Anything but representative of 99% of the population.
The self-annointed "99%" are anything but that.
"You get up on your little twenty-one inch screen and howl about America and democracy. There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and ITT and AT&T, and DuPont, Dow, Union Carbide and Exxon. Those are the nations of the world today." - 'The Network' (1976).
For the record, 'America' could be replaced with 'India', 'Canada', etc. and the quote would hold true...
OK, but having identified the democratic deficit and dearth of prolitarian empowerment, how do you
explain their complicity with a system they find both unrepresentative and oppressive?
"The country gotta pay the Fed Reserve,
Kick back to the banksters, haven't you learned,
You protest cops or patrols on the street,
But I bought city hall so I own the police."
- Immortal Technique, 'Rich Man's World'.
The Occupy Movement that rocked the world should prove that people are not apathetic to the corruption of the political class.. The excesses of the State render the masses comatose.. All the while, the media is 'manufacturing consent', convincing us that the Gov'ment is good!!
anything but what, apathetic?
You have a habit of chipping in with a line or word or two and then donít explain what you mean by it.
They only represent themselves and those who've designated them as representatives. Another clever ploy by Prez B.O.
Follow the roots of the organization and you'll find that the original organizers of the movement are nothing more than anti-capitalists from around the globe. In no way do they, or their supporters represent "99%" of the U.S. population. Nothing more than radical leftist activists doing what they do best, self-annointing.
Occupy isn't representative in a formal democratic way, no, but that's transparently a straw man argument you've set up anyway. The people who have engaged in the the occupy movement are a mixed bag, but they do represent mainstream opinion on many things-for example the banks bail out which was overwhelmingly opposed by public opinion but it still went ahead despite the lack of democratic backing, precisely because it served the interests of the opulent elites in exactly the way previous bail outs have.
It's very telling that you say the roots of the movement are 'nothing more than anti-capitalists from around the globe' as if any argument or point they might make can be instantly dismissed on the grounds that they're 'anti capitalist' rather than analysing what they say-which i think is more convoluted than you seem to allow.
Allow me to demonstrate the logic of your position.
Lets suppose the roots of occupy are 'nothing more than anti-capitalists from around the globe' as you suggest, does that prove they're wrong or that they can't express something that is commonly thought or believed?
Now imagine a group of neocons formed a group and set themselves up near the White House to protest against some imaginary imminent war the US was about to engage in. There was popular public support for what the neocons were saying, now ask yourself does it make sense to dismiss there arguments because they were nothing more than neocons form around the US?
The neocons could articulate the general opposition within the country regarding the up and coming war and have broad support without having any democratic mandate and dispute public opposition to some of their other ideas.
I don't want to get into a discussion about capitalism per ce, but i think any discussion about it would have to go beyond abstractions of what capitalism would like itself to be, to the question of capitalism as it develops in reality. Whatís fundamental about capitalism has never been the free market, supply and demand allocation aspect of it, what is distinct about it is the issue of profit, it's rise and fall, and the related issue of wage-labour. This is the cycle that capitalism organises itself around, although without a clear sense of what is driving it.
The current economic crisis is a perfect case in point - no mainstream economist predicted it. In fact, there's no agreed upon theory from mainstream economists for why there are booms and busts or periods of growth followed by recession, under capitalism. Remember it wasn't that long ago that we heard the triumphantilist news that the era of boom and bust was over! In the West, the declining rate of profit after '97 was read as a sign that capitalism needed to become more competitive, and one way of doing that was to 'liberalise' the financial markets to keep competitive with foreign markets. In terms of re-establishing 'profitability' it worked, but it was, as we all know, nothing but a chimera.