The 1% and the 99%
A friend and I have been in e-mail exchange over a particular issue that irks me about the Occupy Wall Street movement and you [Ross] have used the same language in the Occupy World Street video.
It is the issue about the use of the 99% vs. the 1% language and image. I can look at this from multiple perspectives and can see that we do need to "name and shame" the 1%. I also can agree with your assessment in the video of their sole commitment to personal interest and protecting their wealth and power. I can see the boost it may give a large group of people globally to feel that they are the silent and increasingly not so silent majority.
I am also concerned with the fact that the 1% holds the access to mass manipulation via the media and still manages to tell a great many people what to think and strive for. They also hold access to military capability and surveillance to create even more totalitarian states.
AND, who are they? ... the 1%? , but human beings believing somehow that they are doing the right thing? The 99% should make it perfectly clear to them that they are mistaken in both means and ends. Nevertheless, are we not aiming to build a sustainable and just future for 100% of humanity and 100% of the community of life?
Think for a minute how the different memetic centres of gravity would hear the message/image of the 99% vs. the 1%? (sorry for the slip into Spiral Dynamics parlance) Is there not a danger of creating another round of them-versus-us thinking that has already created so much misery for our species? How can we communicate the need to extend an open path of reconciliation and collaboration to the 1% and not vilify and alienate all of them to a degree that things get even more violent?
I know many people in the activist movement who equate people with a lot of money with the 1%, and I have been fortunate enough to have met people with a lot of money who are the living proof of that not being the case. Your own path shows that someone who could have 'played hardball' as an international currency trader and amassed staggering amounts of money in pure self-interest, can also choose a path of being one of the most effective philanthropists I know and initiate and support projects and companies in 33 countries, building successes like GEN and GE.
Don't get me wrong, Ross. I know where you are coming from in using this language. I am only wondering whether the diversity of people that will receive the 1 vs. 99% message will hear it the same way. The schism is already there, and yes there are people among the 1% that seem like unlikely candidates for a change of heart, mind and consciousness, but I am still passionate about aiming for a path that includes the 100%. We are all in the same boat and it is taking on water fast! But making anybody walk the plank because they are not with us, so they must be against us, is a revolutionary rather than en evolutionary response. Revolutionary responses tend to be bloody and create strong back-lashes.
The Gaian League sounds great though and I look forward to reading more about it. I would be happy to hear some voices about the 99% versus 1% meme that is spreading for good and for worse possibly? Am I just stuck in my green-meme filters of "we must include everybody"? Is it yellow to say "yes, but not these idiots who are wrecking the planet and are responsible for the suffering of millions"? How would turquoise communicate a firm message that is confronting and reconciliating at the same time? I have no answers, just a persistent reaction of ill-ease when I hear the 99% vs. 1% meme without a both/and aim for the 100%.
Daniel
-
I resonate with co-operation vs. for/against or 'fight against'. I value the use of the 99% / 1% jargon to explain topics but again, resonate more with 'nursing that which is dying' and 'being a midwife to that which is new', that is: compassion towards the 1%, regardless the form they take.
Paola -
I don't think there is a problem in spelling out that the current system benefits roughly 1%. I agree with you, Daniel that it is also very important to remain open and compassionate, and not fuel anger against a particular group. Ross's analysis is not targeting the 1%, it is arguing for systemic change. This could lead to a people's movement for meaningful change. There will certainly be resistance from the corporate sector, but I believe that they generally have not examined the issues from a systemic point of view. So the book may be eye-opening for 1% too.
Regards, Helena -
I think the video is excellent. I have already sent it on to others.
About the 1%. I see no problem as long as there is some sort of reliable evidence where it came from. I find that often a figure or a quote turns up and by simple repetition becomes quasi fact.
I don't know where the figure came from originally in this instance but it definitely has been repeated again and again and it has become an important hook to rally around.
I personally would like to see a small reference to the source.
Good luck with the book. I'm looking forward to reading it.
