Most Popular This Week
- Not to Worry, Rape Victims Who Want An Abortion: We Won't Charge You With Felony Tampering With Evidence, Just Your Doctor
- The Non Zero-Sum Society: How the Rich Are Destroying the US Economy
- Obama Administration Compromise Would Implement No-Cost Birth Control
- The Right of the People, Even At the Airport
- To End Extreme Poverty, Let’s Try Ending Extreme Wealth
- The Non Zero-Sum Society: How the Rich Are Destroying the US Economy
- Don’t Put a Fork in It: On the Perils of Genetically Engineered Salmon
- Five Possibilities for the Next Great Progressive Push
- To End Extreme Poverty, Let’s Try Ending Extreme Wealth
- An Economic Alternative to Exploitative Free Market Capitalism
Popular content
Today's Top News
Panic of the Plutocrats
It remains to be seen whether the Occupy Wall Street protests will change America’s direction. Yet the protests have already elicited a remarkably hysterical reaction from Wall Street, the super-rich in general, and politicians and pundits who reliably serve the interests of the wealthiest hundredth of a percent.
And this reaction tells you something important — namely, that the extremists threatening American values are what F.D.R. called “economic royalists,” not the people camping in Zuccotti Park.
Consider first how Republican politicians have portrayed the modest-sized if growing demonstrations, which have involved some confrontations with the police — confrontations that seem to have involved a lot of police overreaction — but nothing one could call a riot. And there has in fact been nothing so far to match the behavior of Tea Party crowds in the summer of 2009.
Nonetheless, Eric Cantor, the House majority leader, has denounced “mobs” and “the pitting of Americans against Americans.” The G.O.P. presidential candidates have weighed in, with Mitt Romney accusing the protesters of waging “class warfare,” while Herman Cain calls them “anti-American.” My favorite, however, is Senator Rand Paul, who for some reason worries that the protesters will start seizing iPads, because they believe rich people don’t deserve to have them.
Michael Bloomberg, New York’s mayor and a financial-industry titan in his own right, was a bit more moderate, but still accused the protesters of trying to “take the jobs away from people working in this city,” a statement that bears no resemblance to the movement’s actual goals.
And if you were listening to talking heads on CNBC, you learned that the protesters “let their freak flags fly,” and are “aligned with Lenin.”
The way to understand all of this is to realize that it’s part of a broader syndrome, in which wealthy Americans who benefit hugely from a system rigged in their favor react with hysteria to anyone who points out just how rigged the system is.
Last year, you may recall, a number of financial-industry barons went wild over very mild criticism from President Obama. They denounced Mr. Obama as being almost a socialist for endorsing the so-called Volcker rule, which would simply prohibit banks backed by federal guarantees from engaging in risky speculation. And as for their reaction to proposals to close a loophole that lets some of them pay remarkably low taxes — well, Stephen Schwarzman, chairman of the Blackstone Group, compared it to Hitler’s invasion of Poland.
And then there’s the campaign of character assassination against Elizabeth Warren, the financial reformer now running for the Senate in Massachusetts. Not long ago a YouTube video of Ms. Warren making an eloquent, down-to-earth case for taxes on the rich went viral. Nothing about what she said was radical — it was no more than a modern riff on Oliver Wendell Holmes’s famous dictum that “Taxes are what we pay for civilized society.”
But listening to the reliable defenders of the wealthy, you’d think that Ms. Warren was the second coming of Leon Trotsky. George Will declared that she has a “collectivist agenda,” that she believes that “individualism is a chimera.” And Rush Limbaugh called her “a parasite who hates her host. Willing to destroy the host while she sucks the life out of it.”
What’s going on here? The answer, surely, is that Wall Street’s Masters of the Universe realize, deep down, how morally indefensible their position is. They’re not John Galt; they’re not even Steve Jobs. They’re people who got rich by peddling complex financial schemes that, far from delivering clear benefits to the American people, helped push us into a crisis whose aftereffects continue to blight the lives of tens of millions of their fellow citizens.
