Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
- When You're Cutting Social Security, 'Wealthy' Begins at $25K
- In Blind Poll, Republicans Choose Progressive Budget Solutions Over Their Own Party's
- Not Guilty By Virtue of Videotape, Which, Unlike the Police, Doesn't Lie
- The 'Land of 10,000 Lakes' Is Running Dry
- Manning: Before Wikileaks, Leaked Docs Offered to NYT, WaPo
- Yoga Wlll Turn Kids Into Godless Sun-Worshipping Pagans, Lawsuit Charges
- A Better Plan Than 'Endless Growth': Enough Is Enough
- The 'Land of 10,000 Lakes' Is Running Dry
- Big Winner in Italian Election? The Five Star Movement
- In Blind Poll, Republicans Choose Progressive Budget Solutions Over Their Own Party's
Popular content
Today's Top News
What's Behind the Scorn for the Wall Street Protests?
It's unsurprising that establishment media outlets have been condescending, dismissive and scornful of the ongoing protests on Wall Street. Any entity that declares itself an adversary of prevailing institutional power is going to be viewed with hostility by establishment-serving institutions and their loyalists. That's just the nature of protests that take place outside approved channels, an inevitable by-product of disruptive dissent: those who are most vested in safeguarding and legitimizing establishment prerogatives (which, by definition, includes establishment media outlets) are going to be hostile to those challenges. As the virtually universal disdain in these same circles for WikiLeaks (and, before that, for the Iraq War protests) demonstrated: the more effectively adversarial it is, the more establishment hostility it's going to provoke. 
(Occupywallst.org)
Nor is it surprising that much of the most vocal criticisms of the Wall Street protests has come from some self-identified progressives, who one might think would be instinctively sympathetic to the substantive message of the protesters. In an excellent analysis entitled "Why Establishment Media & the Power Elite Loathe Occupy Wall Street," Kevin Gosztola chronicles how much of the most scornful criticisms have come from Democratic partisans who -- like the politicians to whom they devote their fealty -- feign populist opposition to Wall Street for political gain.
Some of this anti-protest posturing is just the all-too-familiar New-Republic-ish eagerness to prove one's own Seriousness by castigating anyone to the left of, say, Dianne Feinstein or John Kerry; for such individuals, multi-term, pro-Iraq-War Democratic Senator-plutocrats define the outermost left-wing limit of respectability. Also at play is the jingoistic notion that street protests are valid in Those Bad Contries but not in free, democratic America.
A siginificant aspect of this progressive disdain is grounded in the belief that the only valid form of political activism is support for Democratic Party candidates, and a corresponding desire to undermine anything that distracts from that goal. Indeed, the loyalists of both parties have an interest in marginalizing anything that might serve as a vehicle for activism outside of fealty to one of the two parties (Fox News' firing of Glenn Beck was almost certainly motivated by his frequent deviation from the GOP party-line orthodoxy which Fox exists to foster).
The very idea that the one can effectively battle Wall Street's corruption and control by working for the Democratic Party is absurd on its face: Wall Street's favorite candidate in 2008 was Barack Obama, whose administration -- led by a Wall Street White House Chief of Staff and Wall-Street-subservient Treasury Secretary and filled to the brim with Goldman Sachs officials -- is now working hard to protect bankers from meaningful accountability (and though he's behind Wall Street's own Mitt Romney in the Wall Street cash sweepstakes this year, Obama is still doing well); one of Wall Street's most faithful servants is Chuck Schumer, the money man of the Democratic Party; and the second-ranking Senate Democrat acknowledged -- when Democrats controlled the Congress -- that the owners of Congress are bankers. There are individuals who impressively rail against the crony capitalism and corporatism that sustains Wall Street's power, but they're no match for the party apparatus that remains fully owned and controlled by it.
But much of this progressive criticism consists of relatively (ostensibly) well-intentioned tactical and organizational critiques of the protests: there wasn't a clear unified message; it lacked a coherent media strategy; the neo-hippie participants were too off-putting to Middle America; the resulting police brutality overwhelmed the message, etc. etc. That's the high-minded form which most progressive scorn for the protests took: it's just not professionally organized or effective.
Some of these critiques are ludicrous. Does anyone really not know what the basic message is of this protest: that Wall Street is oozing corruption and criminality and its unrestrained political power -- in the form of crony capitalism and ownership of political institutions -- is destroying financial security for everyone else? Beyond that, criticizing protesters for the prominence of police brutality stories is pure victim-blaming (and, independently, having police brutality highlighted is its own benefit).
