Q&A: A Critique of Abstractive Street Justice

In an attempt to address some of the criticisms of my approach to the Occupy Wallstreet (OWS), I have summarized the questions of a few of my associates, edited our exchange from early November 2011 in response to my previous post, left out their names, and decided to place my responses here to further explain my views.  Thanks to those who participated in this healthy (and not-fallacious) debate.

“Frustration may not be public policy, but popular movements are often borne from frustration. What about citizen and Union movements during the 1930’s that led to FDR’s election? OWS isn't about destroying Wall Street: It's about keeping an unchecked Wall Street from destroying us!”

Me: My note questions the viability of attacking an abstraction: "greed." It discounts no aspect of social movement history (which as an historian, I am perfectly aware of) or the "solutions" that have emerged from them. In my post, I do not deny the viability or in-viability of "reforms," or legislation that "fixes" the problems. I question the worth of doing these in the street when the target is "greed" and it is at the expense of other people. I also argue against the "justice" of the protesters. It's in my title.

I want the occupiers to follow the "fairer" process we have, propose solutions, offer actual evidence to convict "criminals," put forward fixes for the "process" if it isn't fair so we can all "benefit," and put up candidates for election that represent their ideas (like an FDR, who can summarize a problem, "The Depression," and get elected to alter "society"). When they've gotten out of the street and stop breaking laws (which is why they're arrested, provided a "fair" process, and punished if found guilty), and propose fixes for the system other than yelling at "greed," then I can evaluate their solutions one by one. If they live in the street until the "greed" abstraction disappears, then they're simply congesting roads to end a vague human quality. Why bother?

Likewise, it would be an abstractive conspiracy to write that Wallstreet seeks to destroy "us" because protesters have attributed aggressive motives to all of the people that work there (maybe "greedy" motives). I argue that abstractions can lead to dangerous consequences and even injustice. I do not believe that Wallstreet is coming to kill me, unless you have evidence otherwise, because then you should contact the police. I wrote "destroy Wallstreet" only because protesters shout for it. It is overly simplistic to argue for the destruction of Wallstreet (as I indicated we're connected as a "society" to it) and also to argue that Wallstreet seeks to destroy us. I'm for suggestions for alterations, of course. Re-check my section on why I think the protesters attract "public opinion." But, I want a more thorough approach to fixing complex problems than drum banging if a proposed change is going to affect me. I'm still waiting to be convinced.

“The abstraction of greed is not just an abstraction, it's representative of a very apparent [awful economic] reality. They're protesting to make their point, and what laws are they breaking? City code? The right to free speech and protest trumps a park curfew, which happens to be the opinion of the Police Chief and DA in *****, where the Occupy encampment is only disturbed by people bringing them hot soup and donations.”

Me: That is why I wrote that if you view "greed" as something applicable to real people, they become defined by it, and then the counteraction seems simple. Simply "take" from the "greedy." Greed is an abstraction because it defines a real person based on an idea. I've showed (or you haven't noticed) that greed can be applied as an abstraction in many ways. So, if you label "teachers' unions" as greedy for money and benefits, then the counteraction is simple to some Republicans. Cut their benefits and destroy the unions. You've proven my point that "greed" is not a definite reality, rather a tool, a label used by, in this case, protesters to take money or see "justice" done from unnamed executives for uncited laws. 

They self-style themselves as the 99% and want to destroy the "greed" from the 1% and bring unnamed people to justice. My whole note is about how that form of justice is unfair and goes against the rules (due process, etc.) that I find vastly more appealing. You're grouping the attack on "greed" with other people's opinions of social problems. My comments on justice are vastly more complex than codes breaking. Occupiers call for justice for corporate executives who they've accused of being criminal. I want evidence and that doesn't mean I like individual executives or that I don't think any of the problems you've written are serious issues. Protesters can't solve them by shouting at "greed" and demanding some unknown "justice." Sure, breaking codes and laws like sex in public and public indecency aren't comparable to murdering someone, although their names suggests they're going to "take" things like public spaces by "occupying." I'm saying that they're wasting their time and our resources to "occupy" public spaces to attack "greed."

