I decided to present my response to Nathan's thoughts on the meaning of OWS protests as a separate post. Due to time restrains I would not be able to offer as well written exposition as those of Nathan's and Vladimir Davidenko's, thus I will limit myself to expressing a few poorly connected thoughts.
Let me begin my iterating once again that Vladimir's description of OWP (see link in Nathan's post to his piece written in Russian) as a carnival is amusingly exact. Indeed, masked people with painted faces and bodies demonstrating behavior, which would not normally be considered socially acceptable, ritualization of the process (drums, human "microphone", all have standard characteristics of purely ritualistic actions), and finally the activity, in which process is everything and goal is nothing.
While the view of the OWS protests as a carnival-like action is quite deep and insightful, the protest has also a different side to it. I would describe this other side as a raucous high school party that completely got out of hand in the absence of any meaningful adult supervision. Some adults neglected to pay attention to this party for way too long, while other adults played the role of the cheerleaders and encouraged this raucousness. As a result, the kids imagined that they actually have something smart to say, something that only they can see or have audacity to express. They started "making history". In reality, from what I have seen and heard, none of them have ever done anything productive in their lives, and I doubt that they are capable of it. This carnival will be over once adults wake up from lethargy and tell the kids that sleepover is over and everybody has to go home.
Anyone with unbiased attitude and some brains would see how ridiculous everything that is happening at this party is starting with their incoherent list of complaints and ending with their General Assembly meetings, which are the focal point of the whole action. Presumably, according to the interviews I heard, the process, by which this organ works, is the main goal of everything. They advocate for participatory rather than representative democracy, in which everything is decided by consensus.It invokes direct associations with socialist anarchism, as it was pointed out by one professor of economics at a reasonably respected University who worked for 40 (!) years developing economic model based on this idea. Should I spend more time on this, or it is clear that socialist anarchism can survive only in the make-believe world of stoned high school kids or their older reincarnations?
All this would be amusing if it were not so damaging to the country. The country has got some serious problems which require serious adult discussion. Attention paid to OWS folk actually distracts from this discussion substituting it with some childish games. Those politicians, who give credence to their "grievances" and call them legitimate and deserving serious consideration, are consciously engaged in dangerous populism to frame the discussion of the country's problems in terms most acceptable to them politically. This simply delays finding real solutions making situation much worse. All this agitation against banks, corporations and their CEOs does not offer any constructive solutions unless, of course, you think that destroying corporations as a form of business organization, imposing regulations on compensation structure of private businesses, and massive wealth redistribution via forceful expropriation, is the solution. As far as I know these are the only ideas consistent with the views exposed by majority of protesters.
And on the top of all this, the folk at this protest are simply disgusting, at least the most of them, and I despise them. They descended on my City, which I love, uninvited, as foreign occupiers, and desecrated it with their filth, and litter. They do not understand New York, they do not understand this country, they do not represent anyone whom I know, including you, Nathan. You, unlike them, studied and worked all your life and paid your bills, and did not ask anyone to forgive your debts.
Lev, I'm glad to see that our blog has revived, but I must admit, I was a little dismayed by the tone of this posting. It starts on more or less of an analytical note, but quickly takes on a condescending tone (OWS as spoiled kids having a party while the grownups are away) and ends in a shower of hateful invective. Of course, it was nice of you to hand me a rhetorical umbrella to keep from getting splattered, but this business of heaping scorn on people you've never met makes me a little uncomfortable.
ReplyDeleteHere's my take. There is no entrance exam for OWS. Naturally this kind of protest attracts all sort of people including more than a few with eccentric and sometimes extreme political views--anarchists, Trotskyites, even a few stray libertarians. There is no party line. But I have no doubt that a large portion of the protesters (and an even larger portion of those who sympathize) are earnest well-meaning people who sincerely believe that their concerns are legitimate and that what they are doing is for the good of the country. I may not agree with all of the positions the protesters espouse, but I certainly wouldn’t call them brainless, filthy and despicable. I don’t believe it serves any useful purpose to portray them as wild-eyed revolutionaries either. Despite the anti-capitalist rhetoric on some of the signs, I doubt very must that most of the protestors actually want to abolish private enterprise, nationalize banks and strip the rich of their wealth to give to the poor. What they do want is a fairer and more rigorous regulatory system that will limit the potential for corporate malfeasance, curb the disproportionate political influence of banks and large corporations and ease the burden on the middle class and the poor.
I don’t think anyone would dispute that there is a carnivalesque quality to the Wall Street protests. But how far does this observation actually take us? For the Fox news crowd the easiest approach is to tack on a label that allows you to marginalize, ridicule and dismiss the protests while avoiding the need to think more deeply about what they actually represent. It’s just a carnival, nothing serious—enough said. I see the carnival aspects in a somewhat different light. Yes, without a doubt there have been some quite silly and ridiculous scenes in and around the protests. But theatricality is one of the things that has helped to cut through the 24-hour news cycle wall of noise and actually start a discussion on a national level. Previous protests, even those on a massive scale like the demonstrations before the invasion of Iraq, have often been dismissed and ignored by the conventional media. But Occupy Wall Street was not playing by the conventional script and like it or not, their tactics seem to have worked.
ReplyDeleteAll this being said, I think the focus on the protests themselves—their tactics, appearance, sordid antics, etc.—kind of misses the point. Some of the methods of participatory democracy are intriguing, but it’s not as if Congress will start using a human microphone and institute voting by wiggling fingers in the air. What’s really important are the responses that the protests have evoked. Much to the dismay of right-wingers, OWS has helped to shift the boundaries of political discourse, most notably by bringing economic inequality and class back into the framework of legitimate discussion. For quite some time, it seemed that these issues were taboo. All a Republican had to say was “class warfare” to stop a discussion in its tracks. Now it’s not so easy. I’m no great fan of ‘soak the rich’ rhetoric, but I think this broader range of voices and views is a healthy development.
What’s going to happen with OWS? My sense is that the movement has already peaked. Unless Bloomberg and the NYPD do anything rash, I suspect the protests will peter out on its own accord. The media will turn to other things, and with the cameras no longer watching, people will drift away. Old Man Winter will finish the job. But the energy and ideas generated by the movement will be channeled in new directions and I don’t see anything wrong with this at all.
Well, I just conveyed my personal feelings that they invoked in me. I might talk seriously about their concerns as long as they STOP OCCUPYING MY CITY. Very few of them are actually New Yorkers, they are occupiers, and I want them out. They turned downtown Manhattan into a Zoo attraction for tourists, and sleeping in that park does bring about filth and litter, no matter how "noble" their intentions are. You cannot have a dialogue with people holding you hostage. I lost whatever respect for Bloomberg I have left for his inaction. He had to evict them from the park long time ago as administration of other cities did. While they are staying there I cannot treat them any other way.
ReplyDeleteHere is something of interest in relation to OWS. This is a link to the post on Adbusters website. Adbusters are a group of radical Canadian intellectuals developing new methods of toppling Capitalism, new approaches to revolution. What OWS is doing is directly from the playbooks written by these "culture jammers" . The passivity of the city administration and especially of the owners of the Zuccotti park in dealing with OWS suggests involvement of some very high level powers. I do not like conspiracy theories, but Bloomberg admitted on the radio that the clean-up of the part was "postponed" because the owners received phone calls from certain politicians threatening consequences if the clean-up goes ahead. The silence of the owners is just stunning and should be understood. The situation in the capitalist world is precipitous, indeed, and who knows which little seed will cause the structure to undergo a phase transition. My young idealist friends who despise the OWS crowd but believe in the rule of law and their right to protest, should try to look at this situation from ore practical point of view. A single drop of water falling in an overloaded barrel can burst it open.
ReplyDeleteI took the liberty of deleting a post that appeared here yesterday. This is not something I would ordinarily do. In general, we welcome comments, and far be it from me to engage in censorship. But two factors impelled me. First, and least important, the comment, while raising some interesting issues had no direct bearing on the topic of our discussion. Second, and much more important was the fact that the post in my judgment veered into the realm of personal attack. While Lev and I may disagree on just about everything, one thing on which I am sure we strongly agree is that personal attacks do not belong on our blog. So I regret if this has caused any offense, but given the ground rules of our endeavor, this seemed like the best thing to do.
ReplyDelete