Yet they have paid no price. Their institutions were bailed out by taxpayers, with few strings attached. They continue to benefit from explicit and implicit federal guarantees — basically, they’re still in a game of heads they win, tails taxpayers lose. And they benefit from tax loopholes that in many cases have people with multimillion-dollar incomes paying lower rates than middle-class families.
This special treatment can’t bear close scrutiny — and therefore, as they see it, there must be no close scrutiny. Anyone who points out the obvious, no matter how calmly and moderately, must be demonized and driven from the stage. In fact, the more reasonable and moderate a critic sounds, the more urgently he or she must be demonized, hence the frantic sliming of Elizabeth Warren.
So who’s really being un-American here? Not the protesters, who are simply trying to get their voices heard. No, the real extremists here are America’s oligarchs, who want to suppress any criticism of the sources of their wealth.
- 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...


111 Comments so far
Show AllDuring the American revolution we tarred and feathered them........
The Russians lined them up against a wall and shot them.......
The French invented this neat little toy called the guillitine to use on them.......
Fdr and Eisenhower taxed them at 90% -
It's their choice - which will they choose?
Let's hope it doesn't get to the guillotine. But your point is well made.
Give us one good reason why 'Madame Guillotine' or a 'Mussolini Necktie' are too good for these blights on humanity?
These are the criminals who operate the MIC, control both political parties, profit massively from no labor of their own, and start wars that now have evolved to the assassination/murder of US Citizens by Predator Drone.
Cause you can only kill them once.
Putting them in a nice box for 20-80 years would actually cause them to suffer.
..and putting them in a nice 90% tax b(rack)et for 20-80 years would actually cause them to suffer even more -- and would have the added benefit of actually giving society a return on the "investment".
It's interesting that Krugman manages to weasel Obama into an article about the protestors.
Obama's "support" of the Volker rule was basically a "show or solidarity".
Just like his statement about "fat cat bankers".
Obama knows he has to throw a bone to his supporters every once in a while to convince them to stick with him.
Krugman also "fails to mention" that many of Wall Street's Masters have given generously (for the understatement of the millenium) to the Democratic party and that Democratic (and specifically Obama) support for the protestors -- including American workers, whom he promised he would "put on his shoes and march with" -- has been essentially non-existent.
Krugman uses the tried and true propaganda techniques.
Especially how according to richard wolffe - obama sided with summers and personally killed the Volker Rule -- Obama and his policies have led to these Protests - obama had his chance and blew it proving to be a bought and paid for shill for Wall Street -
You'd think someone as smart as krugman would know that - you can easily google it -
Meaning krugman either stupid and uninformed or lyng.
I might also add that we strung them up by the scruff of their necks at the end of WW2:
http://www.custermen.com/ItalyWW2/ILDUCE/Mussolini.htm
I'm not advocating violence - just pointing out when peaceful change is negated violence Will follow.
I hope the .01% do the right thing -
My take on your comment was that you were bringing up history to remind us of what a greedy, self-centered selfish blight such people are today. Not that you were actually advocating violence.
We still have the machinery of a democracy after all. Even if rightwing propaganda has been allowed to flourish. And the MSM (we have a media culture after all) reflect back upon the corporate interests of their providers. And, yes, quite a few Democratic politicians are owned by corporate lobbyists, or fear being called "liberal" and run in the opposite direction to prove they are not "un American." The machinery has to be allowed to work. Through the courts, elections, free press, schools, the www, organizing, community actions, protests, etc.
Unfortunately, the electoral system cannot "work" in the US. The voting process is entirely under the control of the corporations through the computerized voting machines that are owned, programmed and operated by a small number of right-wing companies.
I know it sounds paranoid, but check out blackboxvoting.org to start learning.