Most importantly, very few protest movements enjoy perfect clarity about tactics or command widespread support when they begin; they're designed to spark conversation, raise awareness, attract others to the cause, and build those structural planks as they grow and develop. Dismissing these incipient protests because they lack fully developed, sophisticated professionalization is akin to pronouncing a three-year-old child worthless because he can't read Schopenhauer: those who are actually interested in helping it develop will work toward improving those deficiencies, not harp on them in order to belittle its worth.
That said, some of these organizational/tactical critiques are valid enough as far as they go; the protests could probably be more effective with some more imaginative, concerted and savvy organizational strategies. The problem is these criticisms don't go very far -- at all.
* * * * *
There's a vast and growing apparatus of intimidation designed to deter and control citizen protests. The most that's allowed is to assemble with the permission of state authorities and remain roped off in sequestered, out-of-the-way areas: the Orwellian-named free speech zones. Anything that is even remotely disruptive or threatening is going to be met with aggressive force: pepper spray, mass arrests by highly militarized urban police forces, and aggressive prosecutions. Recall the wild excesses of force in connection with the 2008 RNC Convention in Minneapolis (I reported on those firsthand); the overzealous prosecutions of civil disobedience activists like Aaron Swartz, environmentalist Tim DeChristopher, and Dan Choi; the war being waged on whistleblowers for the crime of exposing high-level wrongdoing; or the treatment of these Wall Street protesters.
Financial elites and their political servants are well aware that exploding wealth inequality, pervasive economic anxiety, and increasing hostility toward institutions of authority (and corresponding realization that voting fixes very little of this) are likely to bring London-style unrest -- and worse -- to American soil; it was just two weeks ago that New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg warned that the unemployment crisis could trigger "riots." Even the complacent American citizenry -- well-trained in learned impotence and acquiescence to (even reverence for) those most responsible for their plight -- is going to reach a tipping point of unrest. There are numerous weapons of surveillance and coercion that have been developed over the last decade in anticipation of that unrest: most of it justified in the name of Terrorism, but all of it featuring decidedly dual-use domestic capability (illustrating what I mean is this chart showing how extensively the Patriot Act has been used in non-Terrorist cases, and how rarely it has been used for Terrorism).
In sum, there is a sprawling apparatus of federal and local militarized police forces and private corporate security designed to send this message: if you participate in protests or other forms of dissent outside of harmless approved channels, you're going to be harmed in numerous ways. As Yves Smith put it this week:
I’m beginning to wonder whether the right to assemble is effectively dead in the US. No one who is a wage slave (which is the overwhelming majority of the population) can afford to have an arrest record, even a misdemeanor, in this age of short job tenures and rising use of background checks.
This is all designed to deter any meaningful challenges to the government and corporate institutions which are suffocating them, to bully those who consider such challenges into accepting its futility. And it works. In an excellent essay on the Wall Street protests, Dennis Perrin writes:
The dissident children were easily, roughly swept aside. Their hearts are in a good place. Their bodies a minor nuisance. They'll stream back to prove their resolve. And they'll get pepper sprayed and beaten down again. And again.
I admire these kids. They're off their asses. Agitating. Arguing. Providing a living example. There's passion and feeling in their dissent. They're willing to be punished. It's easy to mock them, but how many of you would take their place? . . . .
Yet I have doubts. The class war from above demoralizes as much as it incites. Countless people have surrendered. Faded from view. To demonstrate or occupy corporate turf doesn't seem like a wise option. You'll get beaten and arrested. For what? Making mortgage payments is tough enough.
Given the costs and risks one incurs from participating in protests like this -- to say nothing of the widespread mockery one receives -- it's natural that most of the participants will be young and not yet desperate to cling to institutional stability. It's also natural that this cohort won't be well-versed (or even interested) in the high arts of media messaging and leadership structures. Democratic Party precinct captains, MBA students in management theory and corporate communications, and campaign media strategists aren't the ones who will fuel protests like this; it takes a mindset of passionate dissent and a willingness to remove oneself from the safe confines of institutional respectability.
So, yes, the people willing to engage in protests like these at the start may lack (or reject the need for) media strategies, organizational hierarchies, and messaging theories. But they're among the very few people trying to channel widespread anger into activism rather than resignation, and thus deserve support and encouragement -- and help -- from anyone claiming to be sympathetic to their underlying message. As Perrin put it:
This part of Michigan [where I live] was once militant. From organized labor to student agitation. Now there's nothing. Shop after shop goes under. Strip malls abandoned. Legalized loan shark parlors spread. Dollar stores hang on. Parking lots riots of weeds. Roads in serious disrepair. Those with jobs feel lucky to be employed. Everyone else is on their own. A general resignation prevails. Life limps by.
Personally, I think there's substantial value even in those protests that lack "exit goals" and "messaging strategies" and the rest of the platitudes from Power Point presentations by mid-level functionaries at corporate conferences. Some injustices simply need anger and dissent expressed for its own sake, to make clear that there are citizens who are aware of it and do not accept it.
