How OWS actually works

I didn’t mean running away was the answer. But standing with the cops on one side and the excuse for the cops to break your teeth on the other side is not a good place to be, unless you really want to be a martyr, and I’m sure some folks do.

“well, that is unfortunate, and of course we don’t approve of violence, but it is understandable and I’m afraid we just can’t keep it under control when there are no jobs, no healthcare and no future for so many people.”

great response! only change i would suggest is to change the first “we” to an “I.”

i wish more americans would remember the original tea party (or at least the myth. i have no idea what really happened): a great deal property damage was done (cost of the tea), but no one took the tea home or took actions that risked injury to bystanders. children used to be, and maybe still are, taught in school to honor that action.

fwiw, diversity of tactics is something to think about. for me, it means solidarity with allies who use different means than i would choose, so long as they are not taking an action i consider morally wrong for it own sake.

p.s. final note. nonviolence is NOT the same thing as pacifism (the language is unfortunate in the extreme). wish people would do their homework on that before attempting to use it as a litmus test for participation.

“an attempt is being made by many in the Oakland/SF area to drive the anarchists completely out of the movement”

Based on? Violence alone or their larger ideology? I’d imagine the Bay Area is a microcosm of the global anarchist movement, heavily fragmented with a majority opposed to violence. Naturally, the latter doesn’t get any attention.

My question of Occupy has always been just who are its leaders and what do they want? To myself the question is do I want to support them, and I still await the information that would let me answer that.

Violence is inherently authoritarian, regardless of who is violent. Occupy is an anarchist movement with or without the violence. I do not see how inviting a crackdown is going to help Occupy as a political movement: when it comes to violence, Occupy is not a patch on the government, or even private security forces. Occupy’s great strength lies in its widespread popular support, and in the real grievances it gives voice to. If it turns into a factionalized violent movement, it will lose that support and much of its power.

Ché Pasa, thanks. all good food for thought.

re:

“the “good works” of the vast majority of the demonstrators, many of whom are, have always been, and will continue to be anarchists.”

and

“anarchists provided the intellectual space for the OWS Movement to occur at all.”

totally agree (also with other similar comments above).

i have a question though on one point:

“But there has always been a deep-seated animosity toward them within the Movement.”

why do you think this is?

maybe not enough experience working with anarchists (i don’t know enough to know or label my own politics, but my experiences working with anarchists has been uniformly extremely positive — shit gets done, everyone has a voice and i learn a ton). or is it something else?

(actually have other questions too, but will stop for now).

Way Off Topic

Had anyone seen this? http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2011/11/05/MN3V1LOKC9.DTL

key words: asteroid and 200,000 miles (its further to the moon) and on Tuesday next

Ché, I’d taken Occupy as a whole as an anarchist movement: one with moderate goals, but organized and operated with a minimum of a coercion. It surprises me that more people don’t see it that way. It is one of its great successes–maybe its greatest success–that it has shown the world that this is possible. Now–I don’t know if this can be sustained. I rather think not. But Occupy has already changed the world. It may be enough.

And it is for the rest of us to act on what we have been shown.

Dear Elites,

If you want to see this movement implode, simply donate millions of dollars to any OWS branch of notable size, and then watch as it crumbles.

Money is power, and power corrupts. You should know that.

“key words: asteroid and 200,000 miles (its further to the moon) and on Tuesday next”

If anything really good happens to me on Monday, I’ll let you know. The asteroid will hit us then for sure.

Jared Folkins:

If you want to see this movement implode, simply donate millions of dollars to any OWS branch of notable size, and then watch as it crumbles.

I wrote earlier that if the elites were smart, instead of thundering against OWS they’d co-opt it and even commercialize it, making it into 2011’s pet rock or Rubik’s cube, complete with celebrities doing the “tent city thing” in front of interviewers. Commercializing something trivializes it.

-StewartM

@ StewartM,

I read somewhere, I think Alternet, that MTV has already casted four “OWS youths” for a special OWS Real World. The author claimed that that might not necessarily be a bad thing for the movement as it could help “educate” America’s youth! Yes, MTV, a network owned by the world’s fourth largest media conglomerate (Viacom), is the perfect venue for educating youth about radical democracy.

First off, what Ché Pasa said (espec. the 1st comment). Ian, any way to add the time to a comment, not just the date?