“And if you need some convincing they're not just banging drums: you might want to check out one of the thousands of Occupy websites etc.  This is a serious and growing movement which is networking people and addressing the heart of the problem: economic inequality in a system which they believe is broken beyond repair. They are not living outside in 20 degree weather because they like the tent better than their bed.”

Me: 300,000 can network based on an abstraction and their number and the fact that they have outfits like the DailyKos doesn't make them right. Romney can use PAC money and Obama can raise a billion dollars for his campaign. Money is part of politics, and so long as candidates don't break any existing laws, it is legal under certain conditions. But, rules can change, so if you're aware of a plan that eliminates money in politics that solves all of the complex issues surrounding campaign finance, please present it. Campaign finance law is so complex that I'm skeptical of plans that simply attack "greedy" "politicians paid for by the big corporations" and promise completely "free" campaigns. It's how we get there (process) that matters to me, especially if it's going to affect me during my lifetime, rather than objecting to the goal. (campaign perfection)

“If greed is an abstraction, isn’t racism too?  How do we oppose “racial injustice?”

Me: Racism is a belief system based on abstractions, yes (a person's belief in their superior "race"  being greater than an inferior "race"). Hence the "ism." It is a particularly dangerous abstraction because of the virulent and terrible actions that result. Yet, it is the lack of concreteness, because it is a belief, that you can have multiple forms of racism. For example, North Indian "racism" against Sri Lankans (a difference of skin color) , Sudanese "racism" against Darfurians, Han Chinese "racism" against Mon tribal people, Turkish "racism" against Armenians, or American Caucasian "racism" against African Americans. 

I certainly support the effects of the American Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s, its nonviolent phase as well as the long legal process to strip away (illegal, I'd argue) segregation. However, despite the gains, their protesting did not end the abstraction of "racism" in the world. In fact, I'd bet that most racially-oppressed Karen people of Cambodia/Thailand know nothing about the American Civil Rights Movement of the 1950-60s or the divisions within that movement as they struggled with how to approach the abstraction and the destruction of racism in the U.S. (militancy, non-violence, "separatism," "legalism," busing and "education," even "reverse-racism" etc.) 

The difference is of course fixing the process which has got to be pretty complicated if you're going to adjust something that might be an unfortunate consequence of human nature. Attacking "greed" with no words and a dollar bill over ones' mouth isn't nearly as effective an argument as MLK Jr.'s speeches. If you have a perfect plan to stop "racism" immediately, you'll save us the debate and do what the 1960-present Civil Rights Movement couldn't. During that time, we've had 50 years of increased investment in the stock market as a society, regardless of the whether it's been "good" or "not." Because I want real world solutions, I can be convinced of an argument against investment and stock-market-based retirements if the plan is thorough enough to warrant a dramatic shift. Otherwise, I find the attack on the "greed" abstraction "less convincing" especially when I will be directly affected.

“If small Occupy protests are occupying public land peacefully, what’s the big deal behind the larger occupations that "achieve" more like Oakland, CA?  This movement encourages new laws to fix the system.”

Me: The Oakland Occupation: I hope any repairs from laws that fix the system also include the real benefits in the battle to destroy "greed" during the occupation of the Port of Oakland.   It was closed November 3, 2011, so that must mean another "nail in greed's coffin"? What better way to restore to some "better economy" than to shut down American exports and imports out of a major city.  Is the port "greed's" base of operations and this a major victory in the "War on Greed"? Have we left the realm of protester abstraction on this [blog] yet? 

Apparently you can come up with ideas for legislation just as well sitting at home and not disrupting trade. Why "occupy" a street, assault abstractions, demand "justice" from unnamed criminals (in all OWS occupations I've seen staged), attack banks and businesses, graffiti, break codes (even minor ones still are laws), close a major port, play music and promote a "cultural festival" to solve complex economic problems, if your intent is just a simple piece of legislation? Can't I just have the legislation if it's as good as you promise, you've easily got the ideas, and the political parties who argue similarly, without all the other useless occupations?

