Skip to main content

Mere income inequality could never sustain a protest movement in the United States what has changed is the perception - obviously accurately in my view - is that these inequalities are no longer just and meritorious and deserved and the byproduct of hard work, that instead it is the byproduct of cheating. Of co-opting political and legal institutions to enable ill-gotten gains to be shielded and enhanced.

That essentially this inequality and the institutions that support them are now illegitimate because we no longer have the anchor of the rule of law to render them fair and just and that more than anything is what is fueling the movement because when essentially you want to effectuate political change you have one of two ways you go about doing that:

You can work within political and legal institutions; you can support candidates, donate money to political parties, try and elect new leaders - but when people perceive those institutions are completely captive to corrupt interests, that they are illegitimate to their core, then the only alternative, the only viable alternative to effectuating change in a meaningful way is to engage in protest outside the system, to protest the system itself, to signal to people who wield power that citizens banning together no longer are willing to tolerate the status quo. That there will be unrest and disruption if that status quo continues. And unrest and disruption on a mass scale is something that nobody should want to see because it is unpredictable and volatile and can potentially be dangerous.

But I think the reason so many people support that movement - I know the reason I do - is because  the way things are now the status quo is infinitely more volatile and infinitely more dangerous and the reason in my view for that is that the people who wield power are no longer constrained in any way because we have exempted them from the ultimate constraint that was supposed to bind them which is the rule of law.

Probably the best analysis yet of why thousands of people were willing to be pepper sprayed and beaten by police. Especially in light of The Man From MERS and the rest of the DOJ flunkies refusing once again to make cases against Banksters despite clear evidence.

The political system is clearly broken and lacks the trust of the governed. Will it soon also lose the people's consent?

Originally posted to Occupy Wall Street on Wed Aug 15, 2012 at 10:07 AM PDT.

Also republished by Income Inequality Kos and ClassWarfare Newsletter: WallStreet VS Working Class Global Occupy movement.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  It's Only 2 More Months of Working Hard Within the (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sebastianguy99, exlrrp, WB Reeves

    system and there'll be nothing demanding the time and energy of everyone presently focused on the election.

    It'd be suicide to hand the country to the worst authoritarians right away by abandoning the system as totally corrupt, even if it is. Protest itself would soon become impossible under their rule.

    But those working outside the system might spend this brief interval preparing for the possibility of more participation in November.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Wed Aug 15, 2012 at 10:14:53 AM PDT

  •  Bodies upon the gears... (9+ / 0-)
    "There's a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart, that you can't take part! You can't even passively take part! And you've got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels…upon the levers, upon all the apparatus, and you've got to make it stop! And you've got to indicate to the people who run it, to the people who own it, that unless you're free, the machine will be prevented from working at all!"
    Mario Salvio

    If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed. Albert Einstein

    by kharma on Wed Aug 15, 2012 at 10:16:10 AM PDT

  •  OWS's problem was lack of sustained clarity (10+ / 0-)

    It started with a clear money-in-politics critique that people understood and embraced in large numbers.  Then it drifted into inequality-in-general, which is a harder sell as Greenwald recognizes, even if depicted as "anti-cheating."  And that's leaving aside all of the weird governance (as in governance-of-OWS) issues that took precedence in many cities, fueled by the presence of people who (how to put it?) are not fully engaged with society.

    Mitt Romney '12: Berlusconi without the sex and alcohol!

    by Rich in PA on Wed Aug 15, 2012 at 10:21:38 AM PDT

    •  *GASP* (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Cedwyn

      HOW DARE YOU, SIR?  HAVE YOU NO DECENCY???  

      The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing online commenters that they have anything to say.-- B.F.

      by lcj98 on Wed Aug 15, 2012 at 10:27:45 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I would go even further (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      joe shikspack, exlrrp

      OWS, the Tea Party any claimed anti-establishment movement does well now because people have no faith in nor affection for the American elite and the political system they own.

    •  And they often chose the wrong targets (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Rich in PA, johnny wurster, doroma

      Like messing up local parks.  Our park is not to blame for Wall Street and damaging it didn't cost Wells Fargo a dime or cause any banker to lose sleep.

