I’m not sure what you want me to explain.  The idea that myths and legends have powerful effects on people’s behavior is pretty widespread and of long standing.

Anarcissie said:

Indeed, as the Occupations move from the realm of physical reality into myth, legend, and metaphor—myths do not have to eat, sleep or excrete—they will become more pointed and more difficult for the ruling class to deal with.

I dont understand that. Please explain

Regardless of the alleged riches of some of the protesters, the question of the distribution of power and wealth remains.  Is it a proper distribution?  Does it matter?  If it does, what are we going to do about it?  Canards about the hygiene or looks of protesters will not make these questions go away.  Indeed, as the Occupations move from the realm of physical reality into myth, legend, and metaphor—myths do not have to eat, sleep or excrete—they will become more pointed and more difficult for the ruling class to deal with.

Clearly they have a place to protest.  They’re still protesting are they not?  And the
Mayor Bloomberg and his thugs can’t do too much about it unless they want to
lose their jobs because they know the majority of the city of New York is on the
side of this occupation.  Golden Tents aren’t anything.  The crooks that work on
Wall Street eat and shit Golden Tents out for breakfast

It is time that we take time to pity one obviously bereft of his sense. I truly hope that Ozark Michael seeks the help he so desperately needs .

Anarcissie said:  “It’s really about power.  But power and wealth are not unrelated.  Surely you can figure that out.”

Yes, and these poor, powerless waifs of Occupy Wall Street have no place to protest and no way to make their voices heard. Whgen they were removed from Zuccotti Park, they ended up cold and alone… in what we conservatives call the ‘golden tent’:
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/wall_street_cra_pad_s31YWPjPTt0TYuxLGnu7IK

Oh yes, but some of them couldnt afford that. They could only afford to retreat to their $500,000 houses.

The rich Occupiers are the elite. look at the power these college kids have thru the power of Occupy Wall Street!

Anarcissie is right. Wealth and power really are related. Surely by looking at OWS we can figure that out.

Dear race_to_the_bottom,

What a fine man of ‘steel’ you are. You are a fine example of ‘racing to the bottom’.

Most Occupiers dont get to the bottom like you do. Its not everyone who would choose a mass murdering Leftist as their avatar.

Hey folks, pay attention to what Rafael Ravenet said. Any movement that wants to change this this country needs get down in the trenches where the people live. This is where the power is.

Marshall, November 19 at 11:41 pm:

‘So the 1% metaphor is all about wealth, as some below have said.  But the 99% (that’s us) owns two thirds of the country’s wealth - so how is it that the blame goes to the 1%?  If your answer is that it’s really about power, then that means that a) wealth doesn’t equal power, and b) wealth redistribution therefore makes no sense.  And now we’ve just removed (what appears to be) a main OWS pillar. ...’

It’s really about power.  But power and wealth are not unrelated.  Surely you can figure that out.

A blatantly false and misleading post like that of Marshall’s below ( his usual metier by the by) deserves some form of rebuttal, even though I am confident that most regular readers of TD are far too knowledgeable to be fooled by his silliness:

http://money.cnn.com/2011/10/26/news/economy/cbo_income/index.htm

NEW YORK (CNNMoney)—From 1979 to 2007, average household income for the nation’s top 1% more than tripled, while middle-class incomes grew by less than 40%, according to a new report from a research arm of Congress.

While those at the top have seen their incomes soar over the past three decades, middle-class and lower incomes have stagnated, the report by the Congressional Budget Office found.

“Over the past three decades, the distribution of income in the United States has become increasingly dispersed—in particular, the share of income accruing to high-income households has increased, whereas the share accruing to other households has declined,” the CBO said.