Killing them, or even harming them physically/psychologically, while it may satisfy blood lust and vengeance (never to be confused with justice), would put us at their despicable moral level as murderers and psychopaths who want people to suffer.
Unless you wish to be as hypocritical as they are, don't indulge in advocating the same immoral tactics they use on the rest of us worldwide: mass murder and/or torture.
We lose any credibility by advocating their despicable policies and tactics.
The one percent have separated themselves from society, it was their decision to take most of the wealth and resources of society with them. A just solution is that they give back what they took and they rejoin society on probationary status. However, if it involved violence and deprivation of life that should be decided on a case by case basis.
@ED - The top 4% are actively killing off the underclass everyday, either through policies affecting the environment, or direct decisions, ie. WAR.
Why the hell shouldn't we defend ourselves in kind?
Saying 'I will not fight back no matter what the provocation' is an open invitation of the abuser to continue and even escalate the abuse.
" Unless you wish to be as hypocritical as they are, don't indulge in advocating the same immoral tactics they use on the rest of us worldwide: mass murder and/or torture."
-- Yeah. Say that again when the Police are kicking in your door and dragging you off.
"We lose any credibility by advocating their despicable policies and tactics."
What part of 'JP Morgan Chase paid the NYPD 4.6 MILLION DOLLARS' didn't you understand? How is the totally unfair system in any credible? How is it 'despicable' to advocate SELF DEFENSE?
Thanks, ED.
this argument is rapidly losing whatever weight it may once have possessed...
this planet must survive...
this is not a matter of morality...
this is self defense...
lose credibility? what credibility are you talking about?
credibility as negotiators? one can only negotiate if one has something...
otherwise, as in this case, one is begging...
are you afraid 'we' would lose 'our' credibility as beggars?
Jesus, what's left to lose?
Just like the others, they will not choose, they cannot choose, They are dominated by greed,and status. They have no choice. Like GW said,"you are for us or against us"!
Very simply and well-stated by Paul Krugman. The demonization/dismissal of anyone critical of Amereichan capitalism - which of course means all of its enablers in Congress and the White House and the Supreme Court as well as almost all pundits in the MSM - is a natural response by those who suddenly realize they are being exposed for the criminals they are. The veneer of "patriotic, job-creating, economic success-stories" they always hid behind has worn thin and the truth is showing through, much to their chagrin. Their paid defender-whores in the government are panicky as well, since NONE of these corporations would be able to get away with all the illegalities they do if not for the legislation passed by them. So yes - quite natural of them to respond in the manner they are doing, like a wolf that is suddenly cornered. But kudos to Krugman for pointing this out.
Yes, the closer, the clearer, the more uncomplicating and revealing and sensible the criticisms are the louder Wall Street's apologists have to scream. The thicker and heavier their tar brush and the more intransigent their denials of criticism. It's an old story. But will the American people believe it?
History has a way of repeating itself and it's really too bad we don't learn from it to recognize the schemes to shift wealth into the merchantile part of society since the founding of our nation. Today mirrors the 1765 PA frontier where illegal trade has been replaced with globalization. They rebelled then and we are rebelling now. As always, I greatly admire your work Paul Krugman.
Ya know, I think I'm going to obtain a second hand copy of Ayn Rand's 'Atlas Shrugged' (I read it years ago. Utter crap.) and go the Occupy Vancouver site, and tear it apart page by page, and recycle each page into either toilet paper or fire starters for backpackers and campers.
Instead, use it by reading it closely. Ayn Rand's "looters, moochers, and parasites" accurately describe the 1%. They produce nothing, no Rearden Steel, no Taggert railway, no perpetual motion motors. The Tea-drinkers have never read it.
That's actually true. Ayn Rand would not have supported this rentier upper class.
Given that, I'd still say she was a pretty sick person.
Ayn Rand was an extremist, much like any other, psychologically. And her philosophy of selfishness appeals only to those of like mind e.g the Taliban, sharia law, fascism and so on.
"They’re not John Galt; they’re not even Steve Jobs. They’re people who got rich by peddling complex financial schemes that, far from delivering clear benefits to the American people, helped push us into a crisis whose aftereffects continue to blight the lives of tens of millions of their fellow citizens.
Yet they have paid no price."
I thought that deserved to be said again in the comments. I've noticed that in spite of low taxes, there still aren't enough jobs. I remember a famous commercial that asked "Where's the beef?" It's time to start asking the talking heads that same question, each time they claim that the rich actually create any job.
They got rich by lobbying - bribing their politicians to give them tax breaks and financial freebies the rest of us can't get.
It's illegal in damn near every other country in the world.
It's Illegal here if the will of We the People was listened to.
That is - it'd be illegal IF we had a true democracy.
{"They’re not John Galt; they’re not even Steve Jobs. They’re people who got rich by peddling complex financial schemes that, far from delivering clear benefits to the American people, helped push us into a crisis whose aftereffects continue to blight the lives of tens of millions of their fellow citizens.}
kind of like this wiseguy, who's name sounds a lot like john galt (in fact i was surprised krugman didn't use this reference).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Gotti
...peace...
That George Will is a master of propaganda all right. Nothing scares the Tea Party folks more than people who believe that individualism is a chimera.
I have a feeling that the Occupy folks are NOT book burners.
Globalization just means opening the whole world as a playground for Predatory Capitalism.
The time stamp on this post should, at the very least, read:
Oct 10 1991 - 1:21pm
I truly hope that this hasn't been a nascent development in your observational history. What this country, and the world, is now experiencing are the (long-term) effects of a global cancerous plague known as American Capitalism. The conspirators are a puppet regime that gives the illusion of offering people the right to vote them in, working, in cohorts, with corporations to create a unique modern brand of Corporate Fascism. The only difference between now and thirty or forty years ago is the coming of the Internet Age and thus, more people are now aware of it as it's so overtly perceptible.
I thought you had to pay to read the NYTimes. Guess that isn't working too well.
You get 20 free pages a month.
If it's linked from somewhere else, it doesn't count against your free total either.
The more the talking jerks on TV LIE and twist the truth around in 180-degree directions and accuse the people of being things they are not just PROVES WHAT WE ARE DOING IS WORKING.
I got rid of my TV long ago but if anyone is still watching, don't ever take what they say literally. You have to use a mirror and see the opposite of what they are saying because that is the truth.
If they say "mobs" they mean a group of peaceful protesters who are strong inside and not allowing themselves to react violently (which is maddenly to violent cops, etc.). If they say "terrorists" they mean citizens who care about the world's citizens.
But if they mean "un-American" as being those of us who are against slavery and raciscm and xenophobia and homophobia and against Columbus who started this whole mess - then FINE WITH ME. Call me un-American.
I assumed it was a transcription error, and the infotainwhores actually claimed that the OWS participants advocating for the working class are “aligned with Lennon."
