FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

In a Manner Neither Forceful Nor Foolish

I first got wind of the Occupy Wall Street action back in its planning stages.  I didn’t give it much thought, but considered it a potentially positive thing, especially if it began with a fair number of people participating or somehow captured the mainstream media’s attention.  As it continues to unfold, I must admit that the continued growth of the movement has exceeded my expectations exponentially.  I have yet to spend a night at an Occupy encampment.  However, I have participated in a couple assemblies in Burlington, VT and am in touch with a few occupiers in Manhattan, Washington, DC, San Francisco and Asheville, NC.  These contacts have provided me with an overview of the movement and what it hopes to achieve.

It is impossible to put every one involved in this movement into one ideological box.  In its current state, it is reasonable to portray the Occupy movement as one where multiple ideologies are competing to be heard.  Libertarians and socialists; anarchists and liberals.  They are all present and they are all vocal in their attempts to represent the movement.  Yet, if there is one dominant trend in the literature, speeches, and encampments of the movement, it would be that of militant liberalism.  Perhaps it is best to look at the anarchist classic The Floodgates of Anarchy for a definition of this political trend.  In a backhanded manner, the authors Christie and Meltzer describe militant liberalism by “its inability to understand the class struggle, without the recognition of which social change is impossible.”  No matter what those signs one might see about the class war, the reality of the movement at this point is better revealed in its mantra regarding the 99% and the 1%.  This oversimplification of who owns the so-called means of production ignores the relationship of the so-called 99% to that means and does not demand a change in that ownership to those that actually produce the wealth.

Some in the mainstream media, along with various loudmouths on the far right, have criticized the Occupy movement because it has too many demands.  What does it really want, they ask?   This is a legitimate criticism and further illustrates the underlying liberalism of the movement in its current form.  Every ill that the movement has highlighted: foreclosures, bank bailouts, unemployment, austerity measures and (rather belatedly) the wars of Washington, are related to one phenomenon.  That would be the current manifestation of the economic formation known as monopoly capitalism.  Call it what you want, globalization, global capitalism or imperialism, the fact is that all of the ills highlighted by the Occupy movement are economic at their most fundamental.  The only way to cure them is to end the economic system which by its very nature created them.

Making the banks smaller will not end the housing crisis or end unemployment.  Nor  will it fix the schools or create single-payer health insurance.  It may encourage banks to lend money again, but the very nature of capitalism is for smaller economic units to compete for profit for themselves so that they can buy out their competition, thereby beginning the cycle of monopolization all over again.  It is the very competition that creates monopolies, which by their creation end competition.  The history of the United States–perhaps the ultimate capitalist nation–proves that government induced reforms designed to prevent the excesses of monopoly capitalism are always temporary, no matter how well meaning the reformers original intentions.

It is no longer possible to reform capitalism.  Its current ruthlessness is unsurpassed in human history.  The countless millions who toil at its mercy along with those that toil despite its existence can no longer be saved by liberal politicians or reformers.  Nor can they be saved by green capitalists or those that operate on the Ben and Jerry’s model.  While the efforts of these corporations are commendable in their own limited way, the very fact that they subscribe to the capitalist mode ensures their inability to solve the ills that economic system creates.  While it is certainly true that some capitalists are crueler than others, the fact is that when times are tight and profits are squeezed the very nature of capitalism forces any corporation desiring to survive to exact some kind of heartlessness if they wish to survive.  This is why monopoly capitalism itself is the problem.  If the Occupy movement had only one demand that would address all of those demands attributed to it, it should be to abolish monopoly capitalism.

The left should be heartened by the Occupy movement.  It should also be wary of those that would turn it into another MoveOn or Progressive Democrats organization.  The reign of Obama should have proven once and for all that there are very few differences between the Democrats and the Republicans in the United States, just like there are few differences between the Tories and Labor in Britain or the SPD and CDU in Germany.  All of these political groupings sold their souls to the neoliberal pipedream decades ago and no matter what they do or say, they are no longer in control of their politics or the outcome of those politics.  Furthermore, the trends towards free market libertarianism within the Occupy movement should be addressed.  Small time mercantilism and entrepreneurship has its place and a certain allure, yet the financial giants behind the capitalist libertarian movement are neither small time nor entrepreneurs.  They are some of the cruelest capitalists on the planet.

The organic (as in its free flow and non-hierarchical, not what it eats) nature of the Occupy movement is its strength and weakness.  Occupying is in itself a radical statement. Yet, as a veteran of numerous occupations/liberations I can honestly say that the fact of occupying can often become the raisin d’etre of a movement, thereby preventing further political action beyond that involved in maintaining the liberated space. Those of us with an anti-capitalist analysis would do well to involve ourselves in a manner that is neither forceful nor foolish.