To wage the "War Against Greed," an abstraction, the point of closing Oakland's port was ______________ . I mentioned already the fairer justice process in the courts for the protesters in Oakland who seized the port. It is "super" that a politician (the mayor) apologized for the police before the due process inquest, but, how does this seizure event positively affect me and why should it convince me to change the system? More importantly, why was it done and why did violence have to result because they CHOSE to be somewhere in Oakland illegally? Why should I choose the message of OWS because of the abstraction messaging and the actions that I've witnessed across the country since they've started? 


"Sure, in some places, things got out of hand, but America was founded on unrest and abstractions.  What about the Boston Tea Party or the more recent Tea Party?"

I started off my note by writing that acting on abstractions leads to potentially dangerous consequences, or as you wrote, things "getting out of hand." Why do we need to go through these occupations, "out-of-hand moments," and their pointless consequences to adjust our imperfect society when people in more "peaceful" forums make better reasoned arguments?

I haven't written about the tea-party 2009, nor the Boston Tea-party, but let's take the latter event for a moment because I think this illustrates a bit more of what I mean by the "process of change" and the "effectiveness of message." The original Tea-Party movement's goal was to physically enforce a boycott against British tea-taxes because the colonists lacked the representation in the British imperial system to get rid of them. In 2011, OWS protesters have representation to get (in their cases probably more taxes passed), rights (including property, which they should be reminded of when they complain about their stolen laptops while burning down banks), and they are perfectly capable of getting justice for everyone if they produce the names of alleged criminals on Wall-Street and the evidence. They can even alter the process of justice for the future. Unlike 1773, protesters can even avoid Admiralty courts, jury-less trials, actual bullets in the guns of armed soldiers who'd meet you in the street if you organized or next to you in front of your home fireplace (not like today, where you can organize, police use tear-gas and rubber bullets to" protect" the public, and can't illegally search and seize).  And, the 2011 protesters can walk the streets within reason in groups without worrying about offending the British imperial governor and being possibly jailed. And they can freely label the people in government (or big business) without the possibility of execution if, for example, they insulted the king (=treason=death=body mutilation as an example). Because they can now do all of these things, doesn't make OWS' argument about Wallstreet today correct.

Attacking "greed" therefore is NOT equivalent in message effectiveness (see the original note) as the Boston Tea Party (nor the Civil Rights Movement as I mentioned). Today, OWS is not doing something specific, it's simply their actions in the street that result in believing that Wall Street="greed." I do not want to revert back to the days of the Boston Tea-Party (tar and feathering for example) whereafter the founding fathers created laws to tamper the injustice of mob violence, nor do I want to go back to the days of the CRM where pro-segregationist mobs executed black dissidents in the South simply because they were inspired and motivated by another abstraction, "racism." The "justice" of the protesters is that they FEEL they have the "right" to override laws that resulted from the past, like the Tea Party->American Revolution->representation, property, AND taxation protected in the Constitution. Today, they "FEEL" they can go where they want, destroy the property they want, without the slightest need for actual evidence simply because as you write, they have conviction, inspiration, emotion, motivation, frustration, etc. etc.

Just because people are inspired doesn't mean what they're "inspired by" is correct. I prefer an educated public who asks questions particularly when there's an actual threat of damage and violence as we've seen. And because we "live" with the results of past action, the protesters are also perfectly capable of boycotting Wall-street without resorting to smashing up unrelated public and private property. To alter a Colin Powell quip, they seek to destroy Wall-street and avoid "buying" it (because that means "capitalism"), meaning not paying for the damage or fixing the resulting mess with a "plan." I want them to "buy into a plan and stop breaking things." They can boycott from home or get the permits to have their cultural festival without doing it during rush hour or on the loading dock of Oakland's port. And they can do it, if they want, void of all supposed implements of American "corporate capitalism" like Ipods, laptops, tea-bags, or water-bottles. I want them to do solve problems "effectively," like we are! And Neil you didn't even have to smash my windows in to make your argument!

“OWS protests' self-policing is demonstrating the power of self-governance.  And they are diverse, which is hard to pin down, but that reflects the broad front against greed.”

Me: My entire point is that I don't want SELF-POLICING or the protester's form of justice because I do not trust the fairness of protesters who use emotional arguments and are moved to action by an abstraction ("greed:" though you now doubt the coherency of their message).

Why must I pay for the justice system now, have it undermined by the protesters, only for it to be replaced with something LESS effective and as you wrote, something hard to pin down, that might be different? A 1st Amendment as we have now is more valuable to me than a protester's chant about the "1%" that shouts another person's free speech down. It's "mob justice" and it steps back in time to other eras of mob justice where mobs of people FEEL they're doing something "just" while practicing "self-government." Surely, you do not support every example of self-government and people feeling righteous? If we have something better already, why support the justice of those struggling to self-govern against an idea now? (see AP)

The occupiers believe "greed" and the "system" are intentionally broad themes because they think their criticism APPLIES to everything and EVERYONE.  It doesn't matter and doesn't make their REMEDY of occupation any more effective. Do regionally diverse Occupations that include neo-Nazis, Palestinian Liberation groups or groups that attack the "Zionist conspiracy running America's banks" end U.S. "greed" through occupation. No, it's all just idealist and conspiratorial nonsense and it isn't a very convincing argument for change.

If "greed" isn't the unifier anymore, then about the only thing that does unite these groups is maybe some of the culture festival or the organizer's "free" food. They can have festivals legally in parks for a more reasonable duration. Because Occupy Wallstreet refuses to limit any group's participation that attacks "The System" (AP), why should the public accept self-government from neo-Nazis who want to destroy "greed" from a "Zionist conspiracy dominating the country"? I don't believe that self-government with avowed anti-Semites in the street is a better system than what we have now. Unless, it was really "greed" OWS wanted to attack after-all? NO THANKS either way!

On Occupational Protest and "Mob Justice"

Abstraction= a lack of concreteness or the physical.

Occupational Protest=occupying or inhabiting public space until a political objective is met.

Mob justice=circumventing an existing justice system to deliver some "better" alternative.

I've offered a simplified definition of something (abstraction) that philosophers have debated for thousands of years.  That debate is not the purpose of this blog, but the lack of agreement of definition is why I post here.  The purpose of this blog is to question the claims of the supposedly "future-oriented." Before they "break" our current society of imperfect laws with its more reasonable level of public consent, I believe that we need to make sure "their plan" is better.

A Re-print from November 1, 2011 for the purposes of future expansion:

Holding Up A Paper Copy of This [Post] for A Mirror Picture Or Appealing to Emotion Because Of The Tragedies I Might've Lived Through Doesn't Make My Argument Right:

               The organizers of Occupy Wall Street protest an abstraction: "greed."  I will not support changes that affect me during the time I have on earth because many of the protesters want to attack an idea, "greed," want to replace an abstraction, "capitalism," with another abstraction, "socialism," and might have some more "moral" system for action to impose on all Americans.  I am not convinced of the protesters'  definition of "greed."  Therefore, I find their proposed plan, occupying public city streets and the destruction of Wall-street, absurd and destructive of the services that taxpayers already pay for and the opportunities that we already have.
                What is "greed?"  Its reflexive application to people is debatable and that makes its use as a motivator for counteraction very dangerous.  There is no American "greed" law that universally defines everyone who violates it.  "Greed" is simply a moral judgement that humans [may] use against each other to get more resources for themselves.  It is an abstraction because it describes a human's immoral use of some resource (money, power, etc.) for their own desires.  It is a label that separates the "greedy" person or group from the "victim."   "Greedy people" are those human beings who wrongly acquire too much of something, which means the labeler is doing the judging of right and wrong and the amount of the resource that makes it "too much."
            Therefore,"greed" is a description used to attack the "1% richest Americans," or the "government bureaucrats" that want more money and power, or the "free- loaders" who want more tax money from the rich for more services so they can do less, or the "social security beneficiaries" whose "generation" is spending their "grand-children's" payroll dollars that were meant for their grand- children's pensions, or "interest groups" like unions who want increased benefits and pay for their exclusive group of workers at the expense of the business owners and non-members.  Is everyone really "greedy"?  It doesn't matter. I'd argue that the problem with anti-greed protests is that you can't march against a vague human quality, an immorality, and expect any less "greed" in the world as a result.  Can we really destroy a "label" by yelling them?
               Therefore to me, it is counterproductive to "occupy" or inhabit public city streets, to make messes in public areas that have to be cleaned up on the taxpayer's dime, to commit crimes to protest unnamed corporate "criminals," to engage police in areas where they shouldn't be policing in such force, just to attack executives who are perceived by the occupiers as "greedy."  Please cite the broken laws and please contact the prosecutors with the appropriate evidence.  The response I might get to my previous request could be "that the prosecutors are corrupt and paid for by the big corporations."  If this speculative abstraction isn't the conspiracy you think fits your beliefs, then let me know, provide evidence of systemic prosecutorial misconduct, and then I'll withdraw my abstractions and work with you to remove actual corruption.  But, I won't support the police jailing any executives, prosecutors, or politicians until I know they've committed a crime against some law on the books right now (the Constitution prohibits ex post facto laws, so we can't try someone with a new law after the fact).  Unless protesters are supposed to be the new police and judicial power in the country too?
                And when the corporate criminal abstractees have been jailed, we must also have a process whereby the defendant receives a "fair" trial in a courtroom and not in the streets. While we might debate the "fairness" of our justice system, I can write with certainty that a trial in the middle of the street is not only prohibited, but it is certainly more unfair.  Where will the evidence safely be kept?  In someone's tent or blankets?  Who's in charge of the rules?  To those who argue against America's detainee policy under Bush AND Obama, yet support the "anti-greed" protests, is street justice the due process we want for captured Al-Qaeda who happen to be American citizens?  Are American streets to be made the new court for justice, places comparable to actual warzones where American Al-Qaeda are captured or killed in their alleged treason?  Are unnamed executives treasonous too and worthy of execution at the whims of a crowd and without due process?   We need not make American streets battlegrounds and we shouldn't allow protesters to destroy executives simply because protesters choose to occupy streets, consider neighborhoods as warzones, and assault the "greed" abstraction.  I want some evidence, some proof before someone's property is searched and seized or before someone is jailed simply because a crowd's emotion demands.   
                Do protesters really prefer street justice?  Most law-breaking occupiers get booked and taken into the police station, perhaps tear-gassed in their crowd if they don't follow the law before their apprehension.  That means they get some "reasonable" level of due process regardless of what they said in the street.  Not being executed or tortured for mass protest, well, that is truly a rarity in global history. Luckily in America, we even get to evaluate the actions of police-persons who fire recklessly at the free-speakers, adjudicate "fairly" those officers who endanger life.  There is definitely not a "perfect" review process for the abusers, but a much better one than the streets offer.  And even when a likely police-abuser is discovered, even the accused police-person gets their own disciplinary process to face potential removal and/or criminal prosecution.  There is much more "fairness" for all with this  imperfect-process for both the protester and the executive, than by simply demanding justice from the "1%" with some repetitive chant!  (Is chanting really an argument anyways?) 
 We should simply stop trying to break abstractions just to fix them. 
