some thoughts on occupy wall street

On the one hand, I'm sympathetic to the idea of Occupy Wall Street and what people are trying to do. I see it as a grassroots push back against the people and institutions that not only helped cause the latest economic collapse, but collectively represents the very embodiment of the expropriator class that expropriates massive amounts of wealth from working-class people in the form of uncompensated labour.

Basically, the money that Wall Street is playing around with is all the money expropriated by capital from the working class in the form of surplus value (i.e., unpaid labour), which is the primary source of what we call profit in the capitalist system of production. The stock market essentially takes all this wealth and tries to increase it for its holders via gambling, investing and shuffling it around, while at the same time acting as a freeway for the distribution of capital between other capitalists throughout the system.

Many people seem to think that 'markets,' including the stock market, can do no wrong, even when the markets themselves are full of people and large financial institutions moving things around in an effort to profit off of the ups and downs, which, in turn, creates even more ups and downs. Unfortunately, when markets crash, as they inevitably do, it's ultimately the working class who suffers the most — enduring everything from extended periods of high-unemployment to higher costs of living to depleted 401Ks and IRAs, etc. — while for Wall Street, it's business as usual.

One of the lessons I've taken away from Occupy Wall Street, however, (and perfectly illustrated by this article) is that the left seriously needs to relearn how to organize, as well as how to get its message out more effectively since the media often seems to downplay (read, 'completely ignore') these kinds of events (which, consequently, brings up the question of the place and use of digital/social media by activists and some of the problems they're facing).

This isn't a criticism of Occupy Wall Street as much as leftist activism in general, which, on the whole, seems to have become increasingly less focused and militant over the years. While left-wing social and political movements tend to have no problems springing up over various issues and events, they seem to dissipate almost as fast, particularly more radical movements, once initial momentum is lost. Movements can't sustain themselves without long-term commitments on the part of activists; and the left needs to find more creative ways to spread its message, as well as to keep people actively engaged in struggles. Occupy Wall Street seems to be off to a good start, though.

And while I think that the recent influx of union support for Occupy Wall Street is definitely a good thing, what we really need are more radical unions (like the IWW, for example) that are willing to be instruments of revolutionary change rather than just mediators between capital and labour. Historically speaking, unions have tended to deradicalize working-class movements they're a part of due to their dependence on, and basic deference towards, the employing-class and capital.

Moreover, as heartened as I am by this upsurge in left-wing/working-class activism, I'm still afraid that it's a case of too little, too late. The right has been far more organized in recent decades; and the rise of right-wing led, middle-class populism has little in the way of organized opposition besides a few scattered groups and a shrinking number of severely weakened unions. And if history is any indication, middle-class populism left unchecked can eventually morph into fascism.

Of course, I could be wrong about the potential direction that all of this populist anger might take in the future (assuming it doesn't just fizzle out into political apathy); but I still feel strongly about the need for the left to get better organized, and that depends on working people getting more active whenever and wherever they can. In end, I completely agree with the article, "A spotlight on Wall Street greed," that:

While Occupy Wall Street has shined a spotlight on the inequality in U.S. society and the power held by financial elites, a single action like this won't be enough to win the reforms desired by participants if it fails to link up with other movements. Doing so will require struggles rooted in workplaces, communities and schools--which highlights the need for activists to begin organizing around issues that impact people's daily lives in ways that involve people with families and jobs, who may not be able to participate in an action like Occupy Wall Street.

Update, October 2, 2011: I read two excellent analyses today addressing some of the predominately leftist criticisms of Occupy Wall Street (including my own), particularly the charge that the movement itself is unfocused and lacks any real direction: "The Nuts and Bolts of #OccupyWallStreet" and "First we take Manhattan."

the question of unions

A friend of mine today wrote, "Unions are great until they show their dependence on and basic deference toward the employing-class & capital, their bargain partners." I think it's an excellent point that's often neglected by the left, particularly socialists (including myself), in their tendency to promote anything slightly favouring the working class.