Ron Jacobs is the author of The Way the Wind Blew: a History of the Weather Underground and Short Order Frame Up. Jacobs’ essay on Big Bill Broonzy is featured in CounterPunch’s collection on music, art and sex, Serpents in the Garden. His collection of essays and other musings titled Tripping Through the American Night is now available and his new novel is The Co-Conspirator’s Tale. He can be reached at:ronj1955@gmail.com

 

More articles by:

Ron Jacobs is the author of Daydream Sunset: Sixties Counterculture in the Seventies published by CounterPunch Books. His latest offering is a pamphlet titled Capitalism: Is the Problem.  He lives in Vermont. He can be reached at: ronj1955@gmail.com.

February 18, 2019
Paul Street
31 Actual National Emergencies
Robert Fisk
What Happened to the Remains of Khashoggi’s Predecessor?
David Mattson
When Grizzly Bears Go Bad: Constructions of Victimhood and Blame
Julian Vigo
USMCA’s Outsourcing of Free Speech to Big Tech
George Wuerthner
How the BLM Serves the West’s Welfare Ranchers
Christopher Fons
The Crimes of Elliot Abrams
Thomas Knapp
The First Rule of AIPAC Is: You Do Not Talk about AIPAC
Mitchel Cohen
A Tale of Two Citations: Rachel Carson’s “Silent Spring” and Michael Harrington’s “The Other America”
Jake Johnston
Haiti and the Collapse of a Political and Economic System
Dave Lindorff
It’s Not Just Trump and the Republicans
Laura Flanders
An End to Amazon’s Two-Bit Romance. No Low-Rent Rendezvous.
Patrick Walker
Venezuelan Coup Democrats Vomit on Green New Deal
Natalie Dowzicky
The Millennial Generation Will Tear Down Trump’s Wall
Nick Licata
Of Stress and Inequality
Joseph G. Ramsey
Waking Up on President’s Day During the Reign of Donald Trump
Elliot Sperber
Greater Than Food
Weekend Edition
February 15, 2019
Friday - Sunday
Matthew Hoh
Time for Peace in Afghanistan and an End to the Lies
Chris Floyd
Pence and the Benjamins: An Eternity of Anti-Semitism
Rob Urie
The Green New Deal, Capitalism and the State
Jim Kavanagh
The Siege of Venezuela and the Travails of Empire
Paul Street
Someone Needs to Teach These As$#oles a Lesson
Andrew Levine
World Historical Donald: Unwitting and Unwilling Author of The Green New Deal
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: Third Rail-Roaded
Eric Draitser
Impacts of Exploding US Oil Production on Climate and Foreign Policy
Ron Jacobs
Maduro, Guaidó and American Exceptionalism
John Laforge
Nuclear Power Can’t Survive, Much Less Slow Climate Disruption
Joyce Nelson
Venezuela & The Mighty Wurlitzer
Jonathan Cook
In Hebron, Israel Removes the Last Restraint on Its Settlers’ Reign of Terror
Ramzy Baroud
Enough Western Meddling and Interventions: Let the Venezuelan People Decide
Robert Fantina
Congress, Israel and the Politics of “Righteous Indignation”
Dave Lindorff
Using Students, Teachers, Journalists and other Professionals as Spies Puts Everyone in Jeopardy
Kathy Kelly
What it Really Takes to Secure Peace in Afghanistan
Brian Cloughley
In Libya, “We Came, We Saw, He Died.” Now, Maduro?
Nicky Reid
The Councils Before Maduro!
Gary Leupp
“It’s All About the Benjamins, Baby”
Jon Rynn
What a Green New Deal Should Look Like: Filling in the Details
David Swanson
Will the U.S. Senate Let the People of Yemen Live?
Dana E. Abizaid
On Candace Owens’s Praise of Hitler
Raouf Halaby
‘Tiz Kosher for Elected Jewish U.S. Officials to Malign
Rev. William Alberts
Trump’s Deceitful God-Talk at the Annual National Prayer Breakfast
W. T. Whitney
Caribbean Crosswinds: Revolutionary Turmoil and Social Change 
ADRIAN KUZMINSKI
Avoiding Authoritarian Socialism
Howard Lisnoff
Anti-Semitism, Racism, and Anti-immigrant Hate
Ralph Nader
The Realized Temptations of NPR and PBS
Cindy Garcia
Trump Pledged to Protect Families, Then He Deported My Husband
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail