Quote:
Originally Posted by Muta
No, they have a reason for protesting (atleast initially). The message is just really poorly articulated, and they didn't do themselves any favours by not clariyfing it over the last month.
Whether you think they're 'ego-driven, self-centered [and] grandstanding' is pretty much irrelevant; they started protesting because of the movement inspired in New York, which was about income inequality and the gap that continues to widen (and other things like crony capitalism, excessive big government intervention, etc).
They don't have a clear message. They need one. However, I don't think it's smart to discredit them in the same way you think Ozy's over-crediting them (atleast initally why they started protesting, which might have seemed somewhat legitimate). But we can definitely all agree that now, they have no message, they are not willing to take that responsibility on, and their gig is up.
|
I think the problem for occupy is that at its heart it is harkening back to the social justice left wing movements of the 60's and 70's that lost all credibility with the fall of communism.
When you get right down to it what they want is old fashioned state control of wealth, with its associated undercurrent of
'if we just had all the rich peoples money we would all have wonderfull lives and not have to work that much, there is enough wealth for us all to do what we want'.
We all know that as an ideology that was shot to pieces in the 60's but there is a small stupid element of the far left that still harkens for the complete fall of capitalism and the establishment of a 'peoples state'.
This has become their wedge issue, unfortunatly for them they are morons and so overplayed their hand because in their heart of hearts they still foolishly think the 'working class' are itching to join them on the baricades instead of itching to get a new flat screen 60 inch tv.