The Hypocrisy of Occupy Wall Street(greaterseas.com)
greaterseas.com
The Hypocrisy of Occupy Wall Street
http://greaterseas.com/2011/10/the-hypocrisy-of-occupy-wall-street/
3 comments
I agree that this article is missing the point. It seems to oversimplify the protesters' message so that it can be easily dismissed as hypocrisy without debating the issues.
It's also difficult to pin down a single message that the OWS movement is trying to get across. This article paints it as a "down with the machine" movement. The OWS website states that they want "to restore democracy in America" [1]. While democracy is an overloaded word that can mean lots of things to different people, in this context I take it to mean that the protesters feel like the American political system isn't working for them anymore. Although we might cite different causes, an oft-cited cause is corporate interests. It's easy to jump from protesting against corporate interest to "down with the machine," which is what I think this article is doing.
Also on the OWS website, it states: "We use a tool known as a 'people's assembly' to facilitate collective decision making in an open, participatory and non-binding manner." If that's true, there's going to be a lot of ideas proposed and some will seem radical. Attacking the movement based on the ideas of a subset of the protesters avoids dealing with the issues that they're trying to solve.
[1] http://occupywallst.org/about/
It's also difficult to pin down a single message that the OWS movement is trying to get across. This article paints it as a "down with the machine" movement. The OWS website states that they want "to restore democracy in America" [1]. While democracy is an overloaded word that can mean lots of things to different people, in this context I take it to mean that the protesters feel like the American political system isn't working for them anymore. Although we might cite different causes, an oft-cited cause is corporate interests. It's easy to jump from protesting against corporate interest to "down with the machine," which is what I think this article is doing.
Also on the OWS website, it states: "We use a tool known as a 'people's assembly' to facilitate collective decision making in an open, participatory and non-binding manner." If that's true, there's going to be a lot of ideas proposed and some will seem radical. Attacking the movement based on the ideas of a subset of the protesters avoids dealing with the issues that they're trying to solve.
[1] http://occupywallst.org/about/
I'm not sure you would find many that disagree with this argument. But this movement, like many others, has been hijacked by people who aren't quite aligned with that message. The purity of it has been disrupted and that becomes the story that is told to the world.
Keeping others down with immense resources is not a new problem to the United States or humanity. Throughout the history of mankind those in power have attempted to use their resources to stay in power and the result is some sort of social, economic, or socioeconomic battle. Ultimately the winning course has always involved reinventing the game in a way that changes the rules and neutralizes the resources of those in power.
The point of the article, which is an opinion not a formal piece of journalism, takes a roundabout way to recommending more reasonable courses of action. The way I see it, if you don't like what the big banks are doing, for example, you do have options to get around dealing with them. If enough people organize around that vision, instead of protesting, you create a much more powerful market force.
Keeping others down with immense resources is not a new problem to the United States or humanity. Throughout the history of mankind those in power have attempted to use their resources to stay in power and the result is some sort of social, economic, or socioeconomic battle. Ultimately the winning course has always involved reinventing the game in a way that changes the rules and neutralizes the resources of those in power.
The point of the article, which is an opinion not a formal piece of journalism, takes a roundabout way to recommending more reasonable courses of action. The way I see it, if you don't like what the big banks are doing, for example, you do have options to get around dealing with them. If enough people organize around that vision, instead of protesting, you create a much more powerful market force.
From this site's About section:
"Since Jesus walked the earth, God specifically used the marketplace and its leaders to advance the Gospel. Our goal is to explore how God has historically chosen the marketplace to transform lives and how He seeks leaders to again step up and share His love through commerce: the lifeblood of every community.
As you explore God’s heart for business, understand that success in the marketplace and intimacy with Christ are not mutually exclusive. We seek to discover what it means to be anointed for business and the unique opportunity God has given us to transform markets with His love. Come unlock your destiny in the marketplace and become a market-smart and spiritually sharp leader who is empowered to advance the Gospel where it is needed most."
Jesus Christ.
"Since Jesus walked the earth, God specifically used the marketplace and its leaders to advance the Gospel. Our goal is to explore how God has historically chosen the marketplace to transform lives and how He seeks leaders to again step up and share His love through commerce: the lifeblood of every community.
As you explore God’s heart for business, understand that success in the marketplace and intimacy with Christ are not mutually exclusive. We seek to discover what it means to be anointed for business and the unique opportunity God has given us to transform markets with His love. Come unlock your destiny in the marketplace and become a market-smart and spiritually sharp leader who is empowered to advance the Gospel where it is needed most."