In Vancouver yesterday, Dick Cheney was met by angry protests chanting "war criminal" at him while he tried to hawk his book, which prompted arrests and an ugly-for-Canada police battle that then became part of the story of his visit. Is that likely to result in Cheney's arrest or sway huge numbers of people to change how they think? No. But it's vastly preferable to allowing him to traipse around the world as though he's a respectable figure unaccompanied by anger over his crimes -- anger necessarily expressed outside of the institutions that have failed to check or punish (but rather have shielded and legitimized) those crimes. And the same is true of Wall Street's rampant criminality.
But for those who believe that protests are only worthwhile if they translate into quantifiable impact: the lack of organizational sophistication or messaging efficacy on the part of the Wall Street protest is a reason to support it and get involved in it, not turn one's nose up at it and join in the media demonization. That's what one actually sympathetic to its messaging (rather than pretending to be in order more effectively to discredit it) would do. Anyone who looks at mostly young citizens marching in the street protesting the corruption of Wall Street and the harm it spawns, and decides that what is warranted is mockery and scorn rather than support, is either not seeing things clearly or is motivated by objectives other than the ones being presented.
Read more at Salon.com
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
145 Comments so far
Show AllI'm sorry, but what sticks out like a sore thumb to me is the lack of police brutality in the right wing "protests" (corporate sponsored tailgate parties). Odd.
Non-violent cops? C'mon. Go to YouTube and watch heads get bashed, watch girls get maced, watch people dragged off to jail just for being there. Non-violent? Whaddaya want, a small thermonuclear device?
very true.
PLEASE: ALL OF YOU WHO UNDERSTAND THAT THE GREATEST THREAT TO THE FUNCTIONING OF OUR AMERICAN DEMOCRACY IS MONEY, GO TO: getmoneyout.com and sign the petition to amend the Constitution to prevent any politician from accepting money from any source to gain office or to remain in office...
or call 917 720 6888 to text your signature to this monumentally important move to amend the Constitution and prevent the large moneyed interests, Koch Brothers, et al, from continuing their unprecedented subversion of the democratic process in America.
Why are they being scorned? Easy, it's because they're scorn worthy. Protesting empire and capitalism while wearing Nikes and eating food someone else grew under capitalism while demanding the 'freedom' to compel others to 'put people first' and ignoring that this inherently means putting your own ideas above those of those other darned people, is deserving of nothing but scorn.
Money isn't a threat. Money is just a tool. The threat comes from people, not money. Every time I hear somone bitching about money instead of dealing with the fact that it merely reflects the nature of humans dealing with it, I have to laugh. Doubly so when I hear people decrying 'greed' because someone else won't give up the money the *complainer* wants for their own goals, and wants it so badly they're willing to have someone else threaten people to get it. Not the best way to argue against 'greed'...by being worse than the person whose money it is.
Keep plugging, PeterP, i'm sure if you repeat yourself enough times you will convince someone here to join your Ayn Rand cult. Hope you are enjoying yourself!
__________________________
To be honest, I have no idea what PeterP is talking about.
No worries. I have no expectation that the 'open minded' left has any desire or ability to actually deal with dissenting ideas in a rational fashion. Why would I say this? Easy...look at your response. Look at the claims made in all these responses. The idea that 'money' is some evil is rampant and the unalterable fact that it merely reflects human nature isn't even on the map. Every time you read some lugnut demanding we 'put people first' it's a backwards desire to put human nature second...and will get the same disastrous results it always does. Why you people think you can get around human nature I have no idea.
Ridiculous. Your ideas are not "dissenting". They're the extreme fundamentalist version of capitalist orthodoxy. This is why there are no people anywhere near power who are even remotely related to, say, socialism, but a lot of rabid Rand followers. You're no radical dissenter, no matter how much you try posing as one.
As for people being able to handle different ideas rationally, you're not really showing a good example by bringing up strawmen and non-issues and not replying to actual questions and arguments.
What actual argument did you present? None that I can see.
There are plenty of people very near power wo are intimately related to socialism. There is the 'progressive' caucus. There is Bernie Sanders. There is Obama, whose arguments are always rooted in marxist memes, who grew up in the swamp of these ideas, and was a member of the socialist New Party. Noting the innate socialist tendencies of so many folks is not a strawman simply because they don't match point for point with a textbook socialist definition, socialist leaners are continually modifying their language and covering over their ideas with new clothes in order to gain toeholds once again. It's hilarious to see demands for socialist style redistribution here and in fact embedded in many US programs and have you claim there is no influence.
And another thing, gosh, I didn't know dissent had to match your ideological predilections to be valid.
Bernie Sanders and Obama - as a Marxist? Really? That's the best you can do? If you're lookIng for arguments, you can read my other posts and not select the only one that only calls out your transparent and dumbass posturing.
Tbh I am easy to piss off and become angry quickly but you're just funny now, I can't believe you're real.
It seems that you believe that all social welfare spending is socialist.
You are streching the definition of the word into meaninglessness. It is a pervasive fallacy on the right, and one of the more obvious ones to those that don't share your ideological biases.
I'm proud to be a socialist, and I'm glad that some few American politicians have some acquaintance with, and respect for, a political point of view that is shared by many millions of people the world over.
But it is rather ridiculous to allege that because Bernie Sanders, a pretty powerless outsider in the Senate, is a socialist, that "socialists are close to political power". And to cite Obama as a socialist is ludicrous. He may know something about socialism, but he does not agree with it. It would be nice if there were a large and powerful socialist movement in the Us, as there used to be long ago, but unfortunately there is not. To say otherwise is just a stupid lie.
__________________________
"..... 'money' reflects ...... human nature"?
Care to expound a bit on that proposition?
On what possible basis do you claim that your views are superior to those of others? And in what way do you demonstrate the opnmindedness you demand from others?
If you are a follower of Ayn Rand, how do you justify your views? Or is her "philosophy" a ready made vocabulary in which you can express yor prejudices?
Uh, Peter, you are not making your point well. The readers and posters here are not here because they are not familiar with your points-- for the most part, they have rejected those ideas long ago. You are not a visionary here: you are simply in the wrong forum.
"Why are they being scorned? Easy, it's because they're scorn worthy. Protesting empire and capitalism while wearing Nikes and eating food someone else grew under capitalism while demanding the 'freedom' to compel others to 'put people first' and ignoring that this inherently means putting your own ideas above those of those other darned people, is deserving of nothing but scorn."
- They are wearing Nikes etc because, you know, they are taught all the time, 24/7/365, that owning stuff, especially brand name stuff, and showing it off, is the ultimate reason for existence. They are starting to see the problems with the world, and you are demanding from them a complete elimination of all their connections to the capitalist dominated material world - as if that was possible. Fuck off. They are eating what "someone else" has grown because most people simply have no chance to participate in a productive economy: there are not many jobs overall, and most of those jobs are about doing wasteful shit. As for hypocrisy, I'd like you to try to answer a few questions I posted in the Warren: Class Warfare thread. If you manage to produce a reasonable answer, you'll be the first believer to do so. Not saying it's impossible, but I never ever heard a non-retarded "objectivist" answer to those questions.
- The "other people" you are talking about and standing up for are a tiny, tiny, tiny but powerful and rich minority who have control over the overwhelming majority of capital in existence in a world where everything that can be used for sustenance and production has been formally integrated as capital into this economic system, so that almost nothing but owned capital exists: capitalism is now a totalitarian system that simply leaves no space for alternative organisations of production (and thus for democratic organisation of society) under control of these people. You are sucking their dicks big time and admonishing people for protesting against them, even though, you know, they don't exactly need your pathetic help. Or do you think that brownnosing them will somehow put you on their side? Ridiculous :-D
- Thing is, a lot of the time, the ideas they are putting "above those of those other darned people", are pretty fucking popular among people in general - while the ideas they're fighting against need a constant stream of super expensive propaganda, a subverted educational system and a totalitarian economy and society just to float. In addition to this, all those ideas aren't just generic ideas that but have a substance and they're trying to engage in conversation about them. I think these protesters would be quite happy if only their ideas (which a significant number of people agree with) got just a little bit of time to discuss in the scornful mainstream media.
"Money isn't a threat. Money is just a tool. The threat comes from people, not money. Every time I hear somone bitching about money instead of dealing with the fact that it merely reflects the nature of humans dealing with it, I have to laugh. "
Never mind the fact that no one was really "bitching about money", but, you know, not quite. Money is an aspect of social-economic organisation. Just like "democracy" isn't a "tool" or an "opinion" isn't a tool or "voting" isn't a tool, money isn't (just or even mainly) a tool either. It is, among other things, the embodiment of wealth and power, and if it is a tool, it mainly serves to concentrate wealth and power.
In addition to this, "tools" also form people - which is the exact reason the entire cancerous financial economy exists. Money is part of a complex governing/control system, and its manipulation (along with the manipulation of the system's other parameters, ie. laws and legal regulations) enables you to gain more money (and control) without doing anything productive. This is what the financial "industry" is mostly about. Everyone who ever abused a glitch in a video game understands this - the difference is that the glitches that are abused are also programmed into the system by people representing the same power concentrations.
