Can the 99% fight?

Posted: 18/02/2012 in Struggle
Tags: , ,

I have previously described the 1% – and here are some nice clips as to who the 1% are, and explained why I consider they are the problem that need rooting out .

Now I want to consider the 99%, and consider where the problem lies with them. The real question is “Why aren’t the 99% in charge?” Why is it that with the clear majority of people that they haven’t taken power back from the 1% once the global 99% gave such a clear analysis? Because in one way or another many of the 99% have been bought off.

First of all the 1% need to protect themselves. Now they need protection in two ways. They need protection from poorer countries whom they exploit – the armed forces do this. They need protection from the people in their own countries who might decide that they want to stop the 1% from exploiting them – for this they use the police. And they use the media and government to ensure that they get this proection. Now they cannot do this by simply saying that we want to be protected because such a clear message that the people are being exploited can never be transmitted. So the government and the media create illusions, and the most popular illusion that protects the 1% is that the countries where they reside are democratic – please note here that the 1% in reality live in 1% country, and that it is in the people’s interest to save those democracies. This is what the armed forces do. This illusion is so deeply entrenched that the 1% are able to use the armed forces as a means of protection when they go into other countries to exploit their people for profit. Oil is the usual profit interest that the 1% want to protect but many people fear that the next resource the 1% will be exploiting is water. Even worse the 1% have learned that they are able to invade other countries, devestate the infrastructures in those countries and profit by the rebuilding of those infrastructures by exploiting both the reconstruction contracts and the security contracts needed to protect the contractors.

Within the countries they reside, the 1% contain the exploitation of people under the guise of the rule of law. Now of course the law can protect all of us, who wants their property stolen with impunity? But the priority of protection is clearly the need to protect the property of the 1%. The court system claims to be equality under the law, but it is undoubtedly true that the more expensive lawyers are able to get the best deals for their clients, under equality of law why should this be the case? But what about the laws that are being applied to the Occupy Movement? These laws are clearly directed against people who are standing up against the 1%. You might argue that such laws are rarely applied but this is not the case. They were applied aginst the miners’ strike in the UK in the early 80s. In the UK the people in the Civil Rights movements have been targetted as well as people at Greenham Common fighting the proliferation of nuclar weapons – the weapon of choice of the 1% along recently with drones. Movements that target the 1% are always targetted by the police. What about the police monitoring of Muslims? Whilst undoubtedly there are terrorists amongst the Muslim people, are all Muslims terrorists? What about the rise in terrorism amongst the Far Right? In Norway Breivik committed a crime against the social-liberal activists of Norway – approximately 70 young people, and he was let off with an insanity plea. When it was 5000 in New York – in a debatably political target, it became an excuse for war across the Middle East. Because this liberal position towards fascists and this liberal position of racism towards Muslims suits the interests of the 1%, these people are not targetted.

So through the law and the military the 1% control the 99%, but it should be noted here that both the military and the police forces are made up by the 99%. The police and military are undr orders not to identify with people fighting against the 1% such as Occupy. In the US there have been police (Democracy Now Nov 17) who have spoken up about the tactics against the Occupy movement but these are not postholders. I would contend that postholders speaking up would be sidelined. And this is an important tactic of the 1%. Ostensibly in the West we live in a democracy but that does not satsify the 1% as in a genuine democracy people would speak up against injustices caused by the 1%. So they exert other means of control. One of the corollaries of wage-slavery is that those who are working are controlled. Spokespeople of the police cannot support the Occupy movement. Police employed on the lines cannot turn around and join the march against Wall Street as they will lose their jobs. Officers on such duty will be hand-picked to ensure that they will not express any sympathy, spokespeople are all thoroughly groomed.

For most people awareness of this manipulation doesn’t exist because they have accepted the illusion that comes with wage-slavery, that comes with the supposed democracy of the 1%. In teaching such an illusion exists and is accepted by the majority of teachers. When Pink Floyd sing of “Another brick in the wall”, teachers dismiss the lyrics as naive. When educationalists such as John Holt or John Taylor Gatto, stand up and claim that the system is designed to fail, teachers cannot commit to any agreement and put it into practice as their job is to ensure exam passes. I was at one time a left-wing activist in a town in the UK whilst still being employed as a teacher. At the same time my activism took me into volunteer work with development agencies including Oxfam. Because a colleague knew this, when he was setting up a social studies course and wanted to include a development component he asked me to teach it. His course proposal was refused when I was to teach it but was accepted when someone else, less aware, agreed to teach it. When your position counters the 1% you are forcibly disenfranchised.

And what of the 99% who work as peasant farmers? Whilst the policies of the 1% affect them are they aware of it in those terms? They may blame government or corruption but do they associate the problems they are having with the 1% from afar pulling the strings. So between the people in the West who have been bought off and the people globally who have limited contact with the analysis of the 1%, how do we start to collectivise as the 99%? And the truth is we cannot really. In the US Occupy stand up for democracy, and the 1% haul out their puppets and pontificate about scruffiness etc. Such deflections work to satisfy those of the 99% who still cling to the possibility that the 1% will let them have enough money to live, and sadly that is most of the 99% in the West. The truth is that people who are aware need to stand up, the compromises I have made in my life are unacceptable. In work I often stood up and even though I was sacked twice for political reasons, neither sacking was concerned with my standing up for the 99% against the 1%. The compromise I made was to stay in the system and try to patch it up, whilst this was probably the most acceptable approach at the time it is not an approach that can work now. The 1% have gone too far, and it is up to those small proportion of teh 99% who are aware of this not to compromise.

There are avenues that lack compromise. Communes, organic farming, community currency, these all have the potential to be outside the working environments controlled by the 1%. Rather than compromising for the wage packet and pretending that the system can be fought from within these approaches that give 100% control outside the system are practical and feasible, compromise within the system is illusion. Perhaps the most significant aspect of the inroads of the 1% into the quality of peoples’ lives has been this compromise by the aware of the 99%. In this world there are leaders but these leaders are not only those in charge. Usually but not always the 1% have leadership qualities, some are just born into money. However there are many people within the 99% who have strong leadership qualities, but these people have subjugated themselves to the system of the 1%. If I have any qualities of leadership I sadly accept that those leaderhip qualities have been used to benefit the 1% rather than the people. Throughout my life I accepted the notion of compromise to produce change, and whilst I never felt I only worked for money that money allowed me to ignore the immoral compromises I was forced to make. In life today people like me don’t have that option, pointlessly fighting against the system has no positive impact. The system is economic and needs to be fought on that basis, withdraw contribution to the money that is exploiting.

It is now the time for the aware of the 99% to stand up and no more compromise.

  1. […] Can the 99% fight? […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s