Naught A Bold-Faced Liar To Be Heard
I have a suggestion for the Occupy Wall Street protesters, from NYC to the sister groups that have spread nationally and kindred spirits abroad. This may well be my very best idea of the year.
I moved into this Bardstown, Kentucky motel on the 16th of September- the day before the protests began- and have eagerly followed the news of the effort primarily via all of the major cable television news outlets (particularly the overtly schizophrenic spin spewing out as status quo from FOX news). While searching for work in small town America is a kick in the pants, what I have seen is that denial and confusion seem to continuously plague all coverage of the protests. Confusion at how a grassroots group could have not only survived this long in the public spotlight but still grows from one week to the next. Denial in accepting that so many complaints demonstrated equates somehow to a lacking of singular organization or purpose. As though real validity might magically pop up should the thousands of protesters focus on an individual qualm. While many of Occupy Wall Street's aims can clearly be summed up by the innuendo of its name, I have even seen reports inferring agendas far more militaristic based on nothing but the first word of said name. And though resisting the need to establish a self-governing body will eventually lead to outsiders disrupting and further defaming Occupy Wall Street, the anarchy inherent to the group is the only way of ensuring the many voices be heard equally. Taking their grievances to Congress will not accomplish much, as there has never truly been a case of someone actually resolving anything from the inside out. Nobody changes the system from the inside, despite campaign trail promises, and especially when the whole playing field direly needs restructuring. Congress itself lacks the diversity of voices held by Occupy Wall Street. Filibustering, as an example, any jobs plan at a time like this is a cockblocking bully-move and certainly not very Democratic. Or rational. Or mature.
So what should the Occupy Wall Streeters do? How to gain more clarifying unification in the eyes of the public (or at least the public's media complex), without sacrificing its agendas or its spirit?
Abolitionism.
The protesters should acknowledge just exactly how much they have in common with the first largest social cause this country has ever known, and they should rebrand themselves thusly, immediately. While at one time Abolitionists even became a political party unto itself, in its heyday even most politicians were frightened of aligning too closely too publicly with the cause for fear of distancing themselves from prospective voters. Abolitionists were not pro-greed or for the redistribution of wealth- they were concerned with the exact opposite of those charges, of capping the greed of the individuals who kept all others in chains depriving persons of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Doesn't this all sound a might familiar?
For longevity (as well as continuity), Occupy Wall Street should associate themselves with this historic order which despite the system it challenged was able to evoke dramatic changes to politics and culture and all points inbetween. The protesters want their own chains cut, and from essentially the same masters.
No more slavewage days sacrificing the future away as this kind of indentured servitude replaces more distinctly what used to be the lower social classes (yet still the bulk of the population). Servitude to tuition debts, medical bills, insurance bills, the ridiculous implications of lousy credit, and the ever-escalating costs of basic living. I myself cannot even begin to afford to drink my troubles away. I am talking about servitude to the banks who own our homes, the full dance cards of our elected officials, and all tools with which to challenge the very system depleting the many of any and all livelihood. Yes, the entire system needs to be changed, rethought, and reborn. Capitalism is inhumane and vulgar. It is obviously not working if so much trouble is caused for so many poor souls. "Sacrifice the few to save the many" is a sentiment seemingly only explored in ethics courses, but we are living the complete and total opposite of that, and without any choice in the matter. The few sacrifice the many. Slavery.
This would not downplay the anti-slavery movement whatsoever. This is still the anti-slavery movement. Harsh words, but then the only detractors are the moneymen with something to lose, or their mouthpieces.
And the only ones who refer to this as class warfare are the ones who own everything. Think about what that means.
If anything, there lies far more of a factual correlation to this association than there is between the modern Tea Party movement and the actual historic Boston Tea Party event- which is none at all.
Posts
6 comments:
The more I hear that the bankers should not be blamed (by the Occupy Wall Street protesters or anyone else) for the economic collapse the more I am reminded of the hip-hop axiom- "Don't hate the player, hate the game". But that just isn't true. It's like saying Hitler wasn't the problem, but rather the Nazis who listened to him.
Their roles, past and present, only perpetuate the flawed system that is drowning so many of us today.
