What Occupy Wall Street Really Means
It is easy to dismiss the Occupy Wall Street (OWS) movement as being overly emotional, full of cranks and odd-balls, and lacking any coherent story about where we are, how we got here, and what to do next. But that would be a mistake. The purpose of this commentary is to explain why.
The Civil Rights Movement
The civil rights movement of the 1960s lead, at least in part, by Martin Luther King Jr., is probably the paradigm of progressive protest and lies in the background of much of what OWS is doing in terms of tactics and so on. A number of other important social and political reform movements -- such as feminism, native rights, gay rights, and so on -- that have happened subsequently are properly to be understood as being by the application of the core theme of the civil rights to other social and political areas. So what was the core message of the civil rights movement?
It is clear that the central point of the Martin Luther King's message was that racial discrimination was an inherent contradiction in the political, theoretical, and legal foundations of the United States of America. Again and again King made that clear that he was asking the majority of his society to simply abide by the core principles embedded in their constitution, in their religion, in their everyday assumptions about their lives.
What the civil rights movement was largely about, then, was accepting, even lauding, the coventional social, economic, and political super-structure that the black minority was mostly locked out of. The assumption was that the only problem was that the super-structure was not true to its own creed. Once it incorporated all members of society, without reference to race, then the USA (and other western economically advanced democracies) would simply be stronger and move onto greater advances.
The Complaint of Occupy Wall Street
In direct opposition to the premises of earlier progressive protests, OWS looks at the conventional super-structure itself. It sees clearly -- and quite properly -- that the result of over 80 years of social democratic reforms has been, paradoxically, to lead to increased levels of economic unfairness and economic uncertainty for the vast majority of citizens (the 99%). And this is not what was supposed to happen.
The tea-party sees this too and has a simple solution: reverse social democratic reform. They wish to drag society behind a pick-up truck of reactionary change and see what happens. OWS, as I will discuss below, is governed by emotion; the Tea-Party is governed by a hatered of modernity. The Tea Party is best understood, in my view, as an unrealistic and idealistic reaction to the problems of our era. It is doomed in the way that all social and economic movements that attempt to ignore the reality of the world they live in. The luddites were popular too in their day. The Tea Party will have no more long-term impact than they did.
Being Forced Back Into Box
The critics of OWS demand that it get back into the box of conventionality with the tea-party. It is okay, they in effect say, to argue with the Tea Party, but you have to play by the same rules: develop a political platform and try to elect people that embody that political platform.
It is important that OWS resist this criticism. Fortunately, OWS realizes this at some emotional level.
OWS doesn't know what it wants -- other than a world in which fairness is not a rarity -- and that is fine. That is because what OWS wants doesn't exist yet. This is not a failing. This is not an Achilles heal. Rather, it is the strength of the OWS movement.
The point is not whether OWS is anti-capitalist or pro-capitalist. The point is that something comes now -- and OWS has realized that now on some emotional leveal -- that is far beyond the paradigm of capitalism and social democratic democracy that has allowed capitalism to continue on for the last century or so. And OWS is going to help us find what the next thing is. And they will likely be succusful because the greatest and most creative minds, the minds of the most dangerous class of any society (the ambitious middle-class that realizes that current arrangements means their ambitions can never be met), are now launched on this work.
It may be that the end result looks more like religion than it does like politics. In any event, for good or ill, we are all along for the ride. I, for one, look forward to it.
The Civil Rights Movement
The civil rights movement of the 1960s lead, at least in part, by Martin Luther King Jr., is probably the paradigm of progressive protest and lies in the background of much of what OWS is doing in terms of tactics and so on. A number of other important social and political reform movements -- such as feminism, native rights, gay rights, and so on -- that have happened subsequently are properly to be understood as being by the application of the core theme of the civil rights to other social and political areas. So what was the core message of the civil rights movement?
It is clear that the central point of the Martin Luther King's message was that racial discrimination was an inherent contradiction in the political, theoretical, and legal foundations of the United States of America. Again and again King made that clear that he was asking the majority of his society to simply abide by the core principles embedded in their constitution, in their religion, in their everyday assumptions about their lives.
What the civil rights movement was largely about, then, was accepting, even lauding, the coventional social, economic, and political super-structure that the black minority was mostly locked out of. The assumption was that the only problem was that the super-structure was not true to its own creed. Once it incorporated all members of society, without reference to race, then the USA (and other western economically advanced democracies) would simply be stronger and move onto greater advances.
The Complaint of Occupy Wall Street
In direct opposition to the premises of earlier progressive protests, OWS looks at the conventional super-structure itself. It sees clearly -- and quite properly -- that the result of over 80 years of social democratic reforms has been, paradoxically, to lead to increased levels of economic unfairness and economic uncertainty for the vast majority of citizens (the 99%). And this is not what was supposed to happen.
The tea-party sees this too and has a simple solution: reverse social democratic reform. They wish to drag society behind a pick-up truck of reactionary change and see what happens. OWS, as I will discuss below, is governed by emotion; the Tea-Party is governed by a hatered of modernity. The Tea Party is best understood, in my view, as an unrealistic and idealistic reaction to the problems of our era. It is doomed in the way that all social and economic movements that attempt to ignore the reality of the world they live in. The luddites were popular too in their day. The Tea Party will have no more long-term impact than they did.
Being Forced Back Into Box
The critics of OWS demand that it get back into the box of conventionality with the tea-party. It is okay, they in effect say, to argue with the Tea Party, but you have to play by the same rules: develop a political platform and try to elect people that embody that political platform.
It is important that OWS resist this criticism. Fortunately, OWS realizes this at some emotional level.
OWS doesn't know what it wants -- other than a world in which fairness is not a rarity -- and that is fine. That is because what OWS wants doesn't exist yet. This is not a failing. This is not an Achilles heal. Rather, it is the strength of the OWS movement.
The point is not whether OWS is anti-capitalist or pro-capitalist. The point is that something comes now -- and OWS has realized that now on some emotional leveal -- that is far beyond the paradigm of capitalism and social democratic democracy that has allowed capitalism to continue on for the last century or so. And OWS is going to help us find what the next thing is. And they will likely be succusful because the greatest and most creative minds, the minds of the most dangerous class of any society (the ambitious middle-class that realizes that current arrangements means their ambitions can never be met), are now launched on this work.
It may be that the end result looks more like religion than it does like politics. In any event, for good or ill, we are all along for the ride. I, for one, look forward to it.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home