To understand why the establishment fears Occupy, read the Powell Memorandum
This memo, which Lewis Powell wrote to the head of the Chamber of Commerce in 1971, shortly before he was appointed by Nixon to the Supreme Court, is often cited as providing the blueprint for corporate dominance over the last 40 years. But if you look at the reasons Powell gave for writing it, you see something more -- namely, what terrified the business community so much about the 1960s, and why Occupy terrifies them in exactly the same way.
Powell saw the free enterprise system itself as under attack, not just by fringe leftists but by many of the most respected voices in society, and he believed it was the obligation of the business community to fight back by taking control of the dialogue. This they have done very effectively -- but they did it only by suppressing the grievances of 40 years ago and not by resolving them.
That is their weak spot. They know far better than we do that their entire system is a house of cards, propped up only by an incessant stream of propaganda, and that if anyone starts to question it seriously it could all collapse. For them, Occupy is like a horror-movie monster that comes back even when you thought it was dead and buried -- which is why they are panicking now and feel a need to smash it at all costs.
(Mods -- since the memo is only known because it was leaked, I assume there is no copyright issue and that it is fair use to quote more than four paragraphs.)
http://reclaimdemocracy.org/corporate_accountability/powell_memo_lewis.html
Confidential Memorandum:
Attack of American Free Enterprise System
DATE: August 23, 1971
TO: Mr. Eugene B. Sydnor, Jr., Chairman, Education Committee, U.S. Chamber of Commerce
FROM: Lewis F. Powell, Jr.
No thoughtful person can question that the American economic system is under broad attack. This varies in scope, intensity, in the techniques employed, and in the level of visibility.
There always have been some who opposed the American system, and preferred socialism or some form of statism (communism or fascism). Also, there always have been critics of the system, whose criticism has been wholesome and constructive so long as the objective was to improve rather than to subvert or destroy.
But what now concerns us is quite new in the history of America. We are not dealing with sporadic or isolated attacks from a relatively few extremists or even from the minority socialist cadre. Rather, the assault on the enterprise system is broadly based and consistently pursued. It is gaining momentum and converts.
The sources are varied and diffused. They include, not unexpectedly, the Communists, New Leftists and other revolutionaries who would destroy the entire system, both political and economic. These extremists of the left are far more numerous, better financed, and increasingly are more welcomed and encouraged by other elements of society, than ever before in our history. But they remain a small minority, and are not yet the principal cause for concern.
The most disquieting voices joining the chorus of criticism come from perfectly respectable elements of society: from the college campus, the pulpit, the media, the intellectual and literary journals, the arts and sciences, and from politicians. In most of these groups the movement against the system is participated in only by minorities. Yet, these often are the most articulate, the most vocal, the most prolific in their writing and speaking.
Moreover, much of the media-for varying motives and in varying degrees-either voluntarily accords unique publicity to these "attackers," or at least allows them to exploit the media for their purposes. This is especially true of television, which now plays such a predominant role in shaping the thinking, attitudes and emotions of our people.
One of the bewildering paradoxes of our time is the extent to which the enterprise system tolerates, if not participates in, its own destruction. . . .
What has been the response of business to this massive assault upon its fundamental economics, upon its philosophy, upon its right to continue to manage its own affairs, and indeed upon its integrity?
The painfully sad truth is that business, including the boards of directors' and the top executives of corporations great and small and business organizations at all levels, often have responded -- if at all -- by appeasement, ineptitude and ignoring the problem. There are, of course, many exceptions to this sweeping generalization. But the net effect of such response as has been made is scarcely visible. . . .
The overriding first need is for businessmen to recognize that the ultimate issue may be survival -- survival of what we call the free enterprise system, and all that this means for the strength and prosperity of America and the freedom of our people.
The day is long past when the chief executive officer of a major corporation discharges his responsibility by maintaining a satisfactory growth of profits, with due regard to the corporation's public and social responsibilities. If our system is to survive, top management must be equally concerned with protecting and preserving the system itself. This involves far more than an increased emphasis on "public relations" or "governmental affairs" -- two areas in which corporations long have invested substantial sums.