As just one of many historical examples, I think the close connection between the Social Democratic Party of Germany and trade unions in the late 1800s/early 1900s is one of the things that eventually helped deradicalize the SPD for this very reason, i.e., instead of being instruments of revolution, the unions increasingly played the role of mediator between the classes; and the SPD had to become less and less radical to maintain the support of the growing unions and their membership.

Union complacency as mediator between capital and labour is an issue I think the radical left has yet to solve in any practical sense, especially now that unions are about all that remains of the organized left in this country. It's almost a stimulus-response to defend them at this point.

Even if unions manage to survive this latest economic downturn and onslaught of populism from the right, the question still remains of how to radicalize them and then, if possible, keep them from becoming complacent as mediators in a system where one class expropriates the wealth produced by another when what we really want is a different system altogether.

the straight dope

The amoral (if not immoral) truth of the stock market straight from the horse's mouth*: many traders don't care about the overall health of the stock market or the broader economy; all they care about is making money from its up and downs (and especially its downs if you "know what to do" and have the means to do it). And Goldman Sachs [along with other large financial institutions] rules the world:



Of course, not all traders are so ambivalent about the overall health of the economy. But many people seem to think that the 'markets' can do no wrong, even when the markets themselves are full of people moving things around in an effort to profit off of the ups and downs, which, in turn, creates even more ups and downs. And its not just traders who do this, but large financial institutions, as well.

The way I see it, if their intent is to profit from the stock market (or any other for that matter) regardless of its health or the effects their decisions might have on it (which I imagine is fairly common), we have a problem because it's ultimately the working class who suffers the most when shit inevitably hits the fan, enduring everything fron extended periods of high-unemployment to higher costs of living to depleted 401Ks and IRAs and more.

*Word has been going around that Alessio Rastani may be part of the Yes Men, a group that impersonates corporate entities and "big-time criminals" in order to publicly humiliate them. While it could be possible that Rastani is an independent trader and a member of the Yes Men, both the BBC and the Yes Men are currently denying this.

deep recession sharply altered u.s. jobless map: why the rich love high unemployment, part deux

Saw this article from yesterday's New York Times:

Deep Recession Sharply Altered U.S. Jobless Map

The last line of the article reads: "'I would look at it as our dreams are delayed,' he said, "rather than our dreams being denied.'" Maybe I'm just being cynical, but the 'American Dream' is all smoke and mirrors, if you ask me. As if there's a big difference between being denied and being delayed indefinitely.

Whatever the case, the article does shine a light on how bad this economic downturn has really been; so much so that it's altered the nation's economic landscape, with states in the Rust Belt now faring better than many of the 'boom states' in the Sun Belt.

Even more depressing, however, is that "only 16 of the nation's 100 largest metropolitan areas have regained more than half of the jobs they lost during the recession," and the fact that we had more people living in poverty last year than in any year since the Census Bureau began keeping records half a century ago. It reminds me of this article from Truthout, which reads like Marxism 101, albeit through a liberal/social democratic lens.

As I ranted once before, capitalism, by its very nature, requires what Marx termed the "reserve army of labour" (i.e., the unemployed), which is one of the tools it uses to create and increase the profit it extracts from the labourer and the commodities their labour produces.

What the second article calls "labor-market flexibility" is the capitalists wet dream, i.e., an insecure labour pool that can be hired and fired at will, at whatever wage and however many hours the employer deigns to give (further supported by articles like this). And as the Truthout article points out, the mechanisms that the ruling class use to help 'fix' the economy ultimately end up benefiting big capital and the wealthy, not the workers (who make up the majority of the population).

Which is completely counterproductive, of course, when you have a consumer-based economy and very few of the consumers can afford much beyond their basic means of subsistence. In the context of a global, capitalist economy, however, capital can invest elsewhere (whether abroad in foreign markets or in stocks and bonds) and still increase its profits and those of its shareholders, while the average worker is left struggling.