Jesus Christ.
Last night I talked with a friend about all this. My friend pointed out many of the things this author did: people are protesting against the machine using things the machine created; they don't provide a solution but simply a redundant description of the problem. I know and respect a number of people who are protesting in my city, and they are sincere in their efforts to make change. The trouble is, I don't think they will succeed this way. A real solution would be to get rid of these things: forsake the extra computers, the wireless contract, food produced and distributed by soulless corporations, the fancy cars; join or start a local food cooperative, live in a housing co-op, support credit unions, and aggressively buy local - even if it means severe inconvenience. Need to organize a trip down to city hall to protest? If you use your phone, you've already lost.
That's how the "machine" got to where it is: it provided convenience, delivered on the backs of screwed workers, in the waves of polluted ecosystems, in the gasps of strangled local economies, and with trodden and corrupt opportunism at every step. You want something? Just ask. But somebody will be paying.
I'm deliberately not taking a side here: if you think our current situation is a problem, then the solution is to let go of convenience and standard of living - at least until a viable alternative crops up (and I think it has in the form of cooperation). If you don't think there is a problem, please go on your merry way. It's your right.
That's how the "machine" got to where it is: it provided convenience, delivered on the backs of screwed workers, in the waves of polluted ecosystems, in the gasps of strangled local economies, and with trodden and corrupt opportunism at every step. You want something? Just ask. But somebody will be paying.
I'm deliberately not taking a side here: if you think our current situation is a problem, then the solution is to let go of convenience and standard of living - at least until a viable alternative crops up (and I think it has in the form of cooperation). If you don't think there is a problem, please go on your merry way. It's your right.
[deleted]
A real solution would be to get rid of these things: forsake the extra computers, the wireless contract, food produced and distributed by soulless corporations, the fancy cars; join or start a local food cooperative, live in a housing co-op, support credit unions, and aggressively buy local - even if it means severe inconvenience.
Sure, that's one solution. But it depends on how you define the problem. The article here is rubbish and of no insight into any rational view of the problem (nor any insight into OWS). Indeed, the basic problem is very easy to express and comprehend: corporate control of government that results in socialism for corporate interests. That is the fundamental problem that has resulted in OWS. This is not new or shocking information. There is no big mystery as to the why's or what-for's of OWS.
Forsaking convenience items is certainly not required to "solve" that problem nor is it likely to have any impact on that problem (canceling a cell phone plan, supporting credit unions or starting a local food co-op will have exactly zero impact on corporate control of government). Forsaking convenience items is only required if you conceive the problem to be a lack of "back to the land" mentality. That may or may not be a problem, but it is certainly not any rational view of OWS' perception of the problem.
The article here and most other viewpoints (which are mostly critical of OWS) that I've seen appear to wish to narrow down everything to two absolute extremes: either everything stays exactly how it is, or everything is destroyed. There is a massive area between those extremes. It's that area that OWS is targeting.
Sure, that's one solution. But it depends on how you define the problem. The article here is rubbish and of no insight into any rational view of the problem (nor any insight into OWS). Indeed, the basic problem is very easy to express and comprehend: corporate control of government that results in socialism for corporate interests. That is the fundamental problem that has resulted in OWS. This is not new or shocking information. There is no big mystery as to the why's or what-for's of OWS.
Forsaking convenience items is certainly not required to "solve" that problem nor is it likely to have any impact on that problem (canceling a cell phone plan, supporting credit unions or starting a local food co-op will have exactly zero impact on corporate control of government). Forsaking convenience items is only required if you conceive the problem to be a lack of "back to the land" mentality. That may or may not be a problem, but it is certainly not any rational view of OWS' perception of the problem.
The article here and most other viewpoints (which are mostly critical of OWS) that I've seen appear to wish to narrow down everything to two absolute extremes: either everything stays exactly how it is, or everything is destroyed. There is a massive area between those extremes. It's that area that OWS is targeting.
There is a massive area between the two extremes, and I will assume you are putting me at one of them. This means I failed to communicate.
If my food, entertainment, services, and small expenditures are predominantly local and my money is in a credit union I and my community have control over, then 1) I haven't gone "back to the land" but simply back to my home, and 2) that is money not going to any of the companies legislating their own irresponsible bailouts.
Supporting strong local organizations owned and directed by local members can and absolutely would stymie Wall Street and corporate socialism.
If my food, entertainment, services, and small expenditures are predominantly local and my money is in a credit union I and my community have control over, then 1) I haven't gone "back to the land" but simply back to my home, and 2) that is money not going to any of the companies legislating their own irresponsible bailouts.