Good observations. Krugman even tries to conflate Rand Paul with his father, but that won't work because we already know Ron Paul has expressed his sympathy/appreciation for OWSTR. The recent "Situation Room" interview between Blitzer and Ron Paul is instructive on a number of points as the linked trascript reveals, with the Paul segment starting about 1/3 down the page, http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1110/06/sitroom.01.html
I find it interesting that Gingrich defends Obama's escalation of the athoritarianism of the Imperial Presidency while Paul says Obama ought to be impeached for his gross violation of the fundamental law he's supposed to defend, not usurp. Because Blitzer tries to get Paul to agree to support whichever of his challengers wins the GOP nomination, Paul is afforded the great opportunity to showcase the vast differences that exist between him, Obama, and his antagonists who are essentially Obamas in White Face. Oh, and regardless of what you think about "Value Voters," Paul won their straw poll quite handilly with 36.9% . Reading the transcript to his speech there provides a real good clue as to Paul's values and philosophy, not all of which I agree with, but which place Obama and Paul's GOP contendors in proper perspective as they are all for the "transforming into empire and dictatorship" vision that Paul rejects, http://www.ronpaul.com/2011-10-08/ron-pauls-speech-at-the-value-voters-summit/
And Paul's essay related to Awlaki's and Khan's assassinations echoes the same points made by Glenn Greenwald, http://www.ronpaul.com/2011-10-09/ron-paul-who-else-is-on-obamas-secret-kill-list/
Paul is no Emma Goldman, but his focus on communitarian values despite their Judaic roots points right at the basic reasons for our dysfunctional culture and society. And his promotion of the idea that US Foreign Pollicy be based on The Golden Rule:
"You know, many great religions, and especially both the Old and New Testament, talks about a golden rule. And I think it’s an important rule. We want to treat – we should treat other people the way we want to be treated. And I would like to suggest that possibly we should be thinking about having a foreign policy of the golden rule and not treat other countries any way other than the way we want to be treated. (Cheers, applause.)"
Elizabeth Warren is a very smart and motivated person. She understands that change can only come through legal change.
Most of these efforts, though laudable, are misdirected.
Get out and support a candidate for change.
First, your implication that what the people are doing around the country is somehow "illegal" is false.
What they are doing is exercising their Constitutional right of free speech and freedom to assemble.
Second, your implication that "only politicians can save us" ignores history.
But do tell that to MLK.
And tell it to Gandhi.
And tell it to Jesus.
"Get out and support a candidate for change"??!
Talk about laughable.
Exactly! Well said.
I had a conversation with a friend who still thinks the same as the above comment. I told him that the major human and civil rights battles that were won throughout the ages were won not through a ballot box, but through mass social movements. He listened and then said, "well, let's just say I agree to disagree." I responded that that was fine, but reminded him that he was disagreeing with historical empiricism. The irony is that he considers himself an 'educated liberal'. To me, it shows how the US propaganda system has worked so well to fucker so many 'educated' people. Chomsky and Hermann were so right when they wrote "Manufacturing Consent." -- It really is the 'educated' who are so easily manipulated by the propaganda system.
"The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance - it is the illusion of knowledge." Daniel J. Boorstin
That's why Obama did what he had been implying he was going to do for the last year and put Elizabeth Warren in charge of the consumer protection agency.
Oh wait. He didn't. Instead, he stabbed you and yours in the back again like all of the other times.
"And Rush Limbaugh called her “a parasite who hates her host. Willing to destroy the host while she sucks the life out of it.”"
That's rich. Coming from a human being who looks like a bipedal blood-engorged leech, I don't exactly think he has much room to talk.
Let's look at who we are dealing with in this article - the wall street apologists are lunatics - Paul and Cantor are certifiable; Bloomberg is too busy counting his millions to get a handle on what is happening; Cain is an idiot and Obama has no balls so he can't stand up to business or the military.
Courage is not the word that properly describes oblahblah's abilities to deceive.
"Wall Street's Masters of the Universe realize, deep down, how morally indefinsible their position is. They're not John Galt; they're not even Steve Jobs. They're people who got rich peddling complex financial schemes that, far from delivering clear benefits to the American people, helped push us into a crisis whose aftereffects continue to blight the lives of tens of millions of their fellow citizens."
Paul Krugman nails the central truth of the nation's current great unpleasantness.
The so-called "financial services industry", epitomized by sprawling, opaque corporate entities like Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, and AIG enriched itself spectacularly during the last twenty years while providing no product, nor any service of any significance whatsoever to the real world economy of Main Street. It is not an "industry" at all. It builds nothing tangible. It satisfies no human needs.