      •  Where would you have recommended? (5+ / 0-)

        There actually isn't much in the way of public space anymore.

        •  Shhhh (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          allenjo, joe shikspack, glitterscale

          you will burst their fragile bubble.

          Education is a progressive discovery of our own ignorance.

          by Horace Boothroyd III on Wed Aug 15, 2012 at 10:38:29 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  But that's the contradiction (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          johnny wurster, doroma

          A movement against the hegemony exercised by the private sphere over the public sphere should think twice before trashing what's left, in a physical sense, of the public sphere; clearly they thought twice about trashing the physical space of the private sphere, but making public space the easy default only reinforces (heck, it models!) the essential problem.  

          Mitt Romney '12: Berlusconi without the sex and alcohol!

          by Rich in PA on Wed Aug 15, 2012 at 10:42:24 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  ...No. That's not true at all. (4+ / 0-)

            Especially given that Occupiers cleaned Zuccoti park regularly which was at one point a Bloomberg pretext to shut it down before he openly broke the rules.

            But let's say protesting in public parks put strains on them. Where would you have suggested people protest?

            •  In private atriums. (0+ / 0-)

              But they didn't want to get arrested.  Life, as always, is a series of trade-offs.

              Mitt Romney '12: Berlusconi without the sex and alcohol!

              by Rich in PA on Wed Aug 15, 2012 at 12:52:45 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  How about getting permits for things? (0+ / 0-)

              I know, I know, following the laws isn't what OWS is about.

              •  As you know well, since you've read a lot (0+ / 0-)

                of these diaries as I have, some occupies worked very closely with the cities. Seneca Deone went very far in working with his local authorities. Others read the law. Zuccotti park was the ONLY park that was open at night. It was public. There is no real need to get a permit for public spaces. The local authorities might then pass a law so that they "define" public differently or some such.

                So really your point is not applicable. If you didn't need permits, no need to get them. If some of the occupies found they needed to work more closely with local guvments, they did. But often those did not need permits either, but had to placate the ptb in some fashion.

                WHERE permits were needed, some of the occupies, knowing that non violent protests often decide to do "civil disobedience" which is a known thing when people are looking to change the system, decide that is a course they want to take.

                If people are not interested in looking with clear eyes and they, not looking, want to assert that the status quo is just fine and all those complaining are grump grump grump (imitating McCain "Get off of my lawn!") then they are just fine with the status quo. And they will attempt to defend the status quo, especially if they feel they are getting something out of it. If they are an elite, one of the 1%, then they have a lot to defend. If they are a fearful bunch and think we are needing a STRONG defender, then they think they are getting something out of the status quo. If they are people who look to have everything in its proper place, then they will defend the status quo cause the protests looks messy.

                I don't know your story, although I think you like law. So how do you feel about having rules of law that are broken and go unpunished because they are broken by the elites?

                American Television is a vast sea of stupid. -xxdr zombiexx

                by glitterscale on Wed Aug 15, 2012 at 03:19:10 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  Seattle occupier here... (0+ / 0-)

                When the city decided to just randomly revoke our permits or make changes to them or send the police in regardless of our permit? Were we supposed to go home? Meekly forget what we were doing because the corrupt and broken system we have been trying to stand against decided they didn't like us?

                We tried to hold on and they twisted the laws to drive us out. We tried to work within the system and they bent things so that we couldn't.

                I hate sanctimonious liberals.

      •  They should have protested quietly, at home. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        DSWright, A Dark Evil Omen

        That usually works.

        How many divisions does OWS have?

        by Diebold Hacker on Wed Aug 15, 2012 at 03:47:29 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Well.. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    johnny wurster, Cedwyn, MGross

    If Glenn Greenwald says it, it must be true!

    The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing online commenters that they have anything to say.-- B.F.

    by lcj98 on Wed Aug 15, 2012 at 10:28:26 AM PDT

  •  Greenwald has just written (4+ / 0-)

    A declaration of independence from corruption.