For the top 1% of the population, average inflation-adjusted household income grew by 275%. The rest of wealthiest fifth of the population, not including the top 1%, saw household income grow by 65% during that time, faster than the rest of the population, but “not nearly as fast as for the top 1%.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affluence_in_the_United_States

http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality-in-america-chart-graph

http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

Give them credit where credit is due.  The movement has done a good job at
isolating the source of the problem.  I’ve heard the concept of Class War
mentioned in the news more these last two months than the last ten years.  But I
suggest that perhaps the 1% metaphor hasn’t gone far enough.
 
The movement “focuses on the ‘Top 1%’ as a whole because that’s been the
traditional cut-off point for ‘the top’ in academic studies, and because it’s easy for
us to keep in mind that we are talking about one in a hundred. But it is also
important to realize that the lower half of that top 1% has far less than those in
the top half; in fact, both wealth and income are super-concentrated in the top
0.1%, which is just one in a thousand.”

So the 1% metaphor is all about wealth, as some below have said.  But the 99%
(that’s us) owns two thirds of the country’s wealth - so how is it that the blame
goes to the 1%?  If your answer is that it’s really about power, then that means
that a) wealth doesn’t equal power, and b) wealth redistribution therefore
makes no sense.  And now we’ve just removed (what appears to be) a main OWS
pillar.

But perhaps its really about “proportionate wealth” - the fact that the 1% owns
more on a per-capita basis.  Great, except that many of the “Wall Street” players
alleged to comprise that 1% own and earn less than, say, an NBA player, or a
wealthy philanthropist and job producer (like Bill Gates), or a famous musician
or movie star.

The posters who dislike the 99% metaphor are right; it makes no sense.  But
without it, what is OWS?  Perhaps it boils down to the reforms articulated in this
article (but not by OWS since it is leaderless and apparently message-less).  Ok
- then let’s start by removing the ones that contain the word “nationalize”, since
that just ain’t in the DNA of this country.  Removing “corporate personhood”? 
Well,  lawsuits over “piercing the corporate veil” are the most litigated in the
country - and in the U.S., it’s easier to pierce that veil than in most other
developed economies, so what would that solve?  And because this veil can
already be pierced, the indictments called for are already possible.  What’s left? 
Precious little I’d say.

Which is why this leaderless, and therefore rudderless movement is now
running aground.  It turns out the 1% metaphor does represent something after
all though: it’s the fraction of the population that believes it understands, and
actively supports the OWS cause .

Do allow me.  Cut me some slack, will ya?  Creap- hangers?  Hozzat? Crape? Grape? Crap?  Hells’ bells!

Crêpes?  Crêpes toujours!

Duh!  My previous message didn’t go anywhere?  What?
Are all you people a bunch of “crepe-hangers” or what? (Maybe 75% of you never heard that word before? In fact we don’t even have literal “crepes” anymore, and good riddance! I could tell you some stories, though ...—but I won’t.)

QUOTE, William Pfaff:

“As I have argued in the past, it is unlikely ever to happen so long as the electoral system is not changed so as to regulate electoral campaigning in a way that provides all qualified candidates with equitable access to national and local media, removing the money barrier to public office that now exists.”
_________________

That won’t happen as long as 99% of those voting keep voting for the corporate party’s Republicans and Democrats.

The only way for natural persons to get corporate money out of elections is for them to stop voting for the corporate party’s (R)s and (D)s and start voting only for non-corporate candidates — real people’s candidates.

Jill Stein for President:

http://www.jillstein.org

Voter Consent Wastes Dissent:

http://chenangogreens.org/home/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=498&Itemid=1

The article must be above par.. since the gallery is more consumed with hacking at
each other rather than the author.

Adios!

Ozark Michael—You should actually read what I actually write sometimes.  It’ll do you good.

Ilsa—‘Justice’, in the sense of a bribe or payoff, is often offered when rulers are pressured by circumstances to give up power to those they rule.  As you point out, real justice can take place only between equals.  But fake justice, that is, payoffs, will be presented as a distraction should the present movement get any further traction.

Anarcissie said:

Also, judging by the now apparently judicially sanctified theory that the lower orders have no right to be anywhere, control of territory might be important.