"Doubly so when I hear people decrying 'greed' because someone else won't give up the money the *complainer* wants for their own goals, and wants it so badly they're willing to have someone else threaten people to get it. Not the best way to argue against 'greed'...by being worse than the person whose money it is."
- The "complainers" obviously do not "want the money for their own goals", but maybe you don't understand this concept.
- Are you really saying that if a Wall Street trader destroys, say, half the wealth in a pension fund that contains people's life savings and enriches himself through it, it's their money, and the greed that drives him is the exact same thing as what drives people protesting about it?
Is your mind really so small that you can't understand that some people do not do some things for their own immediate gain but because they just don't like injustice?
No one, to my knowledge, is protesting against money as such. The protest is against the people who have grabbed most of the money -- and the power it brings -- while sarving the majority of it. In other words, the people who are hogging the nation's wealth, and buying up the nation's politics.
That people wear clothes purchased through the available distribution networks is not evidence of hypocrisy, simply of the fact that the US economy is dominated by corporations. or are you suggesting that only naked protesters are authentic?
Articulating ideas is what citizens should be doing. You have done so in your comment, in which the tone is one of cynical disparagement of anyone who dares to disagree with you. or are you and your ilk the only "real" citizens around here?
. To not be reported on in my view is probably a sign you have something to say that those most affected don't want to get out. The longer it goes on, the more likely it will get out and people will understand it. Consider when Nader or any third party Presidential candiate wants to debate with the "big boys", they won't allow for it. Why is that? Could it be third parties just muddy the water with good ideas and proposals the two "preferred" parties can't answer to because they already are bought and paid for? The same candidates who get the ear of the media, the press, and anything else owned and operated by the corporate system in this country.
This excellent article by Greenwald is another argument for consigning the failed neo-liberal DLC Democratic Party and all its patronage apparatchiks to the dustbin of history where they belong.
Some ideas we need to circulate widely to all those to the left of the failed Democratic Party:
Take a look at AMERICANSELECT.ORG
Anyone can register as a delegate and nominate whomever they want to be president. Because this is not a Third Party but a new nominating process outside the GOP/DLC/FEC rigged nominating process, its candidates can get on the ballot in all 50 States.
The other good idea we as progressives cannot afford to ignore:
Low Power FM (LPFM) radio station license applications for non-profit organizations in medium and large-sized cities will be made available the summer of 2012. This is the first time that’s been done by the FCC in thirty (30) years. Get’em while they’re hot!
This is the idea I've been pushing on CD for five years now. This opportunity won't come again. Non-profit progressive groups (including labor interest groups, environmentalist groups, anti-war groups & others) need to grab those licenses while they can.
Enough of these stations blanketing a medium-sized or large city with contiguous broadcast ranges could potentially mimic the audience market penetration of large commercial FM stations—ONLY WITHOUT CORPORATE FILTERS OR CENSORSHIP.
These stations could become part of a nationwide, populist progressive information cooperative network that airs local programming most of the time but cooperates to focus on regional and national issues of importance, responding to crises, and covering populist progressive, left libertarian or democratic socialist candidates during election cycles.
If we can get both these ideas up and running--low power FM radio and citizen delegate nominees on the ballot in all 50 States--independent of corporate media and the Dem/GOP/FEC nominating Machine, then we can use the LPFM stations to educate the masses about OUR CANDIDATES and get OUR IDEAS out without having to go through corporate "mainstream" media filters and censors.
Folks, you need to start talking up these ideas in your family, church, community resilience circle, non-profit organization or other progressive group and research what it takes to get these stations up and running. This is a once in a generation-and-a-half opportunity and if we don’t seize it, sooner or later the right-wing & Christian fundamentalists will.
So get off your butt and sweat your old agitator mind and body for a change! You progressive retirees who still have your health: There’s no excuse not to. Let me tell you, I’ve worked in radio before and it’s a hell of a lot of fun.
It will be even more fun to use radio to help build local community resilience and RESISTANCE and stick it to all those right-wing creeps who’ve been screwing us locally and nationally since Reagan. And we can use our own media voices that can’t be silenced by corporate media to help locally and nationally organize our own politics to go around theirs.
CARPE DIEM!
One important thing the Wall Street Occupiers have right is that they are not trying to get involved in presidential politics. They seem to understand that there is no room for progressive influence in presidential politics, and that a new kind of politics has to be built from the ground up.
I urge everyone to turn off the TV, where the non-events of the presidential campaign are anal-yzed ad infinitum, while the real politics being created in America are ignored or mocked.
___________________________________
Yes, that's a good point, and should be heeded by all progressive activists.