    If cats could blog, they wouldn't

    by crystal eyes on Wed Aug 15, 2012 at 10:32:54 AM PDT

  •  Different take, but similar view (6+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    vahana, AoT, FG, MKinTN, exlrrp, glitterscale

    How to Get the Rich to Share the Marbles

    If the Democrats really want to get moral psychology working for them, I suggest that they focus less on distributive fairness — which is about whether everyone got what they deserved — and more on procedural fairness—which is about whether honest, open and impartial procedures were used to decide who got what. If there’s a problem with the ultra-rich, it’s not that they have too much wealth, it’s that they bought laws that made it easy for them to gain and keep so much more wealth in recent decades.

    Sarah Palin gave a speech last September lambasting “crony capitalism,” which she defined as “the collusion of big government and big business and big finance to the detriment of all the rest – to the little guys.” I think that she was on to something and that she was right to include big government along with big business and big finance. The problem isn’t that some kids have many more marbles than others. The problem is that some kids are in cahoots with the experimenters. They get to rig the marble machine before the rest of us have a chance to play with it.

    from a bright young conservative: “I’m watching my first GOP debate…and WE SOUND LIKE CRAZY PEOPLE!!!!”

    by Catte Nappe on Wed Aug 15, 2012 at 10:38:12 AM PDT

    •  Excellent (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Catte Nappe, AoT, joe shikspack, MKinTN

      Thank you, that is a very cogent frame.

      Distributive Fairness vs. Procedural Fairness.

      It's also worth noting the role of luck in distributive fairness but that issue can be resolve in institutional politics, unrest is really the result of injustice of institutions not the whimsical chance nature of market outcomes.

    •  Sarah Palin said that? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      glitterscale

      Guess that old saying is true about put 100 monkeys in a room with typewriters and sooner or later they'll write all the plays of Shakespeare

      Happy just to be alive

      by exlrrp on Wed Aug 15, 2012 at 01:22:59 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  It surprised a number of people (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        glitterscale
        Let us begin by confessing that, if Sarah Palin surfaced to say something intelligent and wise and fresh about the present American condition, many of us would fail to hear it.
        She made three interlocking points. First, that the United States is now governed by a “permanent political class,” drawn from both parties, that is increasingly cut off from the concerns of regular people. Second, that these Republicans and Democrats have allied with big business to mutual advantage to create what she called “corporate crony capitalism.” Third, that the real political divide in the United States may no longer be between friends and foes of Big Government, but between friends and foes of vast, remote, unaccountable institutions (both public and private).
        Strangely, she was saying things that liberals might like, if not for Ms. Palin’s having said them.
        http://www.nytimes.com/...

        from a bright young conservative: “I’m watching my first GOP debate…and WE SOUND LIKE CRAZY PEOPLE!!!!”

        by Catte Nappe on Wed Aug 15, 2012 at 01:37:57 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  This paragraph (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    FG, exlrrp, johnny wurster

    is exactly where OWS went wrong:

    You can work within political and legal institutions; you can support candidates, donate money to political parties, try and elect new leaders - but when people perceive those institutions are completely captive to corrupt interests, that they are illegitimate to their core, then the only alternative, the only viable alternative to effectuating change in a meaningful way is to engage in protest outside the system, to protest the system itself, to signal to people who wield power that citizens banning together no longer are willing to tolerate the status quo. That there will be unrest and disruption if that status quo continues. And unrest and disruption on a mass scale is something that nobody should want to see because it is unpredictable and volatile and can potentially be dangerous.

    But I think the reason so many people support that movement - I know the reason I do - is because  the way things are now the status quo is infinitely more volatile and infinitely more dangerous and the reason in my view for that is that the people who wield power are no longer constrained in any way because we have exempted them from the ultimate constraint that was supposed to bind them which is the rule of law.

    People don't want a revolution. The occasions when OWS engaged in disruption were increadibly unpopular, and are why it is now marginalized.  The Occupation in the Park was brilliant, its subsequent actions have squandered this brilliance.

    There is no alternative to electoral politics in this country, no matter how screwed up it is.

    The Tea Party understands that, and is busy upsetting incumbents in primaries.  OWS never did, and has become largely a movement of the left with little relevence to the actual fight for power in this country.