And Raven, while I think non-violence is strategically the better course, this–“Violence is inherently authoritarian, regardless of who is violent”–is just silly. During the Rwandan genocide, should the Tutsis have submitted in Gandhian compliance when groups of machete-wielding Hutus came to slaughter their neighbors, their families, their small children? Would using violence to protect their loved ones have been “authoritarian”?

Towner–if the movement is about working with the police and being concerned about WTF the corporate media thinks…

As for the leaders of the leaderless protest with a 1/2 a mil, and the exclusion of groups who preach an alternative gospel, two words: Menshevik vs. Bolshevik.

Thanks to you Che Pasa. You’ve been cross posted over at correntewire and I have devoured all your reports and thoughts.
I thought Chris Hedges’ interview with an activist who operates outside the system from the San Fran area really interesting. http://www.truthdig.com/report/page2/a_master_class_in_occupation_20111031/

I also think the perspective from blackagendareport.com is essential. http://www.blackagendareport.com/content/occupy-where-whats-it-black-and-brown-people?destination=node%2F12712
I wrote a piece about Bruce Dixon’s essay. Naive person that I am, I had no idea that there were places in the U.S. where it is a crime to feed the poor. A crime to pitch a tent? Obviously, a crime to be poor.
And Adam Curtis’ blog has insights into the Sixties radicals in Britain. http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/2011/09/the_curse_of_tina.html

Also, re the FDL diary by spocko urging folks to turn in the vandals, what could strengthen a movement more than having its members hunt out the “bad ones” and turn them in to the authorities? What could possibly go wrong?

ché pasa,

thanks for the reply

seems strange that so many would buy the scary anarchists line when it comes from the same sources who’ve lied to us about so much else. will hope that many will have the opportunity to learn differently through their own experiences.

“On the other hand, they have to come up with some way to handle the vandal wing of anarchism”

i’m not willing to shun black bloc or call them all vandals. i’m willing to call out specific acts which seem to me immoral. that’s it.

i mean, for example, who defines vandalism? when a fence is put up to keep the occupation out of a public space, is it vandalism to take down the fence, stack it neatly and go about recreating the occupation? if the police and laws say that’s a crime and call it vandalism, does that mean i have to too? my answer is “no.”

towner,

thanks for the (depressing) link. your comments were great.

i don’t know anything about david graeber other than what i’ve read. but i love this bit from starhawk (who i have seen in action and have tremendous respect for) describing a teach-in on anarchism in nyc during the 2004 rnc:

“David Graeber talked about how anarchists actually believe in those things we learned in kindergarten, like sharing, and not hitting, and using your words. And then we grow up and are suddenly supposed to accept that the world is a cruel and cynical place. Democrats blow people up. Republicans blow people up. Anarchists don’t actually blow anybody up—in fact, we oppose it, so why are we the terrorists?”

http://www.starhawk.org/activism/activism-writings/RNC_update4.html

“Gandhian compliance” !!???!!

not particularly a gandhian here. but just want to be clear, in case there is some confusion about this point: active nonviolence involves NON-compliance, not compliance.

selise:

i’m not willing to shun black bloc or call them all vandals. i’m willing to call out specific acts which seem to me immoral. that’s it.

Agreed.

“Handling” isn’t — by any means — the same as shunning. The Black Bloc was marching right up front in Oakland; there was no effort I could see to make them go away or to “drive them completely out of the movement.” Nor do I expect there will be as a consequence of the Black Bloc actions during the General Strike. These kinds of actions have a purpose in the Movement, and I think many of those involved in Occupy Oakland are familiar enough and comfortable enough with that purpose to accept Black Bloc as a partner.

If Occupy Oakland has room for the Black Bloc, as they seem to, then they’ll need to be able to handle the resulting actions and the fall out from them. I don’t doubt they can do it, but I wouldn’t say they were prepared to do so on Strike Day. The level of keening and garment rending among Oakland activists after 17 or 18 windows were broken was heart-rending. Interestingly, the police seemed to understand better than some of the activists.

The risk is always that the real merits of Anarchist thought and action will be obscured by anxiety over squatting, graffiti and broken windows… the dreaded “lawbreaking” in other words. On the other hand, given the level of provocation by the Overclass…
—————-
Graeber is very good — and I think very clear — about the fundamentals, Movement history and all of that. His essays in “Revolutions in Reverse” are useful background to say the least. (thanks for the link Towner!)