I have great respect for Mr. Greenwald but in this article he seems to be advocating for institutional hierarchy on the part of the protesters. I wish he would clarify what kind of hierarchy he thinks would help the movement. He knows as well as anyone that power corrupts whether that power is held by a corporate CEO or the "leader(s)" of progressive groups.
The real democracy being practiced in the protesters' general assembly decision-making process by consensus is a powerful statement on the kind of world many of us envision.
There's nothing wrong with good, democratic organization, set up to encourage discussion and participation, and to help formulate and propagate clear ideas and calls for action.
The idea that any form of organization other than sheer spontaneity is oppressive is just another form of "American individualism", a myth that needs to be discarded if a strong progressive movement is to be built. American individualism shows itself mainly in the mass consumption by millions of individualists of the same products, the same political propaganda, and the same impotent anger that blocks creative action.
_________________________________
Yes, another very good point. We need to work to "decrease" the influence of "individualism" as we work to "increase" the influence of "collectivism".
These are just young people that do not want to live and work in a demoralized corrupt environment and sell their soul to have a job. They don't want to work all their lives just to have their retirement ripped off, actually that won't happen to them because they won't have retirement. They are being compared to people Americans have already been conditioned not to like so you won't like them either. The problem with that is, greed is so rampant on Wall Street it effects everyone. These young folks are just one step ahead of all those wishy-washy people that have no sense of community or moral courage to speak out.
Thanks for this insightful article Glenn.
Finally, when the only thing that is clear is that what you have been doing is definitely not working -
Try something else.
These protests on Wall Street are a part of that.
I think these protests, and others, and many different - happenings, will only continue and expand, as the world we have both knowingly and inadvertently created implodes - which is actually what is happening right now.
The human being loves to win - needs to win - that is natural and therefore good.
Perhaps we will succeed in sending a few bankers to jail, or making improvements here and there.
We are seven billion desperate people on a planet careening into environmental Armageddon.
An implosion is followed by an explosion.
That is yet to come - these are the heats - the preliminaries.
Nevertheless, good on you who are actively protesting, and best of luck.
Manysummits
=======
PS:
"Many of us worry about the situation of the world. We don’t know when the bombs will explode. We feel that we are on the edge of time. As individuals, we feel helpless, despairing. The situation is so dangerous, injustice is so widespread, the danger is close. In this kind of a situation, if we panic, things will only become worse. We need to remain calm, to see clearly. Meditation is to be aware, and to try to help….
Our world is something like a small boat. Compared with the cosmos, our planet is a very small boat. We are about to panic because our situation is no better than the situation of the small boat in the sea. You know that we have more than 50,000 nuclear weapons. Humankind has become a very dangerous species. We need people who can sit still and be able to smile, who can walk peacefully. We need people like that in order to save us. Mahayana Buddhism says that you are that person, that each of you is that person."
--Thich Nhat Hanh--
Possibly the fact that almost all the protesters voted for Obama and thought he'd be a great President.
"There's a vast and growing apparatus of intimidation designed to deter and control citizen protests."--Glenn Greenwald
this weekend "60 minutes" ran a piece about the growing visible police presence in new york city as a response to 9/11. patrol cars everywhere. new yorkers grow accustomed to "just 'cause we can" commuter train stops and police sweeps. behind the scenes are federal agents, "suits" who coordinate with "the city's finest" who conduct these raids on private citizens. every new yorker or tourist becomes a t.v. star. hidden cameras everywhere. obviously, we see a knee-jerk reaction of utter fear and paranoia from the 1%. new york, d.c. and where else(?) are under fascist-type martial law---and its coming to a theatre near you soon. because these feel so intimidated, they try to intimidate us. what cowards!
"and i won't back down!"
Anyway, I think the answer is this: the task of the "liberal class" ("class" is inaccurate but whatever) was always to provide a "buffer" between concentrated capitalist power and the demos in order to manage democracy, in exchange for implementing some incremental reforms when the popular pressure was too much. And as Chris Hedges keeps saying - they have utterly failed in this task. But the liberal shits were only needed as long as capital felt threatened by people, while they had some power to fight back. But this power is now mostly gone or at least seriously decreased and held in check by the following methods:
- by destroying popular participation in productive economics ("productivity" increases)
- by totalising ownership based production and destroying possibilities of alternative economic systems
- by building up and expanding organs of violence and repression and creating the legal basis for their operation
- by taking over all sources of education (media and schooling) and using all traditional and modern techniques of propaganda
- by destroying and delegitimising alternative ways of thought
- by managing grassroots power concentrations (integrating unions into the capitalist system and destroying organisations that couldn't be integrated)
This makes the "liberal class" totally worthless. They aren't needed for shit now. On one side, they can't pretend that they're standing for progressive change and reform any more, on the other, their services to power are unnecessary and just money thrown out. The "scorn" they demonstrate is pretty understandable in this situation, whether it comes from their own hypocrisy or fear or whatever. Anything else from these posturing disingenous pretentious hypocrite "liberals" would be an admission of their own total failure/treason towards the people and the principles they're supposed to be standing for.