Exotic, toxic collateralized debt obligations that were sliced and diced and sold across the globe were exposed as snake oil, colorfully labeled AAA-rated liquid gold. The super rich, sophisticated buyers and sellers of these esoteric financial instruments both knew it was funny money all along, which was why they created a parallel market in credit default swaps and insurance in order to hedge their bets. It was always alchemy all along, trademarked Made in USA. And the Wall Street banksters' scam gets dramatically exposed when the banking system suddenly freezes up (in the United States in 2008-2009, in Europe in 2011).
Damn right they were never John Galt or Steve Jobs. They never built a building, or met a payroll, or developed a computer or a consumer product of any sort. All they did was shuffle papers with dollar signs on them back and forth, claiming they were magically creating and growing wealth for the general economy in the process, wealth that would surely trickle down to middle class or blue collar America tomorrow, or next week, or perhaps a few years later. Trust me.
Of course the plutocrats and self-anointed Masters of the Universe howl unto heaven when their fraud gets called out by its own name, whether by demonstrators in a park or op-eds in the New York Times. To admit that hoccus pocus alchemy was part of the underlying business model is just not an option.
Therefore instead, deny everything. Blame greedy, irresponsible working class homeowners and consumers, rogue residential mortgage loan writers. Villify the messengers who dare criticize the free, unregulated market model of global corporate capitalism, accusing them of engaging in cynical class warfare.
And if possible, keep the blame shifting and villification low key. Heaven forbid that the markets should get needlessly riled up in our increasingly uncertain world.
Bill from Saginaw
masters of the universe, banksters: rather polite terms, how about mobsters...
- - - - - - - - - -
from the godfather.... 1972
Sollozzo: Bene, Don Corleone. I need a man who has powerful friends. I need a million dollars in cash. I need, Don Corleone, all of those politicians that you carry around in your pocket, like so many nickels and dimes.
Don Corleone: What is the interest for my family?
Sollozzo: Thirty percent. In the first year your end should be three, four million dollars. And then it would go up.
Don Corleone: And what is the interest for the Tattalgia family?
Sollozzo: [smiles at Tom] My compliments.
[Hagen gives a formal nod]
Sollozzo: I'll take care of the Tattaglias, out of my share.
Don Corleone: So, I am to receive thirty percent for finance, for legal protection and political influence. Is that what you're telling me?
Sollozzo: That's right.
Don Corleone: Why come to me? What have I done to deserve such generosity?
Sollozzo: If you consider a million dollars in cash merely finance...
[raises his glass]
Sollozzo: Te salut, Don Corleone.
[the Don gets up to take a drink and sits closer to Sollozzo]
Don Corleone: I said that I would see you because I had heard that you were a serious man, to be treated with respect. But I must say no to you and let me give you my reasons. It's true I have a lot of friends in politics, but they wouldn't be so friendly if they knew my business was drugs instead of gambling which they consider a harmless vice. But drugs, that's a dirty business.
Sollozzo: No, Don Corleone...
Don Corleone: It makes no difference, it don't make any difference to me what a man does for a living, you understand. But your business is a little dangerous.
Sollozzo: If you're worried about security for your million, the Tattaglias will guarantee it.
Sonny: Whoa, now, you're telling me that the Tattaglias guarantee our investment without...?
Don Corleone: Wait a minute.
[the Don gives his son a cold stare, freezing Santino into silence. The others fidget with embarrassment at this outbreak, but Sollozzo looks slyly satisfied... ]
Don Corleone: [dismissive] I have a sentimental weakness for my children and I spoil them, as you can see. They talk when they should listen. Anyway, Signor Sollozzo, my no to you is final. I want to congratulate you on your new business and I'm sure you'll do very well and good luck to you. Especially since your interests don't conflict with mine. Thank you.
[Sollozzo leaves]
Don Corleone: Santino, come here.
Don Corleone: What's the matter with you? I think your brain is going soft with all that comedy you are playing with that young girl. Never tell anyone outside the Family what you are thinking again. Go on.
- - - - - - - - - -
...peace...