The upper class Occupy Wall Street snobs have no rights to be anywhere?

Howzabout they go Occupy their own $300,000 homes?(info provided on request)

I know you need to do your agitprop thing, Anarcissie, but enough with the ‘underprivileged, dispossessed, voiceless’ shtick.

Anarcissie,

Thank you. 3 million. That’s twice I typed it wrong.

it’s follow the money…

The Numbers Behind the 99% 
If then protesters with the “Occupy” movement are
with the so-called “99 percent,” who exactly are the
“1 percent,” and how did they get there?
http://www.newslook.com/videos/372874-the-numbers-
behind-the-99?autoplay=true

Occupy Movement Protests Escalate in US  
Anti-corporate greed demonstrators have come out in
force across the United States to mark two months
since the Occupy movement began.
http://www.newslook.com/videos/372835-occupy-
movement-protests-escalate-in-us?autoplay=true

iMax: 310,000,000 divided by 100 (1%) is 3,100,000.  Still a pretty long list!

Just making a list of people would be a waste of time.  It is necessary to show their relationships to each other and to important aspects of our lives like the government and the means of production.  For instance, there’s the ‘interlocking directorate’.

Also, judging by the now apparently judicially sanctified theory that the lower orders have no right to be anywhere, control of territory might be important.

If these people are running our lives, we have a right and duty—and a significant interest—in knowing who they are and what they do.

kimsarah,

The wealthiest 1% in the United States totals over 30 million people.

Robert Greenwald is putting together a dangerous, and wholly UN-American style, witch hunt.

Robert Greenwald is putting together a list of who the 1 percent are. And then we can start to connect the dots—put a face on that ilk.
This will aid us in defining them. (Us vs. Them?)
I can visually imagine a large chart with all the corporate and banking dots connecting to our institutions, including the legislative, executive and judicial branches; along with state legislatures and executive branches, etc.
It could evolve into a visual of “the system.”

Occupy does not have to go anywhere from here.
True, it’s driving all the news outlets crazy, not knowing who to point fingers at, who to try and pay off or threaten. Just as they do in the normal course of any business day, they’d like a simple list of demands from a leader, they want to know what it will take to end, and for everyone to just go home—as Chris Hedges points out—to watch TV, buy more items with credit cards and just accept that our leaders have our best interests at heart.
If Occupy goes nowhere from here, it is going in the right direction. It is just the beginning, and where it goes and how it grows is up to the movement itself. Efforts to stop it or co-opt it will be futile.

Anarchissie and everybody: Go ahead and be upbeat! I spent several hours today just watching various videos of Occupy movements and I’m telling you that I am vastly encouraged. So may beautiful faces!  It’s emotionally very invigorating. Thank God or whatever, everything doesn’t depend on us worn-out disillusioned “pastactivists” who thought we knew all the answers!  Fill your hearts with the strength and creativity of these sincere, intelligent, loving faces, and rejoice.  Happy Thanksgiving for sure!

objective—normally, I don’t let anyone out-pessimistic me.  But I think you’re going a bit far there.  I myself don’t like the 1% - 99% trope all that much either because it doesn’t accurately reflect the power relationships in our society.  But I can’t complain because it spreads and inspires people, and mine (‘ruling class, bourgeoisie, great leaders, replication of the state in daily life, etc. etc. etc.) don’t.  So let it, and we’ll see where we all come out.

It is true that according to statistics about political activity, most people don’t act, or act at random, or are totally influenced by irrelevancies like image.  But if I can think, so can others, and maybe they will.  It’s a long shot, but what’s the alternative?

I do hate to be upbeat here, but our backs are to the wall.

OWS, if it ceased to exist forever at this moment, would already have achieved several significant accomplishments.  Above all, it changed political discourse in this country, and unleashed a very powerful meme or concept—the 1% versus the 99%.  It has exposed the militarization of the police and the quasi-fascistic nature of the present regime for all to see.