    The bitter truth of deep inequality has been disguised by an era of cheap imported goods and the anyone-can-make-it celebrity myth - Polly Toynbee

    by fladem on Wed Aug 15, 2012 at 11:11:00 AM PDT

    •  The Civil Rights movement didn't happen? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      allenjo, joe shikspack
      There is no alternative to electoral politics in this country, no matter how screwed up it is.
      That would even contradict what happens in the judicial branch unless that is a pure reflection of electoral politics (it isn't) let alone the power of social movements.
      •  The Civil Rights movement didn't happen? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        joe shikspack

        Perhaps we do not want a revolution but that does not mean that we are not a country fed up and weary of waiting for all the changes that this country sorely needs.

        And we keep waiting and hoping, perhaps we will have as strong a movement coming as the civil rights movement if we don't see meaningful changes coming and soon..........

        "Who are these men who really run this land? And why do they run it with such a thoughtless hand? David Crosby.

        by allenjo on Wed Aug 15, 2012 at 11:21:33 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  This is not the 60's (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        FG, MGross, exlrrp, johnny wurster

        These movements happened 50 years old.  The Civil Rights Movement WAS ALWAYS invested in electoral politics.

        Do you think Martin Luther King believed electoral politics weren't criticial?  Much of his movement was about getting people the right to vote.  King met with Kennedy and LBJ often.  

        People do not want a revolution now. They didn't want one in the 60's.

        The bitter truth of deep inequality has been disguised by an era of cheap imported goods and the anyone-can-make-it celebrity myth - Polly Toynbee

        by fladem on Wed Aug 15, 2012 at 11:30:45 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  They did not "primary" people (0+ / 0-)

          The point of social movements is to create space for new ideas to grow, change culture, and force political change.

          Electoral politics is limited, myopic, and essentially worthless without those ideas (as we are seeing). It's just about the treadmill of power - lots of effort and you go nowhere. By itself it doesn't solve important problems - it solves the problem of an ambitious person wanted to be elected to something.

          Politicians respond to social movements not vice versa.

          •  I could not disagree more (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            johnny wurster, exlrrp

            I have heard endlessly for decades from people about how politics didn't matter, and that we need to build a "movement".  

            I haven't seen any that really effected the fight for power in my 30 years + of politics, with the possible exception of the gay rights movement.  I have damn well seen electoral politics matter.

            The bitter truth of deep inequality has been disguised by an era of cheap imported goods and the anyone-can-make-it celebrity myth - Polly Toynbee

            by fladem on Wed Aug 15, 2012 at 11:51:00 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Matter in what sense? (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Sneelock, joanneleon, WB Reeves

              Most of the laws that the Democratic Party are defending were brought about by social movements, including the gay rights movement. And in 30 years you have also seen the Women's rights movement working as well.

              Winning elections and enacting laws are at the end of the process not the beginning. Just focusing on elections will guarantee real change never happens.

              •  Most of the laws...... (0+ / 0-)

                Most of these laws you refer to were enacted by Democrats. the Social movements didn't write the laws, or change the laws, they influenced the Democrats to do so. Yes they also enacted some bonehead laws (Don't ask, etc)
                There's not going to be any significant liberalization of policy without the Democrats on board which is why Occupy was less than brilliant in alienating and antagoniizing Democrats. So thousands of them, so millions of Democrats and the Democrats were (are) not about to let the tail wag the dog

                Happy just to be alive

                by exlrrp on Wed Aug 15, 2012 at 01:30:52 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  Nope (0+ / 0-)

                winning elections is the start.

                You have it exactly backwards.

                Ironically, the Civil Rights movement fielded a separate deligation in Mississippi in 1964.  They always viewed the electoral process as central.

                The bitter truth of deep inequality has been disguised by an era of cheap imported goods and the anyone-can-make-it celebrity myth - Polly Toynbee

                by fladem on Wed Aug 15, 2012 at 03:40:48 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

        •  That is the problem that it happened (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          joe shikspack

          50 years ago. Back in the 60's we had a strong antiwar movement in the streets.

          On one day in 1967, 400,000 marched in New York city, and 100,000 marched in San Francisco to protest the Vietnam War.

