A lot of left-wing pundits and icons of progressive activism have applauded the Occupy Wall Street movement. They have correctly discerned that this is bottom-up and basically leaderless effort. While they salute what the occupiers have accomplished to date, they concurrently declare that the time has come to develop a list of demands and to appoint spokespeople.
My question to such people is: Why? Why must today's protesters follow the blueprint of the days of yore? This blueprint has been utilized for the past 25 years or so with little, if anything, to show for it. So, why must the occupiers get it together like so many of these people think?
For one thing, I think it would be difficult to draw up a list of demands that everyone could agree on. People from all sides of the political equation are participating in the occupations. Each grouping has its own ideas about how today's most vexing economic issues should be solved. By demanding that they all join hands and sing Kumbaya, this demand could serve as a good means to break the solidarity participants enjoy.
For another thing, who would you present a set of demands to? Neither the president nor the Congress seems interested and, even if they were, there is no way in the world, in the current political climate, that Democrats and Republicans would come together to enact legislation that resembled almost anything requested. At best, all that could be expected is a bunch of watered down bills and regulations that left enough loopholes for the corporations to drive semis through.
Handing the list of demands to the titans of Wall Street would net even less enthusiasm. They don't care what the public thinks or wants. If they did, we wouldn't be in this mess right now.
So, what good are specific or even general demands if neither the political nor economic elites are going to do anything substantive about them?
From my perspective, the occupiers are doing the one thing that speaks loudest to the public -- they are expressing anger and frustration. As more people begin to see that they are not alone in their feelings of contempt for a system that does not serve their interests at all, they will join with the occupiers physically or in spirit.
If this movement keeps building, we may get to the point of developing a critical mass. At that juncture, we can have marches and protests numbering in the tens or hundreds of thousands. Who knows. Maybe we could muster one million or more people demanding change throughout the country.
At some point, the protests themselves may organically morph into boycotts and strikes. If a significant number of people declare that they refuse to participate in a rigged economic system anymore, the corporations will find themselves in a difficult position and they may be forced to change the way they do business or take the chance of losing their critical market shares or going belly up.
My question to such people is: Why? Why must today's protesters follow the blueprint of the days of yore? This blueprint has been utilized for the past 25 years or so with little, if anything, to show for it. So, why must the occupiers get it together like so many of these people think?
For one thing, I think it would be difficult to draw up a list of demands that everyone could agree on. People from all sides of the political equation are participating in the occupations. Each grouping has its own ideas about how today's most vexing economic issues should be solved. By demanding that they all join hands and sing Kumbaya, this demand could serve as a good means to break the solidarity participants enjoy.
For another thing, who would you present a set of demands to? Neither the president nor the Congress seems interested and, even if they were, there is no way in the world, in the current political climate, that Democrats and Republicans would come together to enact legislation that resembled almost anything requested. At best, all that could be expected is a bunch of watered down bills and regulations that left enough loopholes for the corporations to drive semis through.
Handing the list of demands to the titans of Wall Street would net even less enthusiasm. They don't care what the public thinks or wants. If they did, we wouldn't be in this mess right now.
So, what good are specific or even general demands if neither the political nor economic elites are going to do anything substantive about them?
From my perspective, the occupiers are doing the one thing that speaks loudest to the public -- they are expressing anger and frustration. As more people begin to see that they are not alone in their feelings of contempt for a system that does not serve their interests at all, they will join with the occupiers physically or in spirit.
If this movement keeps building, we may get to the point of developing a critical mass. At that juncture, we can have marches and protests numbering in the tens or hundreds of thousands. Who knows. Maybe we could muster one million or more people demanding change throughout the country.
At some point, the protests themselves may organically morph into boycotts and strikes. If a significant number of people declare that they refuse to participate in a rigged economic system anymore, the corporations will find themselves in a difficult position and they may be forced to change the way they do business or take the chance of losing their critical market shares or going belly up.
It's a big maybe but seems like the only way it could have effect is to tip that critical point.
ReplyDeleteAnother small scale way which could eventually tip balance is that of "free culture" for people to embrace; Linux, free, user contributed content, home made produce and depend less on; Microsoft, TV and Cola. The corporations are the minority but depend on the majority of the minority to turn discursive thinking off and consume.
After freeing ourselves of corporations, good government should come of itself. The natural way.
Sorry "depend on the majority of the majority"
ReplyDelete