The question now is what other people are going to do with the opportunities that have been delivered to them while most of them sat on their hands.  Thus far I mostly see suggestions about what OWS or somebody else should do.  What are you going to do?

For the sentiments behind OWS to progress, the movement must move beyond
encampments.  The 1%, though vastly outnumbered and hiding behind a false
premise, control the media and both political parties.  OWS got some attention,
but that important victory will quickly fade if the dialogue continues to favor
the corrupt system that runs this country.  The attention directed to our
knowledge that things are very wrong is devolving to attention focused on
unfortunate incidents that take place when a large group of people set up camp
in a public space. Our rights to freedom of speech and freedom to assemble are
very important, but if we limit ourselves to occupying parks we will continue to
lose more of our rights.  One interloper at one of these encampments can
destroy the progress of the entire movement. 
The Tea Party movement was taken over and used as a political weapon by a
few powerful people.  Surely the truth behind OWS can be directed and used to
fight back?

I am sympathetic with the protesters, however they were in the wrong place anyway. The government buildings are the places to protest, after all that’s where our money goes and we entrust them with our money to mete out justice, create fair laws, manage our pensions and health care, etc. By trying to work ‘outside’ government and blaming other recipients of the laws (i.e. Wall Street in USA, Bay Street in Canada) we let the politicians and civil servants off the hook to address the concerns. But remember, what are we paying these politicians for if we do not make them work for us - we must put politicians to work so we can all have a better life. Nobody is ‘outside’ of society, we are all affected by each other’s actions. There needs to be clear cut demands as well - I think in Canada the NDP is the closest to social justice but in the U.S. there is no one as they didn’t go for Ralph Nader as a third party leader (to their detriment).

I thought GREED IS GOOD.  Lots of stuff out there I
want to consume - especially while it is still available.

Robespierre115,  my thoughts are reflective of applied techniques that work.  Historic ideas of past struggles are useful to inform but in times of rapid change the architecture of change needs to fit the reality.  Making order out of chaos requires techniques designed for the task.  The Decentralization of power unleashes unmatched creative and inventive forces that the 1% can neither comprehend or control.  Trust the decentralized process. It works.
______________________________
“You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.”
Richard Buckminster Fuller

@do over, your little manifesto again proves the point, it basically peddles vague postmodern notions which are fitting for a comfortable society, not a people fighting tooth and nail as in Greece, Chile etc. It’s not about centralizing anything, but if one of the major anarchist thinkers like Kropotkin or Bakunin read what you posted they would probably scratch their heads and wish you good luck when facing the Czars thugs.

Robespierre115: 
Excellent commentary.  Yes, very few are willing to discuss the belief that our
system is the best. And that’s because people are basically unable to see it as an
issue. It’s already part of our cultural genetic make up, so to speak. 

Great article by W. Pfaff.

“Occupiers have not provided a coherent statement of what they want.”

Pfaff is ignorant regarding the Occupy Movement. 
___________________________________________________
The fundamental difference between 20th Century change and 21st Century change lies in the ARCHITECTURE of change.
Change in the 20th Century was CENTRALIZED.  It is represented by a triangle where power rests in the hands of the few at the top, and was dictated downward to the People.
Change in the 21st Century is DECENTRALIZED.  It is represented by an inverted triangle where power rests with the people at the top.
The architecture if the Internet is one of DECENTRALIZATION.  The DECENTRALIZED change process is vitalized by free and open communication in all directions.  A VISION results from the free and open communication when the majority of the participants adopt an idea in their minds and hearts.  VISIONS are FLUID and will change as the minds of people evolve and change.

The OCCUPY Movement is deeply decentralized and EVERY PARTICIPANT IS A LEADER.  This process is highly useful when attempting to change or TRANSCEND the status quo.  Political organizations or infiltrators have little effect on the Movement because the vision is so widely understood and shared by the participants that the vision cannot be corrupted.  The participation of ORGANIZATIONS should be avoided, BUT individual participation encouraged. 
Goals are a centralized decision making process.  Visions are more complex and result from decentralized decision making.  Decentralized change can TRANSCEND the current system and establish a new system, and new pathways to better lifeways.  One good example of this is the concept of sustainable living.  Decentralized decisions will develop a new MYTHOS, a way of confronting the world as it is and developing NEW lifeways from it.
No one yet knows the shape of the future.  What is sure IS the pathway to that future.  It is in the process being envisioned by widely decentralized cooperating participating Citizens.  As visions are developed and implemented,  the old will be transcended as the visions take hold.  WE ARE ON THE PATHWAY OF INVENTING THE FUTURE, A FUTURE THAT WILL UNVEIL ITSELF AS WE PROCEED.  TRUST THE PROCESS.”
Finally, this is not a POLITICAL movement to be used by media types to divide us. This revolution derives from a deeper place in our minds, hearts, and spirits.  EVERYONE is welcome to participate in this Movement and the greater the participation,  the more meaningful and balanced will be the results.  Seek to act with non-violence as the system is transcended
In conclusion, decentralized action via new communications is key. Visions are formed and adopted as the movement progresses, transcending and not challenging the current corrupt system through social action is important.  Each participant is a leader.  Nothing less than a reinvention of life in a more sustainable system will be the outcome.  The old system will die in it’s own rot and the new system will replace it. 
OCCUPY will NOT use demands because demands require a response from the existing system.  Widely dispersed Citizens participating locally in an Occupy site, or independently, will take local actions that will vary widely and be particular to the place they are living.  The better ideas generated with National consequence will take flight and the majority of Occupy participants will actionize them.  The decentralized process is a patient process and will take time for participants to internalize the power of the decentralized process. 
______________________________
“You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.”
Richard Buckminster Fuller

“Their other advantage is that Americans are not revolutionaries—after all, isn’t the American system the best in the world?”

This is a key issue few are willing to discuss. An actual REVOLUTION means overturning the system, changing the very way society is run etc., in the US we don’t have the revolutionary, militant traditions of societies like the Greeks, Latin Americans etc. because we’ve been high on our own cultural hubris for decades (the last real phase of proletarian militancy was essentially smashed in the 1930s). This is why when you go to an OWS event and actually engage with the participants what you get are the basic ideas of “I just want reforms, I want America to be what it was,” “I don’t believe in politics, but I want the political system to change,” “there is no left or right, we just want democracy,” “we don’t want to get rid of capitalism, we want a more compassionate form of capitalism.” Or consider when the Tuesday night raid took place, people were still naieve enough to beg Obama and Bloomberg to please listen and call off the attack dogs.

But this is a learning process and people will learn.

I sincerely believe the tearing down of Occupy could have been prevented if only more reasonable people had the temerity to speak up.

One thing we could do is to drop the premise of representing the “99” in the United States.  We will never convince enough people that that is realistic. It sets up failure from the beginning. Pretending that over 30 million people are the source of high crimes and all social injustice is also a set up for total failure. - Think about it. Who, exactly, are these 30+ million 1%‘ers? Restauranteurs? NBA stars? Real estate brokers? Oprah? The CEO of Chase? None of the above wrote the rules. But we here do have the power to change the rules (more on that in a minute)!

I hope one solid lesson we take from this episode lay in how exacting revenge is not the way either. As we have just witnessed, the types leaders such “movements” throw up are, to put it plainly, undesirable to most people. Isn’t it time to chastise and put aside the petulant children? Isn’t it past time to begin the real work for lasting change?

We can do this by ‘Occupying’ Legislative Houses all over the nation. From School Boards, City Councils, County Seats, State Houses and the Congress. The places where laws are made. Why not collect ourselves to Occupy these places? - It’s doable, it’s realistic, and it would be an actual plan.  The best part is that we don’t have to hurt anyone!  - No blood, no urine, no arson, no nightsticks and no need for plastic restraints or rubber bullets.

Human megaphones is an astounding idea! The best of ideas to come out of ‘Occupy’.

The greatest power and the largest voice the ‘every-man’ has is the vote.  When done in a coordinated manner it’s more powerful than any Tea Movement.  It’s far more powerful than Occupying parks and intersections. Is it not particularly tragic, in the United States, less than 50% of Americans exercise that megaphone voice? In “off year” elections that number drops to roughly 15-20%. - Sadly those numbers drop to less than 40% and 10%, respectively, amongst liberals and progressives.

In pure irony I ask: what’s wrong with America? I’ll go out on a limb and say the most unpopular thing imaginable. There may not be enough mirrors.

“The feasible but distant possible reform is to elect a new American administration and Congress that would reform the Wall Street system by separating the securities industry from banking, while nationalizing major banks and placing local banks under public ownership or supervision and control.”

Again, when it comes to this issue, look South friends, our neighbors are starting to pull it off after much protest, struggle and organizing. It is true, OWS was never THE Revolution (Amy Goodman was a little overdoing it on Charlie Rose making comparisons to the storming of the Bastille), but the spirit is there, ready and willing, we just need to start to advancing to the next stage.

an interesting take on the de-occupation from
Bloomberg News.

Eviction From Park Gave Protesters “Victory” 
Judith Stein, a professor at City University of New
York’s Graduate Center, and Jeremi Suri, a professor
at the University of Texas at Austin, talk about the
outlook for the “Occupy Wall Street” movement.
http://www.newslook.com/videos/371898-eviction-from-
park-gave-protesters-victory?autoplay=true

“The advantage they (the 1%) possess is that the Occupiers have not provided a coherent statement of what they want. Their other advantage is that Americans are not revolutionaries—after all, isn’t the American system the best in the world?”—Pfaff
  Again the conventional idea that a “coherent statement of what they want” would bring success. How many coherent statements does it take to make “enough” when the 1% do not give a damn and the government belongs to the 1%?  What beautiful Declaration of Wants and Woes would melt the hearts of the people who brought financial and economic disaster to millions of us with nary a regret or a tear?
  And on top of that, “Americans are not revolutionaries and the American system is the best in the world.”  The Occupiers are revolutionaries? Who said so? What makes you think so? What is a revolutionary as opposed to a reformer, a critic, a protester, a concerned citizen who knows we need to change the system? And where did the idea of the 99% come from—out of the blue?  Or can it be that 99% have begun to notice that the American system is probably NOT as good as it could and should be?
  Mr. Pfaff, I don’t know what you are observing in current worldwide trends to justify your statements above. The advantage the 1% have is money. That’s it! Nothing more. The advantage the 99% have is that justice is on their side and the facts are widely known.  A system rigged against A vast majority cannot stand because it literally eats its children for breakfast and its grandparents for lunch. The Occupiers and a whole lot of other people know that; it couldn’t be any clearer. The choice is not “business as usual” and the alternative is more like social justice, and everybody knows it already. (Except, of course, the pretender-defenders of “business as usual.”)
  The problem is mostly what to do, and how to do it, and if “leaders” refuse to acknowledge and treat the problem, the people get their turn to try. That’s where we’re at:  The people are acknowledging the problem and planning a treatment.
  The “advantage” that “the people” have is that they are far more aware and far more numerous that the 1%.  The advantage toe Occupiers have is that they are far more energetic and creative, and less short-sighted.

The Middle East needed sites like Tahrir Square for citizens to gather to protest. They don’t have a whole lot of cars. There isn’t as much technology. They needed the people, cameras covering protests, and link to internet in the same place.

None of that is an issue in United States… or won’t be for more than a couple of weeks. Sure, it’s a lot more convenient to base in one spot, but we have the ability to move anything a protest movement would need where we need to.