Today I attended the first General Assembly meeting for Occupy Detroit. It was an incredible experience. Not only was the turnout great, but the energy was, too. It was truly heartening to see so many people passionate about something greater than themselves rallying around a common cause, particularly in my home town of Detroit, which has a reputation of being cynical to the point of apathy when it comes to things like political activism. One lady even brought her young son to the event, and later tweeted, "Thanks for tonight. I brought my 4 yr old. We're both excited. He says he wants to make the world better."
Of course, not everything at the meeting went smoothly, but that's to be expected at the beginning of any spontaneous, grassroots movement; and I'm hopeful that the next meeting/march/occupation that's planned for this Friday will be even bigger and better if what I saw tonight is any indication of its potential. And that's saying something considering that many people, including myself, doubted that Detroit would actually manage to organize any sort of concerted response to, and in solidarity with, the Occupy Wall Street movement at all. But it is, and I'm damn proud of Detroit for it. As the handout I picked up says, "Detroit is a city of voices that deserve to be heard."
Monday, October 10, 2011
the homeless are people too
A fairly disheartening story I read in today's Macomb Daily:
Mount Clemens business owners concerned about vagrants, teens, bar crowd
What I mainly gather from this story is that the Mount Clemens Downtown Development Authority (DDA) cares more about harassing the homeless than it does welcoming alternative energy into the city, which is obvious from the things business owners are saying about the homeless themselves. (Of course, the article also mentions teenagers and rowdy bar goers, but the focus is predominately on the homeless.)
Instead of talking about these people as fellow human beings, they're talking about them as if they're some kind of pests, e.g., "We can't just tell them to get out, but we can enforce our loitering ordinances. We're doing what we can." They're idea of 'doing what we can' reminds me a lot of the Portland Business Alliance (PBA) and their repeated attempts to help pass the various sit-lie ordinances over the last 8-9 years.
The money — which could be used to help install electric charging stations, or even go towards some kind of program to help the homeless get off the streets so they don't have to sleep "in the crevices of City Hall" — is most likely going towards more foot patrols downtown in order to "make the public feel more secure." And, apparently, 'the public' doesn't include the homeless, which is one of the business community's primary targets.
(Incidentally, one of the issues I have with the institution of private property in relation to our current political-economic setup is that it essentially links private property to liberty, and through private property rights, secures the liberty of the propertied. Consequently, the greater one's property, the greater one's means of self-determination; while no access to property means a complete lack of self-determination whatsoever.)
It's not surprising to me that businesses value short-term profit over long-term sustainability or the welfare of the less fortunate; but it surprises me that we're not more critical of this kind of attitude as a community. I really hope that the budding Occupy Detroit movement will be able to help reverse this trend in some by giving the homeless and other marginalized segments of the community a voice they so desperately need, and in my opinion, deserve.
Mount Clemens business owners concerned about vagrants, teens, bar crowd
What I mainly gather from this story is that the Mount Clemens Downtown Development Authority (DDA) cares more about harassing the homeless than it does welcoming alternative energy into the city, which is obvious from the things business owners are saying about the homeless themselves. (Of course, the article also mentions teenagers and rowdy bar goers, but the focus is predominately on the homeless.)
Instead of talking about these people as fellow human beings, they're talking about them as if they're some kind of pests, e.g., "We can't just tell them to get out, but we can enforce our loitering ordinances. We're doing what we can." They're idea of 'doing what we can' reminds me a lot of the Portland Business Alliance (PBA) and their repeated attempts to help pass the various sit-lie ordinances over the last 8-9 years.
The money — which could be used to help install electric charging stations, or even go towards some kind of program to help the homeless get off the streets so they don't have to sleep "in the crevices of City Hall" — is most likely going towards more foot patrols downtown in order to "make the public feel more secure." And, apparently, 'the public' doesn't include the homeless, which is one of the business community's primary targets.
(Incidentally, one of the issues I have with the institution of private property in relation to our current political-economic setup is that it essentially links private property to liberty, and through private property rights, secures the liberty of the propertied. Consequently, the greater one's property, the greater one's means of self-determination; while no access to property means a complete lack of self-determination whatsoever.)
It's not surprising to me that businesses value short-term profit over long-term sustainability or the welfare of the less fortunate; but it surprises me that we're not more critical of this kind of attitude as a community. I really hope that the budding Occupy Detroit movement will be able to help reverse this trend in some by giving the homeless and other marginalized segments of the community a voice they so desperately need, and in my opinion, deserve.