Supporting strong local organizations owned and directed by local members can and absolutely would stymie Wall Street and corporate socialism.
You stated a "real solution" was what I summarized as "back to the land", including dropping wireless contracts. That says to me you view other solutions as not real. That's an indication, not explicit certainly, that at some level you believe there are only 2 extremes available, as I described.
Another solution is to demonstrate displeasure with the operation of government and methods of corporate interests. Engage enough citizens and sustain that demonstration. At some critical mass of both energy (people) and time, politicians will begin to notice and adjust their implementation of governance.
This is a known good solution. See: civil rights protests in the 1960's as just one example.
Another solution is to demonstrate displeasure with the operation of government and methods of corporate interests. Engage enough citizens and sustain that demonstration. At some critical mass of both energy (people) and time, politicians will begin to notice and adjust their implementation of governance.
This is a known good solution. See: civil rights protests in the 1960's as just one example.
I explained in my reply that my solution is a fairly middle-ground endeavor: if you can avoid giving your money to The Problem, then do so. Notice I didn't say radically change your life.
The Civil Rights movement was monumental but it didn't eradicate racism, the strong correlation between race and class, the achievement gap, or any number of equity issues. It caused us to shift what we consider to be normal and acceptable. Another component was people ditching the prejudices of their forefathers and doing something differently than before. Protest was complemented by action, which has been slowly changing the dynamics I described.
Our exchange has helped me realize that I should frame my solution as a complement to the protests. Protests, by themselves, can be ignored, spun, and crushed under rubber soles. Action in the form of starving the machine you're protesting against complements this and shows that you are listening. It combines the "We're mad as hell" with the "we're not going to take it anymore."
OWS is definitely galvanizing us to come up with a solution, but I don't think it is one on its own.
The Civil Rights movement was monumental but it didn't eradicate racism, the strong correlation between race and class, the achievement gap, or any number of equity issues. It caused us to shift what we consider to be normal and acceptable. Another component was people ditching the prejudices of their forefathers and doing something differently than before. Protest was complemented by action, which has been slowly changing the dynamics I described.
Our exchange has helped me realize that I should frame my solution as a complement to the protests. Protests, by themselves, can be ignored, spun, and crushed under rubber soles. Action in the form of starving the machine you're protesting against complements this and shows that you are listening. It combines the "We're mad as hell" with the "we're not going to take it anymore."
OWS is definitely galvanizing us to come up with a solution, but I don't think it is one on its own.
The Civil Rights movement was monumental but it didn't eradicate racism
No. But it did lead to the government creating laws and regulations called the Civil Rights Act, which enforced desegregation and more. A dramatically major step towards adjusting society to address the existing problem.
Considering effectively zero laws and regulations of merit have been implemented since 2008 in regards to the out of control behavior on Wall St, a comparative measure to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 seems to be in order. You're not going to get one by canceling you AT&T wireless plan and growing vegetables in your back yard.
Of course, I don't mean to imply that the things you're doing aren't positive. Certainly they are. My point is simply that OWS is significantly more powerful in nature.
No. But it did lead to the government creating laws and regulations called the Civil Rights Act, which enforced desegregation and more. A dramatically major step towards adjusting society to address the existing problem.
Considering effectively zero laws and regulations of merit have been implemented since 2008 in regards to the out of control behavior on Wall St, a comparative measure to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 seems to be in order. You're not going to get one by canceling you AT&T wireless plan and growing vegetables in your back yard.
Of course, I don't mean to imply that the things you're doing aren't positive. Certainly they are. My point is simply that OWS is significantly more powerful in nature.
You have been very respectful, and I appreciate that, but on one hand you build up OWS and on the other reduce my solution to "cancel AT&T and grow vegetables." I believe that you could have more charitably summarized it as "stop giving money to these companies." One way to do it is to patronize locally owned alternatives and starve them. There are others, as well.
I could cut down OWS pretty harshly, too, but I do see its merit. It's one side of the Protest & Act coin. I would prefer people do both, not just complain loudly.
The Civil Rights act, fwiw, didn't solve any of the race-related problems I identified either. It was the perspective shift that protesting brought, and it opened doors. OWS might result in tighter regulations and laws which formally denigrate or outright restrict the kind of business which led to these problems in the first place but that only stops those who care about the law or are careless in their chicanery.