_______________________________
That's a harsh critique of liberals as oblivious or hypocritical "pawns", but in many respects well-deserving.
Great comment: thoughtful and truthful. Thanks!
The occupation of Wall Street is a big step forward in the development of a popular alternative to the dominance of the hoggish rich over American politics and society.
I hope that people across the US will occupy their own Wall Streets -- the business and finance districts where the local rich hogs gather to "network" in expense account luxury to figure out how to grab even more food out of the mouths of the poor so they can expand their own hoggish guts and fill their oversized pigsties with the latest expensive gadgets and toys.
The reckoning is approaching, and all the brutal cops in the world, won't be able to stop it. If the heroic people of Syria can get past the murder, torture, and intimidation of Assad's thugs, surely the American people can move past the thuggish bullying of Officer Bologna and his uniformed gang.
Glenn Grenwalt has nailed the proper tail to the Democratic Donkey. In so doing, the next best question is this, when are we going to move beyond progressive "reform" that continues to support the proposition the system only needs to be tweeted and it is doing just fine, and on to political change? If you can't get change from Democrats and you can't get change from Republicans, then we have to look more leftward to those who understand what needs to be done and get on with doing it. The Wall Street Protests are pointing in the right direction, people are fed up and they want something resolved besides their getting screwed all the time, every time by a system that fails them. Up with people! down with centralized power that hoards the money and steals from the poor!
why criticize Occupy Wall Street??
because nothing of consequence is happening, or being discussed...
there is a war coming...
we have enormous problems vastly larger than any one person's job, and windows of opportunity that are rapidly closing...can you say Cesium?
there is a war coming...
if we do not cease all industrial activity, and our attendant energy use, our future holds a single certainty: ecological death...everything, dead...
there is a war coming.l..
whether we endure a period of murder and oppression via drone and chip prior to our certain ecological death is the only question...
there is a war coming...
the only way to avoid both ecological death and death by drone is to return to living as animals...
there is a war coming...
we must sacrifice all modern convenience, and dismantle industrial infrastructure, allowing the natural world to begin repair, given any chance remaining, that can only come from unhindered rest and recuperation...
there is a war coming...
again, if we do not sacrifice our wants, our needs will be stolen from us by those commanding the drones...
there is a war coming, and there are only so many positions on may take:
one can fight for 'jobs', which requires ecological murder, and side with the drones...if a win, a brief one, only, with global death's approach ever-quickening...
or, one can fight for the planet, which requires industrial murder, and side with all current and future living things...if a win, a win with the potential for life to continue...
or, one can fight for neither, taking a position of non-violence...good luck, there...
there is a war coming...
remember, if industry continues, the planet goes POP! fizz...that's da fact, jack!
there is no such thing a Green industry...that is a lie...
there is a war coming...how will you fight? for death, or life?
these people Occupying Wherever, are not discussing this coming war, but should...
the other 'wars' are but future historical footnotes leading up to it...
if they did discuss these things, they might find they are not all on the same page regarding things like property rights, jobs, human health and planetary health, at all...
or, maybe they are...if so, that would be the reason for the criticism...
bringing all to the same level is an admirable goal...these people still have that level, that standard of living, impossibly high...
imagine no possessions...
there is a war coming...
I agree we need a massive power down soon, if we aren't going to get more ecological catastrophe. Meanwhile the Trots and Democrats want to re-inflate the economy just like the Repigliecons.
Your proposal to "cease all industrial activity.' is preposterous.
Appropriate tech development is the answer. Your propisal would rsult in the deaths of billions.
"if we do not cease all industrial activity, and our attendant energy use, our future holds a single certainty: ecological death...everything, dead..."
says you. I think I'll take my chances with technology.
Both approaches are quite wrong and unrealistic, but yours is quite a bit worse in the long run. His proposal would result in the deaths of a lot of people in the short run, while yours will result in the total destruction of the capacity of the Earth to sustain life.
It should be clear by now technology development will not ever lead to decreasing waste and pollution - every single invention and innovation that increased energy efficiency simulataneously increased total energy consumption and thus associated waste. This is a pretty important thing to know for everyone who believes in technological development. In addition to this, technology has not solved a single social issue yet (but managed to create quite a few new ones). Its "best" try so far was the Green Revolution, which might turn out to have done way more harm than good.