Sunday, October 9, 2011
happy indigenous peoples' day (my yearly columbus day rant)
(Since I'm feeling lazy, here's something I wrote about Columbus Day last year.)
Screw all this Columbus Day bullshit, I prefer to call today Indigenous Peoples' Day. Why? Because Columbus doesn't deserve a national fucking holiday, that's why.
I don't dislike Columbus Day simply because he 'discovered' land that was already inhabited (Hispaniola), I dislike it for the fact that he helped to literally wipe that land of its original inhabitants, the peaceful Arawaks, through his unbelievable cruelty and that of those who followed him to the New World.
What happened to these poor people was nothing short of genocide, and there's simply no justification for it. Stealing land and killing and/or enslaving its native inhabitants isn't OK, and it's certainly not something to celebrate with a national holiday.
And for all those who are unfamiliar with the real history behind Columbus Day, I suggest checking out this excerpt from Howard Zinn's Columbus and Western Civilization, as well as this clip from The Canary Effect.
Screw all this Columbus Day bullshit, I prefer to call today Indigenous Peoples' Day. Why? Because Columbus doesn't deserve a national fucking holiday, that's why.
I don't dislike Columbus Day simply because he 'discovered' land that was already inhabited (Hispaniola), I dislike it for the fact that he helped to literally wipe that land of its original inhabitants, the peaceful Arawaks, through his unbelievable cruelty and that of those who followed him to the New World.
What happened to these poor people was nothing short of genocide, and there's simply no justification for it. Stealing land and killing and/or enslaving its native inhabitants isn't OK, and it's certainly not something to celebrate with a national holiday.
And for all those who are unfamiliar with the real history behind Columbus Day, I suggest checking out this excerpt from Howard Zinn's Columbus and Western Civilization, as well as this clip from The Canary Effect.
anime 101: equivalent exchange
According to Wikipedia, the general principle of equivalent exchange in Fullmetal Alchemist ("To obtain, something of equal value must be lost. That is alchemy's first law of equivalent exchange") was initially inspired by the author's parents, who had to give all their effort working on their farm in order to earn the money to eat.
But the idea of equivalent exchange itself has been around for ages; and not just in relation to alchemy, either. For example, the concept can be found (perhaps most famously) in Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics, where, in the midst of discussing the role of money in the exchange of commodities, he writes, "If there were no exchange there would be no association, and there can be no exchange without equality, and no equality without commensurability" (1133b.1).
The more you know.
But the idea of equivalent exchange itself has been around for ages; and not just in relation to alchemy, either. For example, the concept can be found (perhaps most famously) in Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics, where, in the midst of discussing the role of money in the exchange of commodities, he writes, "If there were no exchange there would be no association, and there can be no exchange without equality, and no equality without commensurability" (1133b.1).
The more you know.
Thursday, October 6, 2011
obligatory 'steve jobs is dead' post
So, Steve Jobs is dead. To be honest, I'm ambivalent about Steve Jobs' passing as I didn't know him personally; but I find the polarizing effect his death has had interesting. I see people fawning over him as if he single-handedly cured cancer and "invented the future," while others decry him as a capitalist monster who outsourced production to hellish Chinese factories and bashed teachers unions as "off-the-charts crazy."
For my own part, I don't think he was a saint or a monster, just an exceptionally intelligent, ambitious and lucky man (sans the whole pancreatic cancer thing) who was good at what he did, which wasn't necessarily good for all those inevitably involved. I will say, however that these opposing reactions bring to mind the Great Man Theory debate, which I think is perfectly illustrated by these two different perspectives on Steve Jobs' accomplishments: "Here's to the crazy ones: a farewell to Steve Jobs" and "The Social Genius Behind Steve Jobs."
In the end, my opinion of Jobs and his accomplishments falls more on the cynical side (as I'm generally critical of what Arthur Goldhammer calls "the hagiographic depiction of Steve Jobs as the heroic entrepreneur," which often ignore his penchant for authoritarianism and other faults); and as amazing and intelligent as he may have been (which I don't doubt is also true), I can't help but be reminded of Bertolt Brecht's poem, "Questions From a Worker Who Reads":
For my own part, I don't think he was a saint or a monster, just an exceptionally intelligent, ambitious and lucky man (sans the whole pancreatic cancer thing) who was good at what he did, which wasn't necessarily good for all those inevitably involved. I will say, however that these opposing reactions bring to mind the Great Man Theory debate, which I think is perfectly illustrated by these two different perspectives on Steve Jobs' accomplishments: "Here's to the crazy ones: a farewell to Steve Jobs" and "The Social Genius Behind Steve Jobs."