                Our society revolves around a "fair" process, an abstract principle sure, but based on laws on the books right now that are vastly more accurate justice than anything protesters scream for at some pedestrian's face.  This due process right is something the protesters seek to deny to others. I'd argue that protesters shouldn't destroy "justice" for unnamed brokers and then claim with any consistency that they are not getting justice when they're arrested.  If a protester defecates on someone's porch and they get arrested or if a protester gets hit in the head when protests become physical with the police, they get due process and if found guilty, receive a punishment.  Sure it's not fair 100%, but no, I'd rather not want myself turned over to "99%" street-abstracters for justice.  Getting beaten by police enforcers in the real world won't purge the "greed" abstraction from humanity and doesn't build a case for a lack of due process because you chose to be somewhere or do something when the laws say you can't.
                In fact, nonviolent resistance is most effectively applied when there is an an achievable goal, rather than protesters wanting some nebulous change while attacking a vague immorality.  The classic effect of nonviolent protest is that when an authority is resisted, protesters suffer beatings, hunger strikes, and jail in order to wear down the resolve of the authorities and force change.  It is a cycle that works in favor of the protesters IF they have an authority with some semblance of morality and they are able to win public opinion to their side(so it hasn't worked against Nazi or Stalinist authorities who kill internal opposition and successfully manipulate public opinion).  Attacking a moral absence (greed) with nonviolence is not comparable or as resolvable as Gandhi using nonviolence to drive the British out of India or Martin Luther King Jr. and company destroying illegal segregation with boycotts, marches, and speeches. 
               [The 2011] protest has no foreseeable endpoint and has an enemy that is nothing more than a concept.  How do you end something that might be part of human nature?  Will emotion and yelling really work?  I'd rather have my retirement remain stable than crowd emotion taking my bank's property which then negatively effects me.  I'm more comfortable with the prospect OF SOME KIND OF RETIREMENT rather than mob justice, or someone feeling a little better because some guy who made a lot of money when others didn't is humiliated and put in jail for an unnamed crime (or as demanded by the "crazies," executed).  It's revenge really--who knows for what--and that's the opposite intent of the justice system that we all have to live under.
                Destroying Wall-street and the brokers who work there is not an achievable goal in a country where the majority of its citizens have some investment in it for retirement.   The protesters gain the most public favor by appealing to those who lost a job, to those who have financial troubles, or have lots of housing or student debt.  These are the unfortunate effects of a complex macro and microeconomic downturn, but also the consequences of individual decision-making.  Some practical help is probably warranted to assist these affected groups to get them back on their feet.  To be "unemployed" means that you're not productive labor, probably drawing on public services, and those combined with debt makes for the biggest drags on the macro-economy. 
               But, tax policy, government spending, and regulation are already debated by the political parties and elections actually lead to change if people actually show up to vote (Obamacare, for example, is actual change, no matter your opinion of it).  Maybe the change is slow, and in some cases counterproductive, but humans don't know everything about the world or the consequences of their actions and probably won't while I'm on earth.  So, I want the proposed change to be fought over, the change purposefully slow just like our laws demand, so that the best proposals we can manage are the result and so that we don't screw things up more while I'm still here. 
                Real approaches to these problems would revolve around government spending at some level, charitable assistance, or perhaps even a tough-love approach that leads to more individual motivation and self-improvement.  Each  can be debated with reasoned arguments, past successes and failures, in a calm forum.  However, yelling at "greed" in the streets or taping your mouth shut with a dollar bill is not a spending bill to forgive student debts (a debatable subject), nor a hard-earned paycheck sent to a newly hired mother.  But, the occupier crowd does mean more drain on services (police, fire, medical, sanitation, etc.) that are already strained because of the effect of the slumping economy on budgets in all levels of society.
                To tear down Wallstreet because some of the people that work there get paid according to their contracts affects me negatively as well (my own retirement and bank accounts).  The Constitution and subsequent laws also prohibit the violation of contracts.  With employers punished because of an abstraction, I will have less income, be less likely to be able to help the affected groups when my tax dollars are translated into services.  For example, student loan burdens can be reduced because of federal forgiveness policies or grants.  Those federal policies use my tax dollars and yours too (if you pay).  Destroying America's capital means reducing the money that everyone has too, so a "destroyed" Wall-street translates in broken services because tax rolls decline which means less help for students because the federal government doesn't have the funds. That is why I wrote that attacking a concept and trying to inflict real damage on real people because you apply an abstraction to executives and brokers is self-defeating.  I do not want an economy of the "lowest common denominator."
               Frustration is not public policy and I do not want a crowd emotion to adversely affect me or my lifestyle.  Simply destroying Wallstreet when a complex problem isn't fully understood (and may never be) simply means that life is going to be made more difficult. Why?