It does not resolve more fundamental issues: how did these people get this much power? How do we disrupt the cycle of people getting rich and using their wealth to keep others down? How do we keep people informed about complex financial risks? How do we bolster local economies? How do we get control of the institutions which have so much control over our lives?
OWS will not solve any of those things. It has successfully raised awareness but now we have to put our money where our mouths are.
I could cut down OWS pretty harshly, too, but I do see its merit. It's one side of the Protest & Act coin. I would prefer people do both, not just complain loudly.
The Civil Rights act, fwiw, didn't solve any of the race-related problems I identified either. It was the perspective shift that protesting brought, and it opened doors. OWS might result in tighter regulations and laws which formally denigrate or outright restrict the kind of business which led to these problems in the first place but that only stops those who care about the law or are careless in their chicanery.
It does not resolve more fundamental issues: how did these people get this much power? How do we disrupt the cycle of people getting rich and using their wealth to keep others down? How do we keep people informed about complex financial risks? How do we bolster local economies? How do we get control of the institutions which have so much control over our lives?
OWS will not solve any of those things. It has successfully raised awareness but now we have to put our money where our mouths are.
OWS will not solve any of those things.
I'd loosely categorize "those things" as greed. Nothing will solve greed just as nothing will solve racism. Government regulation is uniquely able to diminish the negative consequences of both greed and racism. The fact that government regulation is not able to eliminate greed and regulation is in no way a knock against government regulation. OWS is the most powerful method available to instigate government regulation.
BTW, I'm using examples of your philosophy to demonstrate the inherent limitations of it, in comparison to mass protestation. Boycotts are primarily effective on a local scale, not a national scale. If your intent is to stop a mom & pop from some ill behavior, a boycott is more effective than staging a sit-in outside their place of business. I can think of no national boycott that has instigated as much change as the civil rights protests of the 60's or the suffrage movement in the late 19th/early 20th centuries.
I'd loosely categorize "those things" as greed. Nothing will solve greed just as nothing will solve racism. Government regulation is uniquely able to diminish the negative consequences of both greed and racism. The fact that government regulation is not able to eliminate greed and regulation is in no way a knock against government regulation. OWS is the most powerful method available to instigate government regulation.
BTW, I'm using examples of your philosophy to demonstrate the inherent limitations of it, in comparison to mass protestation. Boycotts are primarily effective on a local scale, not a national scale. If your intent is to stop a mom & pop from some ill behavior, a boycott is more effective than staging a sit-in outside their place of business. I can think of no national boycott that has instigated as much change as the civil rights protests of the 60's or the suffrage movement in the late 19th/early 20th centuries.
I agree almost completely. I organise a food co-op out of my living room, have lived in multiple cooperative houses, and am going before the city council tonight to get permission to build an eco-village on land that I cooperatively purchased together with friends for this purpose.
However, I think there is validity in being angry and protesting about the way things are. If only to publicly show how many people feel this way and to get this issue into people's awareness. Just because we have some clear ideas about how one could address the problems they are raising doesn't mean the publicity from raising them, or getting together to gather more ideas and build community isn't useful.
However, I think there is validity in being angry and protesting about the way things are. If only to publicly show how many people feel this way and to get this issue into people's awareness. Just because we have some clear ideas about how one could address the problems they are raising doesn't mean the publicity from raising them, or getting together to gather more ideas and build community isn't useful.
I agree with you completely that awareness is useful. The trouble is, at least where I live, I wager that a large number of people who would otherwise be sympathetic are put off because of some minor hypocrisies. Bands of (relatively) well-to-do college students and people who apparently have the luxury of skipping work and school do not paint a picture of a struggling middle class. That they are raging against the machine over a 3G connection is probably damaging as well.
Now, you and I might both see that these are the only people who can protest precisely because working stiffs are busy trying to make ends meet, but they don't elicit a lot of sympathy from people who are also just trying to get where they need to go without much fuss.
Incidentally, good luck with your plans! Where are you located?
Now, you and I might both see that these are the only people who can protest precisely because working stiffs are busy trying to make ends meet, but they don't elicit a lot of sympathy from people who are also just trying to get where they need to go without much fuss.
Incidentally, good luck with your plans! Where are you located?
The article states We created the beast that we protest against. We also possess the power to defeat it... We have the means for change, we work hard for it, and WE are the 99%. The problem is we've been working hard for decades and the middle class is getting smaller, and we aren't moving up. Anyone can give an anecdote to the contrary, but this still isn't about "making it", it is about the "haves" getting more, not by virtue of their talent, but rather by keeping others down with their immense resources.