          Can you imagine our getting 500,000 in the streets marching against the Afghanistan war?

          Now our longest war, come fall starting our 12th year there, and a nation remains mostly silent. The candidates do not even mention this war.

          This is the kind of government we get when we remain silent.

          .http://en.wikipedia.org/...

          "Who are these men who really run this land? And why do they run it with such a thoughtless hand? David Crosby.

          by allenjo on Wed Aug 15, 2012 at 11:56:52 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  MLK, jr., was not the entire civil rights movement (0+ / 0-)

          And the others had absolutely no interest in electoral politics, because they saw the whole system as completely corrupt. It was the threat (perceived) of this portion of the civil rights movement that probably did more to nudge the actual politicians than MLKs speeches and marches.

          How many divisions does OWS have?

          by Diebold Hacker on Wed Aug 15, 2012 at 03:58:18 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  "change" is where electoral politics went wrong... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      glitterscale, BradyB

      change was promised.  it was advertized as being as simple as pulling a lever.  levers were pulled.  the change that was desired did not come.  

      electoral politics has become largely a movement of propagandized followers with little relevence to the actual fight for power in this country.

      disclaimer: this statement may contain material written for its illustrative value rather than as an expression of belief.

      i'm part of the 99% - america's largest minority

      by joe shikspack on Wed Aug 15, 2012 at 12:18:12 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Backwards and upside-down (0+ / 0-)

      That is, of course, ridiculous. You have it exactly backward; electoral politics is no alternative. There has been no major or successful social movement in this country that started in the ballot box, not in the whole of American history. Change comes to the ballot box last after hard-working people have already made that change, if not fait accompli, then at least irresistible.

  •  Doesn't Greenwald live in Brazil? (0+ / 0-)

    We need people on the ground here, in the U.S.A. and we need them to help make the right choices to fight the corrupt system. I see no functional difference between those who claim to know better but still do not make the correct electoral choices, and those who intentionally make the wrong choices.

    "There is nothing more dreadful than the habit of doubt. Doubt separates people. It is a poison that disintegrates friendships and breaks up pleasant relations. It is a thorn that irritates and hurts; it is a sword that kills.".. Buddha

    by sebastianguy99 on Wed Aug 15, 2012 at 11:48:31 AM PDT

  •  Nah. Revolutions don't happen in rich countries. (0+ / 0-)

    But Greenwald has a point. If people become convinced that a lot of wealth is gained by corruption, it can change things.

  •  GG is absolutely wrong. Mere inequality? Really? (0+ / 0-)

    Inequality has always been a major problem, a major issue of social justice, morality and ethics, as well as a huge cause of endless crises in capitalist societies.

    There is nothing new about that. There isn't even anything new about capitalists gaming the system to their advantage, or governments letting them or bowing to their wishes.

    Though it is true that with the advent of neoliberalism, things are far worse than they were during the so-called golden age of capitalist democracies (roughly 1947-1973). But they were worse before that brief interregnum as well. It's looking more and more like an anomaly -- that brief time when the middle class actually gained some ground on the plutocrats and oligarchs.

    It's the very nature of capitalism itself to create concentrations of power and wealth at the top of the heap, and that's always been a destructive, unjust, immoral dangerous thing.  

    Greenwald should speak for himself when he says that OWS isn't concerned with "mere inequality." As a civil libertarian, his focus isn't on social justice, and OWS was started by people who are deeply concerned about it. GG is concerned about an even legal playing field. The original organizers of OWS know this is simply not enough. An even playing field just reifies class division, advantages, privileges and inequality. It's simply not good enough to just have all our laws and rules applied equally. The laws themselves are geared to help the rich and hurt the poor, the working poor and the middle.

    Basically, what GG is saying that if you have a game played between an NFL team and a Little League team, as long as the refs apply the rules evenly, everything is fine.

    Sorry, but GG doesn't speak for OWS. He speaks for civil libertarians, not egalitarians, not advocates for social justice.

    •  ... (0+ / 0-)
      An even playing field just reifies class division, advantages, privileges and inequality.
      That is absolutely false.