A total "power down" would be evil (and unnecessary), but a reduction in material economic activity, relocalisation of material economics, decrease of consumption and waste and a general rationalisation of economic systems is absolutely necessary. If we don't do that, and just religiously wait for technology to save us (despite all evidence from history saying that this is bullshit), a total power down will become unavoidable - and that will still be a better case than complete destruction of the environment.
Ed Schultz sure did a hack job on the protests, sounding like a Grandmother incensed that her son would wear long hair and protest--perhaps he forgot or doesn't know that every viable and vocal demonstration of opposition to the endemic structural inequalities and ingrained imbalances of power builds popular involvement and empowers these issues in general--and corporate power and the out-of-control greed of America's rich are rock bottom important issues. I think Ed lost it on that one. Supporting Barack Obama apparently isn't an effective way to address Wall Street's dysfunction and corporate America's chokehold on cash and investment potential that could be powering a comeback here....but is sitting in piles and even clotting those rich guys brains--more financial blood flow is needed, investment oxygenation and all---giving back and building enterprises and economic activity in this country! Would you do it if you held $10,000,000? I would do it---->
Another perspective:
The Transcendental Soul
It is clear that as the soul evolves, it experiences increasing degrees of freedom:
in its "infant form" - freedom from chaos and fear (carried over from experiences in the animal kingdom);
and later, freedom from the large and small tyrannies of rigid social conventions;
freedom from the compulsion to compete, achieve, be the best, walk over others, flaunt one's fame, prestige, or riches;
freedom from (and wise understanding of) ego-dramas and the exclusive identification with one's own personality, and not least, endless questions and doubts.
According to the Vajrayanna (Tibetan) Buddhist tradition a being does not have to attain "perfection" (or full spiritual realization-freedom) before being at choice about the details of incarnation. Thus we witness the Dalai Lamas and other Tulkus informing others of the general geographical site and overall conditions of their next incarnations.
Exceptional posts Amma! (I don’t always read back thru old threads – glad I did!) Though my spiritual beliefs manifest themselves differently in some ways (which is altogether proper as we are all individuals) it was a real joy to read your comments.
If we could talk to leaves of a tree and ask them what they see, each would answer differently. Those in close proximity would answer similarly, while those on opposite sides of the tree might answer profoundly differently. It is just the same with people whose experiences and background are similar or different. But if you asked each leaf the view they see looking through the stem where they connect to the tree, then the answer would be identical. Conversely, among people, love is our universal view, the identical stem we all connect to life by, and looking through the eyes of love enables us to accept and sometimes even understand differing points of view.
It would appear that a less-than-perfected soul can choose to offer their gifts by way of a highly specialized “assignment” (always involving tremendous responsibility) --- through a form which can be called "the transcendental soul."
Such beings certainly possess a great deal of spiritual power - the natural result emerging from lifetimes dedicated to cultivating compassion, wisdom, concentration, inner serenity, and selflessness.
It is precisely this dedication to the arduous (inner/outer) work of evolving consciousness which has allowed their egos to become more "transparent" to the Light of the infinite.
While there likely remains a modicum of work to do on self, the person has earned the privilege of seeding whole new concepts and/or institutions at the level of society and culture.
Their revolutionary work touches the lives of vast numbers of other human beings. Such rare individuals naturally demonstrate a very high caliber of wisdom, joy, one-pointedness, selfless love, and moral vision.
Through their deeds and their lives, they ground these ideas in contemporary culture, over time creating major ripples of change in the social order itself. In the process they meet entrenched power (and most often abusive power structures) with the forceful and compelling energies of truth, love, self-sacrifice, and courage.
“lifetimes” you said.
As I mentioned, we differ in our beliefs in a few ways. But on this particular one I thought I would share my view for what it’s worth..
Rather than re-incarnations, I see these more as shared memories. The first thing we do is inhale or we do not live. The last thing we do is exhale or we do not die. And all we can take with us is what we experienced and learned. Consider that, and then ask, would a caterpillar, once a butterfly, ever want to be a caterpillar again? An oak would never choose to be an acorn again. Admittedly, many caterpillars are bird food and likewise the acorns for other creatures. But those that transcend do not continue to crawl in the old ways too sluggish to even compare to their flowered form. Many people will merely be food for worms, but those of us ruled by love quite logically become “gods” compared to what we are today. But as to what that life will be like, no one knows, any more than a chick inside the egg can tell what awaits outside the shell, nor anymore than we could have envisioned this life when inside the womb.
M.K. Gandhi and Nelson Mandela, imperfect as they were/are, may well be exemplars of this stage of human consciousness.
(And yet, through the course time and evolution each of us will be heir to this state)
We all have much to learn from such beings. And the reality remains that each of us can - in the context of our own contemporary lives - utilize the power of "soul-force" in working toward the revolutionary/evolutionary change the world so desperately needs.