“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."
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?
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!
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!
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!
No comments:
Post a Comment