The whole thing leaves a bad taste in my mouth. How anyone can find such a system moral, or simply preferable to something which is less exploitative, is beyond me. /rant

the future of organizing in the digital age

First, Yahoo! was caught blocking Occupy Wall Street-related emails (they later claimed it was an unintentional error); and now word on the interwebs is that Twitter has been blocking #occupywallstreet from trending. (You can check out the trend map for #occupywallstreet here.)

It's hard to say whether this is true because of the way trending topics are identified and circulated; but if it is, it makes one wonder where the interests of digital/social media companies like Twitter and Yahoo! really lie: with their users or with Wall Street. (And with stories like this, I'm leaning more towards Wall Street.)

So what are the implications assuming both stories are true, or at least have the potential to be true at some point in the future? I suppose the answer to that will depend on the type of analysis you give it. From a more theoretical/critical standpoint, for example, it evidences that private companies have a tendency to favour the interests of capital over the interests of users/consumers/etc., which isn't all that surprising.

From a more practical standpoint, however, I think it raises some serious questions about the place and use of digital/social media in regard to organizing, specifically how it can help or hinder those utilizing this growing medium based mainly upon the whims of those in control of these services and methods of communication.

Only a few months ago, for example, people were touting the use of social media when it was being used by activists to organize in places like Iran, Egypt, etc., where things like the right to free speech and the right to peaceably organize don't really exist in any meaningful way, if at all. But here in the US, where we do have these protections, our use of them is potentially being limited/censored by the private interests that own and control them because they're coming into conflict with the interests of the ruling class, especially those of wealth/capital.

It brings up issues from censorship to the security of the people who are trying to organize (e.g., the ability of corporate interests to reveal names, locations and correspondences of activists to governments) to whether the internet and certain online services should be regarded as part of the commons since they're fast becoming an integral part of how we communicate and function as a society. And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

Because digital/social media is such a relatively new phenomenon, it'll be interesting to see how we, as general users and activists alike, approach these issues as they develop, particularly when many of our ideas about them may well be influenced by the very medium and corporate interests in question.

re: the truth about "class war" in america

Saw this article by economist Richard Wolff today:

The Truth About "Class War" in America

Republicans describing Obama's deficit reduction plan as 'class warfare'? Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

While I think that Wolff's critique could have been more radical (especially for a quasi-Marxist economist), and could have gone deeper than just the issue of taxation, it's still good for what it is. At the very least, it's a point that should be made in order to ridicule the idea that businesses and the wealthy are the ones under attack. (I think Dan Graeber's recent appearance on Democracy Now! complements this from the standpoint of debt.)

In local news, the poverty rate in Michigan is on the rise while assistance to the poor is planning to be cut, so we better make sure to protect businesses and the wealthy from any kind of working-class attack/tax increase. /sarcasm

no bridge for you! (unless it's my bridge)

Only in an economic/political system where money equals speech, and where private over public ownership is idealized (particularly by conservatives), can one man essentially prevent a bridge from being built:

The Bridge: Beyond Any Doubt

Report exposes bridge owner's lies

The Supreme Court of the United States has not only decided that money equals speech (Buckley v. Valeo), but has essentially neutered campaign finance reform as well (Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission); and campaign contributions by Ambassador Bridge owner Manuel Moroun appear to be one of the reasons (besides ideology, of course) why the Republican-led legislature hasn't approved this project yet—proving once again that us 'little guys' (i.e., average working-class citizens) are effectively screwed and politically powerless unless we start getting our shit together and become better organized.

how can socialism be morally justified? or drowning my sorrows in socialist politics so I don't drink myself stupid

On the Socialist Party USA's Facebook page, someone asked, How can socialism be morally justified? It's an interesting question, and I can at least think of a few tentative answers. The potential exploitation inherent in the capitalist system is one place to start.

