuracy, it’s about marketing.
We. Are. The 95% doesn’t have quite the same ring as: We. Are. The 99%.
No, I think the Occupiers have a better feel for what they are doing than Lind does, even if I think they need to change tactics. Personally, I think they need to coalesce their protests on Washington so the US can see them in greater numbers (assuming they can get a critical mass to do this). And they need to avoid the temptation to turn their movement into a protest over how they protest, which is happening to a certain extent in the larger cities.
But seriously, tweaking the math? That’s an academic exercise of little use to a nascent protest movement.
I still say the progressive paradigm should be redistribution to feed demand & overcome the constant deadweight losses due to the poor not having enough income to cover their needs.
A friend of mine turned me on to the idea of a flat redistribution tax/negative income tax. If you’re making the mean income, you’re fine. If you’re above the mean, your taxes go up somewhat. If you’re making below the mean, your liability goes down somewhat. If you’re far enough below the mean that your rebate is greater than your liability, the state sends you a regular stipend.
Basing it on the mean answers the scare tactic of when they come for Buddy’s stuff.
It is indeed too much of a stretch to extend it to the 10%. I am the 10%, both economically and class-wise, and I have no more power to affect the situation than the chronically poor.
I haven’t asked them, but I’m sure that if all of my relatives that worked on Wall Street were to have protested bad practises at their firms this past decade, they would have shortly found themselves part of the bottom 10% rather than the top.
The whiteness of the overclass is definitely a major issue here. Since it’s not possible for, say, an Asian to be part of the richest 10% of America, it is definitely important to point out that the racial makeup of the eeeevil overclass is caucasian - yes, white, European-descended, fair-skinned, coffee-loving Whiteys. The importance of the whiteness of the white overclass of white whiteys can never be overstated.
Read for comprehension. Class status is not strictly a function of income.* Classes are social-and-associating entities that marry predominantly (not necessarily strictly) within themselves. Classes are sometimes coterminous with, but not identical to, ethnic groups, which may also be endogamous. You can work your way into a higher class, sort of, but classes culturally absorb the children of newcomers. (The present American overclass resulted from fusion of the old rentier-rich with the rising professional/managerial class – its character coming mostly from the latter, which effectively absorbed the former culturally.) In the case of the present American overclass, it happens-to-be-white, that is, its cultural roots are Anglo-American all around. But it has welcomed Jews as full members by now, more or less, and there’s free intermarriage. And maybe in the future it will widen further and become a mixed-race overclass. But that wouldn’t be much improvement. The problem is the existence of an effectively hegemonic ruling class in a democracy, because, even with good will, such cannot help but serve its own interests even at the expense of other classes’.
*An overclass person who loses his money still has his family, education, acculturation, friends, connections. Might bounce back. Better chance of being rich again than you have of being rich ever.
I’m a white male with income in the top 5%. I’ll readily admit that I’ve benefited from a framework of white privilege that made things easier for me than it did for others. And I’ll be happy to see that framework dismantled, even though in the long run it means my kids will have to work harder than I did.
But, despite the fact that I have it easier than most, I’m really not an economic mover and shaker. Making decent money means I can live in a nice neighborhood in L.A., but I can’t afford a house here. My car is 20 years old. My kids go to public school.
Defining the Occupy movement to exclude people like me would be a Bad Idea. Because, really, I have a lot more in common with someone making $50K a year than someone making $500K. I worry about my health insurance, about losing my job and not being able to make my mortgage payments, about not having enough saved for retirement. Casting the 99% net wide and including people like me in the movement makes it much more likely to succeed.
The real sociopolitical problem they are facing is that most Americans aren’t supportive of them. Their polling numbers are dropping each week. And the more they make this a protest about protesting, the worse the numbers are going to get.
The vast majority of Americans are still pretty complacent. They may talk about wanting change, but when they go to the polls, they still re-elect their incumbents much more often than not.
Still, by now it seems that everybody has pretty much forgotten the Tea Party. In politics, holding the stage makes you relevant, period.
Indeed. Yet, not always. 2012 is going to be a very interesting election year. Not that I think any Pub now in contention can beat Obama, but all other elections will be very interesting indeed. The Tea Party might resurge . . . and then we’ll have Town Hall meetings with OWS loud-lefties and Tea Party loud-righties whipsawing the candidates. And watching that will be like civic gladiatorial combat. It is a good time to be an American.
Well, the overclass is never politically united and there have always been limousine liberals. There was FDR, the class traitor – actually referred to only as “That Man!” by many upper-class Americans throughout his Administration – but, he was no socialist, he was the man who saved American capitalism. But all that never seems to pose a serious threat to the class structure. Maybe it might, if limousine liberals seriously united with left-populists, the latter being those who are at least setting the tone in OWS.
You don’t need the limousine liberals. That’s trying to pull people from the top 1%. You just need the upper middle class professionals like me to make common cause with the rest of the 99%.
A big part of how the Republicans have been able to win elections is by convincing people who are well-off BUT NOT WEALTHY to support policies that exclusively benefit the wealthy. They’ve created an ideological frame where high-income WORKERS are deluded into believing they share common cause with the investor class. The brilliance of the 99% strategy is that its focused on reminding successful workers that they’re still WORKERS, and as such are as much at the mercy of economic forces beyond their control as a guy driving a tow truck or a woman working the register at a supermarket.
One thing that could begin to help chip away at the overclass’ political hegemony is a SCOTUS that will reverse Buckley v. Valeo, followed by legislation to make it a lot more difficult to influence the outcome of an election by spending money. That’s done effectively enough in France, I believe, and it’s still at least as good a democracy as we are.
The problem is that both have mostly divested themselves from the process.
Our local occupy group has stated that they will not work to petition the government for change, that they will work outside of the government some how to elicit change.
The “99%” have an advantage that no corporation holds and that is numbers and many groups of people in this country use that fact to their advantage.
The most powerful lobbies in DC are not GE or APPLE, they are groups like NAACP or NAR or the unions.
All of these groups take small amounts of money and power from a large number of individuals to make very powerful political forces.
I was hoping OWS would have this effect but it appears that they will only have an edge influence.
Reading Federalist papers #9 and #10 would have helped them use their energy and good well in a much more effective manner.
In politics, holding the stage makes you relevant, period.