This is not a bad idea, but I think part of the problem with the Abolitionist movement is that it ended what horrible condition (slavery) and replaced it with another (wage-slavery). In other words, one form of capitalism replaced another. The exploitation was different but it was still exploitative. I haven't done much research on this, but the end of the Civil War and the Reconstruction period must have been an awful period for blacks. Slavery is ended, they're brought into wage-slavery, and Jim Crow laws are enacted to further segregation and separate human beings from one another.
In a broader sense, I think this is going to be a challenge for the Occupy movement at some point in the nearish future. There will be those who argue for regulation (or "re-regulation") of Wall Street, Banks, & the capitalist system. Basically, they'll be making a Keynesian argument. Or, to put it another way, they'll be saving capitalism FOR capitalism. Others (people like me) don't believe that goes far enough & that a reorganization at the base is required. The problem with Keynes (and this was also a problem with "communist" countries like the Soviet Union) is that it doesn't fundamentally change this equation: who produces surplus (i.e.: profits)? Who appropriates surplus? And who distributes it? In private "free market" capitalism (neo-classical, Milton Friedman, Chicago School, and so on), the appropriation is done by capitalists. In Keynesian capitalism, it's still capitalists but government officials get involved. In the Soviet Union, it was primarily government who appropriated and distributed the surplus. But note carefully: the workers who produced the surplus did NOT appropriate it & distribute it. It's why, despite the Cold War hysteria around the Soviet Union, one can make a strong argument that it was GOVERNMENT capitalism in play rather than "communism" (or what people think communism means).
My suspicion is that the Occupy movement will be debating and arguing these issues for a long time to come. The danger is that capitalists will use (as they have often done in the past) believers in regulation to divide and defeat the movement as a whole. Then they can spend the next years/decades unraveling the regulation. This is exactly what happened under Roosevelt's New Deal. Regulation was imposed, capitalism was saved, and capitalists spent the next decades defeating the regulation. That battle was effectively won in the late 1970s and solidified in the 80s under Reagan and Bush I. To my mind, it will always happen when the appropriators and distributors of surplus are left in the same (albeit more regulated) positions.
Which brings me to your comment. You wrote, "The more I hear that the bankers should not be blamed..." But there is truth to this. Many of the problems of Wall Street over the past two decades are systemic. That doesn't mitigate their personal responsibility or their lack of ethics. But I think a comparison to Hitler is a bad analogy. The sub-prime mortgage crisis was, in part, due to the lack of regulation (the repeal of Glass–Steagall & so on). And the lack of personal ethics. But the system pushes people to dismiss their ethics and sense of compassion to other people in the name of profit. If they DON'T do that, they'll be replaced by someone who will. (con't)
(con't)
Does that mean I don't think people shouldn't be prosecuted? Hell no! But again, any regulations that are enacted will be undermined or eliminated years/decades down the road. To me, that's the issue. How do you prevent that? I think what Cenk from the Young Turks is doing is a start (Wolf Pac - http://www.wolf-pac.com/). But to me, worker owned & controlled businesses working directly with their communities is the direction I'd like to see things go. We need far more compassion and understanding with each other and we need an economic and political system(s) that reflect that. Until we get there, I think we will continue to oscillate between private and state (government) capitalism and human beings will continue to suffer.
Regulation has to exist, to some degree. Any system void of cheques and balances is ultimately no different than the chaos of the law of the jungle, where the most ruthless are the survivors. Agreeing on exactly what measures should exist is the ongoing issue though, of course. I know the banks did not create the housing crisis directly, as Fanny and Freddy were only catering to the stupidity of the common American consumer...but they perpetuated the structure, flawed though it was. In the same vein, the bank bailouts of a few years back were also arguably the result of persons ignorantly living beyond their personal means. But responsibility is what is missed in both cases. The big spenders should not have been bailed out by the loan companies, and the bankers should absolutely not have been bailed out by DC. Failure should have met its natural end.