In the Marxist sense, at least, exploitation refers to the worker's lack of ownership and/or distributive control over the surplus created by their labour. (That's why Marx defined slavery, feudalism and capitalism as exploitative systems of production, i.e., in each, the producers/workers have no ownership and/or distributive control over the surplus created by their labour).

From this perspective, exploitation is an inherent part of the capitalist mode of production, which in turn, ties into Marx's theory of alienation. It's rather complicated, and I don't fully understand everything Marx wrote on the subject as much of it is very abstract, but in short, exploitation is the idea that the capitalist profits far more from a worker's labour than the worker does, and it doesn't really matter whether it's voluntary or not due to the structural and personal forms of dependence that characterize wage-labour under capitalism and compel workers to work for others (e.g., see "Wage-Slavery and Republican Liberty").

Adam Smith et al. assumed that labour creates wealth (surplus value). But according to Marx, in a capitalist system, labour itself becomes a commodity, an object that's bought and sold on the market. Moreover, due to private ownership of the means of production, the product of the worker's labour doesn’t legally belong to them (alienation), nor does the surplus value their labour creates (unpaid labour), which is kept by the capitalist.

Consequently, the product of the worker's labour becomes a commodity that's divorced from the labour expended on its production, thereby obscuring the social relationship between producer and consumer (commodity fetishism). Furthermore, the employer has the ability to increase their profit exponentially by reinvesting the surplus value extracted from the worker's labour into their company while the labourer is forced to spend their (more often than not) meager wages on the necessities of life such as food, clothing, shelter, etc.

If one assumes that giving workers more control over the product of their labour is more 'moral' or socially beneficial than, say, giving that control to a capitalist who treats their labour as a commodity and gives them a smaller wage than their labour is truly worth in exchange, that may be one argument based on both a moral and rational basis.

Taking a broader view of history, one can also make the argument that the foundation of capitalism, private property, is ultimately built upon theft, which is not only viewed as something immoral but something that's ultimately harmful to the commonwealth (i.e., a community founded for the common good). For example, a modern argument against socialism is the idea that abolishing private property rights and confiscating the 'rightful' property of one person (or persons) and giving it to another, including to the community as a whole, is immoral or harmful to the commonwealth. However, much of the land and natural resources that one may now 'rightfully' exploit for profit may very well have belonged to, or utilized by, another at some point in time, and was forcibly confiscated (e.g., Native American land). As Jean-Jacques Rousseau wrote in Discourse on Inequality:

The first man who, having enclosed a piece of ground, bethought himself of saying This is mine, and found people simple enough to believe him, was the real founder of civil society. From how many crimes, wars and murders, from how many horrors and misfortunes might not any one have saved mankind, by pulling up the stakes, or filling up the ditch, and crying to his fellows, "Beware of listening to this impostor; you are undone if you once forget that the fruits of the earth belong to us all, and the earth itself to nobody."

And the question can be raised, What's more moral or socially beneficial from this point of view, communal ownership where all (or at least a majority) have a say in the use of, and share in the profit from, property, whether in the form of land, resources, or machinery, or a private ownership, where only a single individual or select few benefit and/or have a say in the production and distribution of commodities that the reproduction of society depends upon?

Another argument may be how the present system actually creates structural unemployment, which hardly existed on a mass scale before it became the dominant mode of production, leaving many working-class people unable to support themselves or their families. This can be seen to be 'immoral' and socially harmful from a certain point of view.

And then there's the argument that under the present system, opportunity is essentially privatized along with everything else the capitalists and free-market advocates can get their hands on, making it just as concentrated as wealth (and, if you've noticed, income inequality is rising while median family income is lower now that it was 30 years ago). Sure, things have improved since the 1900s, when workers (which included large numbers of children) essentially had no rights whatsoever, and were forced to work over 12 hour days in absolutely appalling conditions, but that's been due to the struggle of workers themselves, not due to the benevolence of capitalism.

