I just asked my 6 year old sister if she knew what this was a picture of… Me: “Sara! Come here please.” Sara: “Yes?” Me: “Do you know what this is?” Sara: “Um…… a picture of a chair.” Pray for the kids of this generation.
Maybe I am misunderstanding the point of Occupy Dame Street.
I know it started from Occupy Wall Street. And that the Wall Street big-wigs drank champagne while the ‘99%’ protested. Now that protest, I understand.
But Occupy Dame Street seems to have become anti-IMF rather than a call to discipline those in the banks who got us where we are today. This is what I do not understand.
We need the IMF. We need to be bailed out. As of now, everyone has numbers on bank statements that are not backed up by physical cash. If everyone decided to withdraw those numbers at the same time, without the IMF, they would find they would not be able to. Without the IMF the everyday citizen will lose their savings. Businesses that deal through banks will lose their money. This will affect small businesses the most, shutting them down completely. Only the transnational companies will survive. It will hit the workers the hardest as payrolls are done through banks. Welfare systems are done through banks, so those on welfare are hit too.
I agree with the ideal. We are the 99%, and it hurts. But without the IMF the 99% are bankrupted, and it will hurt more.
I initially thought that those partaking in Occupy Dame Street were idiots, fuelled by the propaganda-spreading people like Richard Boyd-Barrett. But after seeing photos of people I have huge respect and admiration for, partaking in these protests, I’m beginning to wonder if I am missing the point, or if its the Occupy Dame Street Twitterati that are missing the point.