The Occupy movement has attempted to create broad appeal and inclusiveness using a divisive concept: 99 v. 1.
The idea is that one in a hundred people have an inordinate amount of money and power is true. The full reality is, naturally, much more complex, which is why there is so much resistance and opposition to Occupy from within the 99 percent.
The obscenely wealthy comprise much more than a percent. The world's richest one percent control about 40 percent of the world’s wealth, but the richest 10 percent control 85 percent.
The other 90 percent of us have to divide the other 15 percent. So, while the richest 10 percent of the richest 10 percent are the kingpins, they’ve got a significant inner circle controlling the vast majority of the resources.
And yet, much of the boohoo-ur-stoopid online comments slamming the demonstrators still come from the 90 percent who are sharing 15 percent of the money. These folks aren’t “rich” as the Canadian middle class tends to think of it. But they depend on the one percent—and the 10 percent—and their corporations, for jobs, which, for the most part, provide a nice standard of living, some exercise for the brain, and little in the way of joy or satisfaction in contributing something positive to humanity. They need the one percent, and the 10 percent; and they are indentured to them. And, for the most part, if they saw a way out, they’d take it.
Then there’s everybody else: the uncalculated portion of the 90 percent who support Occupy, or even participate in some way. We’ve all heard by now that the occupation has dwindled to nothing but a ragged bunch of potheads and homeless folks—as if being homeless vetoes the right to demonstrate or, I dunno, occupy space; as if a movement against corporate greed shouldn’t include the poorest among us.
Regardless, among the supporters are also people of the working poor, who work on average the equivalent of 1.25 full-time jobs and still don’t earn enough to get above the poverty line, which makes it rather unfeasible for them to be in Parade Square (or Victoria Park). And then there are the unemployed drawing reduced EI incomes, and those on disability and paltry income assistance of $535 a month, which in many cases covers rent or heat, not both. The working poor and unemployed poor comprise about 11 percent of Canadians. So that leaves about 79 percent of us who are not poor, but not quite filthy rich.
Beyond our borders, there are the nearly 50 percent who live in poverty , and the billion people who are chronically malnourished (until death).
When the 79 percent of Canadians who are doing OK financially, but in many cases suffer psychologically because of soul-sucking work, bellow (OR TYPE IN ALL CAPS UNDERNEATH YOUTUBE VIDEOS), “They’ve been there since Oct. 15?! Did it ever occur to them in all those weeks to get a job?!!!” their frustration is real, and comes from the misery of having chosen security over freedom, and seeing others get away with having both (i.e. sitting freely in all weather in Parade Square and not having their heads bashed in by cops). But at least those who chose security over freedom had a choice.
They are perhaps shouting too loudly to stop and think of how homelessness was exasperated when the 10 percent cut to funding that supported people with addictions and serious mental health challenges. They certainly aren’t thinking of the girl whose village was denied a water pump and school uniforms while the United States military spent $685 billion on its military in 2010. They aren’t thinking of the choices she was denied. Her story is not being told.
The Occupy movement may have made a tactical error in its numerology. It’s not enough to tell a white-collar stiff, “Brother, we’re the same, oppressed by the super-rich one percent.” Storifying statistics is an effective way to win support, but if you dumb the story down too much it bounces off people’s frustration with their own choices – the call for fraternity feels like an invitation to bite the hands that feed. Rather than join, many white-collar servants will do whatever they can to disassociate themselves from the movement, even as they accept the (simplified) one percent number. “Get a job,” they’ll say, “and maybe if you work hard like Rockefeller you’ll join the one percent.”
This is not to disparage the Occupy movement, which has been an inspiration in an age of cynicism. It is simply to say that the movement needs to work on its collective storytelling if it wants to woo the rest of the 79 percent who are doing OK financially. Because they are not thinking about the little girls denied water and education, or the sick man denied care or housing.
Occupy’s message is simple enough, and sustainable development expert Mark Swilling put it well (if academically): “The power of those who control the world’s resources depends on the systemic disempowerment of the global poor.”
To simplify further: poor are poor because rich are rich (only thing that trickles down is poop from a donkey). But within that simple aphorism are billions of complicated life stories. To succeed in ushering in a more just, healthy and sustainable world order, Occupy and its supporters (like me) have much work to do in sharing those stories.