Capitalism isn't an immoral system as much as an amoral one, in my opinion, (as I'd argue all economic systems are in that they're essentially ways of organizing production and distribution utilized by people with varying degrees of intention); but I think we've definitely outgrown it, just like we did feudalism. And while socialism isn't going to be a perfect replacement if it ever takes its place, I think it has the potential to revolutionize society much the same way feudalism and capitalism have.

For me, socialism isn't so much about the equality of wealth or outcomes as it is the de-privatization (i.e., socialization) of opportunity and the weakening of class antagonisms and hierarchies arising out of social relations unique to capitalism and other predominately exploitative systems. As Marx wrote in The Poverty of Philosophy, "Social relations are closely bound up with productive forces. In acquiring new productive forces men change their mode of production; and in changing their mode of production, in changing the way of earning their living, they change all their social relations. The hand-mill gives you society with the feudal lord; the steam-mill, society with the industrial capitalist."

Marx's focus, the bodhisattva that he was, is essentially the same as socialism's, which is primarily the question of how to liberate society from its suffering and alienation by changing the material conditions that support it. In the words of Erich Fromm, "[Marx's] concept of socialism is the emancipation from alienation, the return of man to himself, his self-realization."

The present system, however, due to the way its structured, tends to idealize and promote greed (self-interest) over altruism (common good), competition over cooperation, privatization over public ownership, etc., as well as promotes the accumulation of capital into a smaller and smaller number of hands. This, I suppose, can be argued to be less moral and socially beneficial if we place a higher/greater value on things like altruism, cooperation, etc., and if we conclude that liberty in the economic sphere (as opposed to just within the political sphere) is more inline with/promotes the general welfare of the commonwealth.

Those are some of the arguments I can think of off the top of my head, anyway. (Updated 3/2/13)

bobby

I didn't plan on it, but I ended up getting a 40 of Mickey's from the party store and reminiscing about all the crazy shit Bobby and I used to do together. In the last eight years or so, we kind of lost touch and weren't nearly as close as we used to be; but we were pretty tight back in the day. When I first met Bobby, I was some geeky little kid who just moved to Warren from Detroit that was into things like Nintendo and comic books. Next thing you know, Bobby and I are cruising around in his Camaro with a case full of 40s in the backseat, the radio so loud the subwoofers in the trunk made my heart skip.

I remember countless nights across the street, watching crazy-ass movies and drinking the night away. I remember wandering around the neighborhood one Halloween, trick-or-treating with pillow cases full of beer, and then going behind the school to eat all our candy and get thoroughly shitfaced. I remember him getting me drunk and sneaking me into an 18+ screening of Faces of Death when I was probably only fifteen or sixteen, feeling sick because of all the fried mushrooms I'd eaten from Chicken Shack right before we left. I remember the store in the D where we used to be able to buy liquor when he was barely eighteen, and then heading back to his house to get completely trashed, or just sitting in his car watching the snowflakes build up on his windshield. I remember doing things so illegal I can't even mention them.

I remember that, even despite our different lifestyles and personalities, we were still friends, and he never did me wrong. At least, nothing that I'm aware of. And even if he did, he was one of my first friends in Warren; and for a long time, one of the best. We caused a lot of trouble together, and I'm sad that we eventually lost touch. He was such a big part of my life, and I hardly realized it until he was gone. Funny how that kind of shit happens.

I remember the scorpion he used to have and how he loved showing that fucking thing off. I remember sneaking over late at night to drink and hiding our 40s behind the couch while we drank them so Ressie, his grandmother, couldn't see them, thinking we were so slick even though she probably knew exactly what the hell we were doing. I remember going to his wedding. I sort of remember the reception. I remember how often my brother, Gary, and I went over to hang out with Bobby and Tonya. I remember how pissed Tonya would get when he drank too much. I remember when he got that tattoo on his leg from the Necronomicon. I remember how jealous I was. I remember incredible Fourth of Julys.

I remember all these things and more because Bobby was such a big part of my life, even if I never noticed just how much at the time. Sure, Bobby wasn't perfect, and he could be a real asshole at times; but who isn't? And despite all the things about him that I didn't like, I wouldn't be the person I am now if it wasn't for him. I never would have had all those crazy experiences that helped make me into 'a man,' or at least a properly maladjusted teenager. For all of his flaws, Bobby was my friend, and his family was like my family: his younger brother, Anthony, and I once managed to convince a lady truck driver to meet us when we were barely passed puberty; while his older brother, John, constantly fucked with me about my long hair, telling me to "get a fucking haircut" every time he saw me.

More than anything, though, I remember the fact that Bobby didn't really fuck with me as much as he did everyone else. He could be a real shithead sometimes. I never knew him to hesitate when he saw an opening to rip on someone, and he was always playing mean-ass pranks. But he always seemed to go easy on me. I could never figure out why. Maybe it's just because he felt sorry for me, but I like to think there was more to it than that, that we were truly friends or something. Fuck. I can hardly wrap my head around the fact that his mother, Sandy, is gone, let alone the fact that he's gone too—and within just two days of each other. It just doesn't seem real. I feel like I owe him a debt that I can never repay now; but at least through his family and people like me, his memory will live on.

rip, bobby and sandy

I've lost two friends in two days, both in the same family. It doesn't even seem real. I can't imagine how their family is dealing with it all, because I sure as hell know I'm having trouble with it. Sandy, our neighbor and my mom's best friend, died from cancer on Friday; and now her second oldest son, Bobby, who also lived across the street, is dead. Possibly from an accidental overdose. Or maybe an intentional one. Maybe even from a heart attack or choking... nobody really knows yet. Sandy's viewing is scheduled for today, and her funeral for tomorrow; but the saddest part is that most of the family probably doesn't know about Bobby yet. Everyone who doesn't will find out tomorrow at the viewing. What a fucking nightmare that has to be for everyone, especially his younger brother, Anthony. He's the one who'll probably have to tell everyone who doesn't already know on top of taking care of his mother's wake. I feel a little guilty because I didn't go over to see Bobby right away after his mom died, and I didn't visit her more than once since being back in Michigan, either. I was always waiting for 'the right time.' I was always 'too busy' doing other things. But I could have made time; I just didn't. I know that none of this is 'my fault,' but that knowledge doesn't really make me feel any better. It's just a shitty situation all around, and I feel bad for the people who are affected the most, including my mom and dad. I wish there was something I could do to make things suck less, to take away some of their pain. Unfortunately, there's not really much I can do besides write about it and hope for the best.

happy capital d... err, labour day

Listening to NPR this faux-Labour Day, I heard this story, and I completely agree with E.J. Dionne Jr. that "it should shame us about our cool indifference to the heroism of those who go to work every day."

The term 'shame' is dead-on. The way we've been systematically led into essentially ignoring the contributions of labour as we laud the simple existence of capital is shameful. The way we've allowed ourselves to be swayed into idealizing investors as benevolent creators while looking down at workers as lazy, ignorant leeches is even more shameful.

I say this because I'm familiar with the history of the American labour movement, especially the things average workers have fought and sometimes died for that we now take for granted. People think nothing of celebrating soldiers who fought and died in foreign wars; but many of those same people turn their noses up at workers who fought and died right here for union recognition, 8 hour work days, a fair wage, etc., and I simply can't understand it.

Today isn't just about having a day off; it's about celebrating the labour movement and commemorating the struggles workers, including you and me, have faced and overcome throughout the years since the Industrial Revolution.

I highly recommend checking out books like Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States or Sharon Smith's Subterranean Fire for anyone who's interested in learning more about the history of the American working class and the origins of Labour Day (which should really be on May 1st like the rest of the world).