I've seen this argument many times before.

Article on Salon by Andrew Leonard titled "The Costs of a port shutdown"

The problem however, with attempting to target the 1 percent with a port shutdown is that the 1 percent are the best situated to ride out any extended shutdown. There’s no way to avoid it. Shutting down “Wall Street on the Waterfront” would have some serious collateral damage. The immediate impact of any port stoppage would be felt by the workers who transport the goods from ports to their final destinations, the retail outlets where those goods are sold, the workers at those outlets, and of course, anyone involved directly in the export trade. California, a state that still sports an unemployment rate above 11 percent would be particularly devastated by a port shutdown that lasted any meaningful amount of time. Goldman Sachs would hardly notice.

It's not about targeting the "1 percent".  It's about shocking the foundations of the economic system as a whole.

Besides, "You can't do this because it'll hurt the little guys the most!" is the argument that always gets thrown around whenever anyone tries to disrupt the status quo.