Hacker News Reader

Comment by Swizec | Hacker News Reader

The thing that bothers me most about the #OWS movement is that it isn't the 99% protesting against the 1%. It's the 10% protesting against the 1%.

In principle I agree with the movement, hell, I will always support anyone wanting to stick it to the man. But I wonder how many realize that their freedom and ability to have this opinion is built on the breaking backs of pretty much most of the world?

View on HN

I'm of the exact same opinion, but I'd wager it's even less than 10%. According to http://www.globalrichlist.com/ if you make over $50,000 you're part of the wealthiest 1% in the world. It's a fact that's largely glossed over.

I can relate to many of the concerns of the OWS movement (corporate political donations, loose banking regulations), but there's a lot of problems with the movement as well.

I've read variants of the point that the protesters are "rich" by a global standard. It's an interesting observation, but I don't see how it should change the protesters actions or positions or mine as a mostly-supporter.

I'd compare this to the civil rights movement. There were plenty of privileged whites who protested segregation in the US. You could have then reasonably argued that they were privileged because the US systematically enslaved and then repressed blacks. And I would say to this, "So what?" They were protesting something they saw as a problem, on the basis of their shared humanity.

As I said. They have a point, an important point. I just wonder if they realize the whole thing is just the pot calling the kettle black.

I guess what I mean to say is that the world order needs to change, but I don't think this is the way to go about affecting said change. The movement is basically asking for a new form of everything ... but they're asking the Old Form (tm) to do the hard work of changing.

A major difference is that those agitating for change stand to benefit greatly (or believe they do) by that same change. White civil rights protesters were more altruistic.

Revolutions start with the 10% that will be more actively involved, even if that only means retweeting right now. But I believe polls have already showed that most Americans /support agree with the OWS protests.

I would be wary reading too much into polled support for OWS. As the movement has no defined goals or means, it's an abstract concept that it's easy to, at least, not be against. Also, for that same reason, it's very easy to construct poll questions that give you the exact response you're looking for (not that it was difficult to begin with).

Also, FWIW, I don't think there's really enough data to say anything meaningful about the impact of re-tweeting on revolutions. Rather, "clicktivism" is often ridiculed for not contributing anything at all towards political means.

I think you're partially right about the struggle in NYC. But here in Philadelphia there are a lot of homeless people getting fed at the camp and plenty of working class and poor folks. A lot more diversity.

Certainly there's privilege in even being able to deal with getting arrested that a lot of people in this country cannot afford. And there are certainly a lot of people that may want to join the protests because of a job or whatever. But I don't think you can discredit the movement based on that privilege.

The 10%, really? Wouldn't that be in the neighborhood of 130k?

http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2011/09/us-househo...

I believe the GP was speaking globally. There are probably a billion people who would love to be poor in america.

I don't think too many liberal protesters are unaware of the plight of the developing world. It's a requirement for being a Bleeding Heart. :-)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com