Thank you Bill from Saginaw ---- as concise a summary of the situation as I have seen. Our society has been converted to a "Post Industrial World" ----- a society based on "Financial Services" ?????? What a crock of rot. I do not eat stocks or bonds.
If a system does not produce something that someone needs, it is obviously bound to collapse. dh
Krugman's essay is on target.
It also indirectly points to the fact that the snooty editorial and chattering class responses to the Occupy events that we have seen in the precincts of the polite left, e.g., The New Yorker and others at the NYT, have forced into clear daylight their fear of Change From Below.
This authentically populist phenomenon is necessarily inchoate at first, but trotting out a list of specific proposals, beginning with a Federal surcharge on financial trades, especially for purely speculative trades such as futures, would not be hard. However, what really frightens the polite left establishment is the Occupy movement's display of genuine popular anger, always a ragged and unattractive thing, but democracy is often ragged and unpleasant to watch. And all this is exacerbated in the minds of the polite left's writers by the presence of Tea Partiers who support tougher regulation of Wall Street's publicly indemnified faro parlors, as well as cutting back the Department of War's imperial defense budget.
Tea Party America, notwithstanding its atavism and credulity before demagogues, understands that it is facing a future populated by motel maids, deliverymen, fry cooks, nurses' aids, Wall Mart clerks, and meth lab entrepeneurs, people whose annual bonuses, if such a thing comes at all, arrive in the form of a lavish $50 certificate good at the local non-union supermarket chain, cigarettes and liquor excluded. (The meth lab guy's bonus, unlike that of his Wall Street Harvard MBA counterpart, is more likely death by explosion, assassination by a rival, or serious jail time.)
And it is the presence of the Tea Party at Occupy that is interesting. Any real uniting of the progressive left with the populist right on such issues scares the countrys political and economic elites completely witless, much as the prospect of blacks uniting with poor yeoman or tenant whites in the post-bellum South terrified the provincial Southern elites during that era. Their worst nightmare, to turn a phrase.
The snottiness and self-satisfied dandyism one feels in their essays remind me of the 18th Century French aristocrats who strolled the streets of Paris with clove-punctured oranges held beneath their noses to ward off the stench of the sans cullottes. That was not long before the Revolution.
As long as they remain non-violent, the Occupy demonstrators have my full and enthusiastic support. I will participate in the Occupy events in Chicago.
Since Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission in January 2010, we have lived under corporate fascism, as FDR defined it in 1938. The Occupy movement and others like it may be the only way to bring real change to our bought-and-paid for government.
It would be good to have training camps that teach Gandhian self-discipline, Gene Sharp’s _The Methods of Nonviolent Action_, and the practice of self-control (or as Hemingway called it “grace under pressure”).
We must not project all our fear onto the “enemy” and blame or ridicule the banksters, politicians, and CEOs for being afraid. It is a triumph of sorts to be so fearsome that you inspire fear in your opponent; but one must not permit that heady triumphalism to overwhelm the movement.
I fully agree with your point about non-violent methods and tactics. However, the banksters and their corrupt-beyond-redemption vassals at the Treasury, the Congress, and other parts of the government have taken the country over an economic cliff, and they have not only not been called to account, but have prospered even more.
The public's anger will not abate until there is some measure of proportional justice and much increased and more effective oversight of Wall Street speculation and unsound risk taking at their expense. Controlled anger in the form of nonviolent resistance is what is most needed today.
As an old scholar of the French Revolution once told me, the forces of counterrevolution are almost always 100, no 1000, times stronger than those of revolution. For every revolution that succeeds, 100 fail. The fear you mention is perfectly capable of producing a violent reaction, but that is always a risk when real change is called for. But any blood must be on their hands.
Join the movement- BANK TRANSFER DAY November 5th! Get your money out of the richest 1%'s hands. Pledge to move your money to a local credit union instead.
http://www.facebook.com/#!/event.php?eid=281139538577206
Good idea. Then when BofA or Chase or Citi buys that credit union, transfer your money again.