Max -
I have to say I like the shock value of the 99%:1% slogan. The exponential trend in wealth concentration over the last couple of decades has been astonishing and completely unprecedented. Critically, it remains largely invisible; studies and surveys consistently show that both the very rich and the rest consistently greatly underestimate the scale of the polarity that has happened. For me, the slogan goes neatly to the heart of the systemic problem without, in my eyes, (necessarily) demonising the individuals involved.
Jonathan -
Daniel raises a relevant question regarding the “1% and the 99%”. I consider the language as a metaphor for what has been happening over the past few decades in the USA and not a literal definition. As such, it sends a powerful message. I agree that we do not want to be divisive or start a witch-hunt. The Occupy movement is non-violent, so I think they understand that. Also, a clear condition in the Gaian paradigm is that no one is left out. So I am not too concerned with this terminology.
The source of the figures used in the video and in my book are based on the work of professor G. William Domhoff, University of California at Santa Cruz. See, for example, his article “Wealth, Income and Power” referenced below . According to Domhoff, in 2007, the top 1% in the USA owned 34.6% of all wealth, while the bottom 40% owned 0.3%. It is this kind of shocking numbers that justifies the language.
- Ross -
Some may recall that around 2003 Senator John Edwards campaigned from North Carolina on the division between Two Americas. I was corresponding at that time with an American in Chapel Hill who was fasting from a tent for economic rights. He wanted the US to sign the International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights. I was to become a channel for him to communicate with Senator Edwards, by fax.
He'd recently returned from sourcing a development initiative in Russia where he'd persuaded USAID to create a microfinance initiative based on the Grammeen model using Finca as partners.
I offered him an exit from the fast and this was to bring us together the following year to create a business plan for social purpose with the above covenant declared as our policy guide. Is said:
"Dealing with poverty is nothing new. The question became 'how does poverty still exist in a world with sufficient resources for a decent quality of life for everyone?' The answer was that we have yet to develop any economic system capable redistributing finite resources in a way that everyone has at minimum enough for a decent life: food, decent housing, transportation, clothing, health care, and education. The problem has not been lack of resources, but adequate distribution of resources. Capitalism is the most powerful economic engine ever devised, yet it came up short with its classical, inherent profit-motive as being presumed to be the driving force. Under that presumption, all is good in the name of profit became the prevailing winds of international economies -- thereby giving carte blanche to the notion that greed is good because it is what has driven capitalism. The 1996 paper merely took exception with the assumption that personal profit, greed, and the desire to amass as much money and property on a personal level as possible are inherent and therefore necessary aspects of any capitalist endeavour. While it is in fact very normal for that to be the case, it simply does not follow that it must be the case.
Profits can be set aside in part to address social needs, and often have been by way of small percentages of annual profits set aside for charitable and philanthropic causes by corporations. This need not necessarily be a small percentage. In fact, there is no reason why an enterprise cannot exist for the primary purpose of generating profit for social needs -- i.e., a P-CED, or social, enterprise. This was seen to be the potential solution toward correcting the traditional model of capitalism, even if only in small-scale enterprises on an experimental basis.
Enterprise for the primary objective of poverty relief, localized community economic development, and social support became the business model which guided P-CED's efforts and development at a time in the US when terms such as 'social enterprise' and 'social capitalism' had not yet been coined.
Traditional capitalism is an insufficient economic model allowing monetary outcomes as the bottom line with little regard to social needs. Bottom line must be taken one step further by at least some companies, past profit, to people. How profits are used is equally as important as creation of profits. Where profits can be brought to bear by willing individuals and companies to social benefit, so much the better. Moreover, this activity must be recognized and supported at government policy level as a badly needed, essential, and entirely legitimate enterprise activity."
The concept described was called people-centered economic development, a title influenced by Carl Rogers person-centered counselling and the belief that given access to appropriate resources, people may resolve their own problems, flourish and grow:References: