I agree with you. My point is that the entire movement seems to be of dubious initial momentum because if it were true class struggle, there would be much more focus on means of production. I therefore do not support the movement.While I believe that we have given too much power to the state and that indeed this is akin to giving the power back to King George, what I don't understand is how this fits into the framework of this discussion. I don't see how those that would love to expand the role of gov't are any better than the "neoconservatives" that you claim are attempting to grab power over all of us.
What is the point of this argument? What are you suggesting? This it the problem that I have with the entire OWS movement, it's not a movement, it's just noise. Yes, the system is corrupted and the politicians are bought off aristocrats, but what does crying about it accomplish? What are some concrete goals that we the people need to achieve to change the direction the ship is sailing? How do we the masses go about a reformation period and what would those reformations be?
Most of the time I hear selfish answers like..."We want free education" and "We want relieve from all of our debts", which obviously doesn't at all move the cause forward. Campaign Fincance Reform does. Lobby Reform does. Why aren't we getting together to demand a constitutional ammendment a) limiting terms for congresspeople and b) enacting serious reforms in our election and lobby systems? When are we going to have candidates that are running their campaigns on public funds (with limits) with audits and criminal punishment for abuses?
Why can't we get a candidate that is from the people and for the people? Why do I need to raise MILLIONS of dollars just to have my ideas heard and to give the people an opportunity to elect me? What do the people gain from the current system where each candidate is either a prop for the right or left (the corporations or the unions)?
I'll support the next movement, on OWS, I'll pass.