But at the other end of the spectrum, the "job creators" have been sitting on more trillions than at any time in this nation's history, yet want even less regulations. This is the killing blow. I would bet 20 bucks that no matter which of the two parties wins the next presidential election, the US government will take full control of the Federal Reserve as a last-ditch effort to save the economy. This will not work in any way, shape or form. I have been hearing Reagan's name thrown out a lot recently, but it seems too many are too quick to forget that his eight years ended with the Black Monday stock market crash- the worst recession since the Great Depression. The economic crisis is cyclical and it is also exponentially worse, and thinking from inside the box will not produce the results necessary for true solutions. Neither political party is capable of this, nor are the big business interests who own them lock, stock and barrel.
Not that I'm a pessimist or anything.
Oh, I'm not arguing for no regulations. What I'm saying is that if we just re-regulate, then the predicted outcome will be exactly the same as it was for the New Deal. The regulations will be slowly unraveled.
Another problem, though, is how reliant the world now is on credit. If the banks hadn't been bailed out, the entire system would have crashed. So I don't agree with you there. Part of the problem with the current crisis was other options were not explored. The banks could have been put into receivership. They could have nationalized (I'd actually argue that since they use public money they shouldn't be run as private institutions at all). Instead, the bail out fixed their bottom lines but did not create new lending for individuals and small business. Why? Because no conditions were put on the banks to lend out that bail out money at incredibly low interest rates. Wild.
The other key aspect was fraud. You wrote, "...were only catering to the stupidity of the common American consumer" and I"...persons ignorantly living beyond their personal means." I don't know about that. Some people were dumb and greedy, sure. But much of it was systemic fraud that directly exploited innocent people. The mortgages and other loans were so obtuse that accountants and lawyers have a hard time understanding them. Factor in signature fraud and it just gets wild. Then you get into things like Liar's Loans and the mind-boggles. Regulation would have helped here and I think the lack of criminal investigation is pretty telling.
I'm probably more cynical then you are. Globalization has created world-wide competition for low wage workers. Just look at what the monthly minimum wages are in China (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_minimum_wages_in_China_%28PRC%29). That's what Western workers are competing against. Yes, low wages like that have created lower priced goods for American consumers. But due to their own stagnant wages, debt and insecurity, they can't afford to spend all that much. It's a classic contradiction of capitalism. Capitalists want to drive labour costs down. In doing that, they create less of a market for their own goods. Much of that cheap Chinese labour is hired by American corporations, too. So rather than pay Americans more, then moved production overseas and hired far cheaper labour. That brought prices down and allowed Americans to continue to consume despite their lower/stagnant wages.
This is all a result of profit-driven enterprise. What's amazing to me is how many people, both on the left and on the right, believe that lowering wages is the ONLY way to get prices down. "All those damn union workers are the problem." Lowering wages is ONE way, sure. ANOTHER way is to cut profits. Dramatically lower CEO, Board of Director, upper management pay and lower or freeze dividend payments. That's another way to lower prices. Or (crazy!), RAISE worker wages but keep prices the same by freezing CEO pay and the like.
To me, the big question going forward is whether American workers will accept a dramatically lower standard of living that will make them more "competitive" in the globalized work place (the "Walmartization" of wages). If they do, desperation and inequality will grow. Which then begs the question: what will happen to the United States as a result? Will a demagogue rise up with answers (you know, scape goats to blame)? Will such a person/party be tempted to use the military to seize wealth from other countries?
I think that the majority of our politicians fail to see that Americans cannot afford to increase their spending now- which would be one way to fix things. And we certainly cannot afford additional or higher taxes either. The rescue funds, if we are to continue with cpitalism, have to come from the upper crust. But the accepted mentality is borderline violently opposed to such a notion.
Grand Old Party candidate Mitt Romney recently, famously, was quoted as saying that corporations are people too. There was even a big issue just a few years back with Wal-Mart taking out life insurance policies on its employees. None of the money was shared with family members of the deceased, nor was it ever intended to be. More recently, another GOP candidate, Rick Perry, tried to pass the same thing in Texas with school employees. Thankfully the teachers' unions were fighting it left and right. In the Illuminati Trilogy, one of my favorite sequences was where Hagbard Celine tried to sue the US Governemt as a singular, insane being. I think this should be a literal two-way street. I think employees should be able to take life insurance policies out on there corprate employers. If a business goes under, then the workers collect something for their own pain and suffering- instead of the other way around. But that's crazy.
Post a Comment