      The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing online commenters that they have anything to say.-- B.F.

      by lcj98 on Wed Aug 15, 2012 at 12:38:01 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  No. It's obviously true. (0+ / 0-)

        An even playing field just means that laws and rules with be applied evenly across the board. It means that the laws themselves will not further privilege one person or group or business over another.

        But when you start the game with massive inequality already baked in, an "even playing field" simply assures that already existing inequality remains in place. It simply insures that those who begin the race with privileges have major advantages over those who begin the race with major handicaps, and all the degrees in between.

        An even playing field is not a corrective to inequality. It is a corrective to a further manipulation of the system to increase already existing privilege and advantages. It does nothing about already existing privilege, or already existing disadvantage. Those remain the same. Inequality remains the same. It may not get worse, due to an uneven playing field. But it remains in place.

        •  *blank stare* (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          johnny wurster

          You just can't say that without providing an example.  So please, point to a moment in our history where evening the playing field had reaffirmed and solidified existing inequalities.

          The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing online commenters that they have anything to say.-- B.F.

          by lcj98 on Wed Aug 15, 2012 at 01:03:35 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  It's pure common sense. Come on. Sheesh. (0+ / 0-)

            Evening the playing field is simply doing away with extra means to manipulate the system. It does nothing about the massive gap in salaries between ownership and rank and file, for instance. It does nothing about the massive inequalities in education, health care access, environmental differences, etc. .

            A person born into poverty will still be born into poverty. A person born with a silver spoon will still be born with a silver spoon. All it means when you apply existing laws evenly across the board is that those with great wealth and power do not get an ADDITIONAL advantage through uneven application of existing laws. They still have all the advantages they were born with. They still have massively MORE power and privilege than the rest of us.

            I'm not saying that it's a bad thing to make sure laws are applied evenly, regardless of wealth and power. It's a very good and necessary thing. I'm saying that this, in and of itself, does nothing to reduce inequality. Which means it supports the already existing inequities produced by the capitalist system.

            In order to alter those inequities, the government actually has to put its thumb down (proactively) on the balance scale in favor of the poor, the working poor and the middle. It can't just be "even handed". Because if it does the same for the rich as it does for the poor, no reduction in that gap will happen.

            Its a lot like a percentage raise at work. It would be "evening the playing field" (technically) if a company decided to give everyone, including executives, a 10% raise.

            But the rank and file makes 50K, so their raise comes to 5K. Executives in that company make 10 million, so their raise comes to 1 million.

            The rank and file goes from 50 to 55K. Execs go from 10 million to 11 million. So, while the raise was 10% for EVERYONE, executives increase the gap between themselves and the rank and file dramatically.

            •  Yep. Let's all play by the rules, now that I own (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              diomedes77, DSWright

              all the marbles.

              It sort of reminds me of our Great Philanthropists of the 20th century. Most of whom made their nut in extremely shady ways.

              How many divisions does OWS have?

              by Diebold Hacker on Wed Aug 15, 2012 at 04:09:28 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  That's a good way to put it. Greenwald (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                DSWright

                is essentially saying that it's okay that a tiny percentage of the population controls all or most of the marbles. As long as our laws are applied evenly across the board -- to those with all the marbles, with a few, with none -- everything is cool.

                Uh, no.

                And that's not what OWS is saying. OWS was started primarily by left-anarchists, most of whom are anticapitalist and egalitarian. Yes, it expanded beyond that, and many liberals embrace it as well. Many civil libertarians (like GG) embrace it, etc. But liberals and civil libertarians (oftentimes, propertarians) do not speak for OWS. They speak for themselves.

                IMO, GG is missing the entire point of the movement, and because he has media access, his distortion is not a good thing.

                OWS arose as an answer to the capitalist conformity machine which creates massive inequality and teaches that this is a good thing. GG does no favors by basically supporting that idea, with tweaks. We're waaaay past the time for incremental changes and refiinements. It's too late for that.

                •  Good points (0+ / 0-)

                  He is definitely speaking for himself. But I do think OWS' larger appeal is deeply connected to a loss of legitimacy of the establishment tied to a perception that they are above the law.

                  OWS is surely bigger than that but the 99% are certainly infuriated by the 1% continually escaping justice.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site