In the end, my opinion of Jobs and his accomplishments falls more on the cynical side (as I'm generally critical of what Arthur Goldhammer calls "the hagiographic depiction of Steve Jobs as the heroic entrepreneur," which often ignore his penchant for authoritarianism and other faults); and as amazing and intelligent as he may have been (which I don't doubt is also true), I can't help but be reminded of Bertolt Brecht's poem, "Questions From a Worker Who Reads":
Who built Thebes of the 7 gates ?
In the books you will read the names of kings.
Did the kings haul up the lumps of rock ?
And Babylon, many times demolished,
Who raised it up so many times ?
In what houses of gold glittering Lima did its builders live ?
Where, the evening that the Great Wall of China was finished, did the masons go?
Great Rome is full of triumphal arches.
Who erected them ?
Over whom did the Caesars triumph ?
Had Byzantium, much praised in song, only palaces for its inhabitants ?
Even in fabled Atlantis, the night that the ocean engulfed it,
The drowning still cried out for their slaves.
The young Alexander conquered India.
Was he alone ?
Caesar defeated the Gauls.
Did he not even have a cook with him ?
Philip of Spain wept when his armada went down.
Was he the only one to weep ?
Frederick the 2nd won the 7 Years War.
Who else won it ?
Every page a victory.
Who cooked the feast for the victors ?
Every 10 years a great man.
Who paid the bill ?
So many reports.
So many questions.
Wednesday, October 5, 2011
how unequal we are
One of my friends posted this article on Facebook yesterday:
How Unequal We Are: The Top 5 Facts You Should Know About The Wealthiest One Percent Of Americans
While I think it's interesting in that it points out certain statistics which highlight the underlying symptoms, the real problem is that the capitalist system won't fix itself no matter how much we try to regulate it or leave it alone. It also needs to be pointed out that, as another friend of mine put it, "It's the nature of this system to produce this toxic accumulation of debt AND wealth."
If we want a real solution — one that does more than simply mitigates the symptoms — we need to start rethinking the capitalist system itself; and in my opinion, start working towards creating a new economic paradigm that's characterized by collectively owned and democratically controlled production based on need rather than profit.
But for me, particularly, economic democracy (i.e., 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 Karl Marx wrote in The Poverty of Philosophy:
And if the growing popularity of the Occupy Wall Street movement is any indication, it seems like people are finally figuring out how badly they're getting fucked by the owners and controllers of all this wealth:
How Unequal We Are: The Top 5 Facts You Should Know About The Wealthiest One Percent Of Americans
While I think it's interesting in that it points out certain statistics which highlight the underlying symptoms, the real problem is that the capitalist system won't fix itself no matter how much we try to regulate it or leave it alone. It also needs to be pointed out that, as another friend of mine put it, "It's the nature of this system to produce this toxic accumulation of debt AND wealth."
If we want a real solution — one that does more than simply mitigates the symptoms — we need to start rethinking the capitalist system itself; and in my opinion, start working towards creating a new economic paradigm that's characterized by collectively owned and democratically controlled production based on need rather than profit.
But for me, particularly, economic democracy (i.e., 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 Karl 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.
And if the growing popularity of the Occupy Wall Street movement is any indication, it seems like people are finally figuring out how badly they're getting fucked by the owners and controllers of all this wealth:
Sunday, October 2, 2011
double standards of the nypd
Yesterday, hundreds of Occupy Wall Street protesters were arrested for blocking the roadway when a bottleneck formed on the walkway and a large group of protesters took to the roadway instead, obstructing traffic in one lane for several hours. Yet when a 1992 protest consisting of thousands of off-duty police officers degenerated into what one New York Times article characterized as "a beer-swilling, traffic-snarling, epithet-hurling melee that stretched from the Brooklyn Bridge to Murray Street," blocking traffic on the Brooklyn Bridge in both directions for hours, no one was arrested. Double standards much?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)