There is a myth that asserts the OWS Movement suddenly sprang from the vacuum. From out of nothing. That’s hardly the case. There is a vast amount of ideological, philosophical, and practical preparation for what we see today. But because it is not strictly an anarchist movement but draws from all sorts of alternative approaches to building a better future, not all of them “leftist”, it’s almost impossible to suppress it.

The Raven:

“It is better to resist violently than to endure injustice” was not intended as a justification for violence! It is also another way to sacrifice yourself. Protesters in the USA cannot match the government’s capability for violence. Consider, too, that the USA is so well armed and has so many vets that a violent uprising would make Somalia look mild by comparison.

That may indeed be so (or not). However, there is a cost to the elites in brutal repression too! It’s the equivalent of burning down your own home in order to get rid of a pest infestation (sorry to use that metaphor, but I’m sure that’s the way they look at us, so maybe it’s apt).

Moreover, the very means of repression depend on the continuation of what the village you’re destroying in order to “save”. Since the elites are damned intent to pay no taxes, who’s going to pay for all that police and military once you’ve burned down the economy?

Violence in such a context is thus the equivalent of MAD in nuclear warfare. You’re right, it’s probably not a way you’re going to “win”. MAD is a lose-lose proposition: yes, we lose, but you lose too. And as the economic prospects for the 99 % continue to worsen, then they have a lot less to lose than do the elites.

Say what you will, but MAD in the context of the Cold War worked to preserve peace. The US and the USSR and others all decided when push came to shove, risking losing all they had wasn’t worth any dubious “victory” they could get by pushing a nuclear button. Similarly, for that reason, the threat of a equivalent MAD in this context should not be taken off the table.

-StewartM

Good Point Lex,

Libertarianism & Anarchism have interlocking roots in that the “self” is the absolute judge of morality…and from personal experience with people, I have found the “self” is capable of shocking levels of self delusion and justifications of immorality.

When that “self” is elevated so far above the rest of the population, as is now the norm for the ruling oligarchy of the USA, the self-delusion is inevitable, self indulgent and inherently corrupt.

I do not believe the vast majority of OWS supporters want further unfettering of the ruling .01%. I think those who want a structured degree of fairness should not be confused with those that want the complete liberation of “self” from outside societal regulation.

The freedom to do one wants sounds enticing until you consider what it means if everybody shares the same freedom…not just you and your friends.

“…the term “libertarianism” has often been used as a synonym for anarchism[36] and was used almost exclusively in this sense until the 1950s in the United States;[37] its use as a synonym is still common outside the United States.[38] Accordingly, “libertarian socialism” is sometimes used as a synonym for socialist anarchism…” – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism

I said that non-violence was a well-considered strategy – I made no comment on spocko’s recommendations – only that he wasn’t coming from a position of brown-shirting anarchists en masse – which was the developing narrative on this thread. To whatever extent people are being turned over to the police, I find this objectionable as well.

I did indeed read that article. Three times, I found it so unsettling. I guess the only thing I can say is that I don’t posit the heart of the movement within the greedhead coalescences that predictably develop around money. Instead, the author of that dissenting article better describes it for me. OWS may indeed break against this rock, but as long there are Fritz Tuckers around, I’ll hang.

You make a good point about goods, not money. Money’s oil-and-water with the OWS movement.

“Dear Elites,
If you want to see this movement implode, simply donate millions of dollars to any OWS branch of notable size, and then watch as it crumbles.
Money is power, and power corrupts. You should know that.”

Jared, your comment reminded me of something:

“In keeping with AA’s 7th Tradition – “Every AA group ought to be fully self-supporting, declining outside contributions.”
http://www.aaloraincounty.org/donations.html

Petro:

You really haven’t been there awhile. Dem apologists like TBogg are becoming outliers there – in fact, the “mainstream” FDL is being attacked as being reflexively anti-Obama these days (not exactly accurate, but there are in-the-can Dems that will not abide criticism of the “party leader.”)

That’s my observation as well (as a FDL poster). It’s DK and other sites that worship Dems for them having that (D) beside their name, far more than the typical FDL’er does. In fact, FDL has given representatives of Dem parties and “liberal” groups who come on-site to explain their latest betrayal a rather unwelcome roasting.

What FDL does not do however, is to condone violence. Posts which make appeals to violence or suggest violence get stricken out by a moderator (usually the particular sentence or phrase).

Uma Spankhurst

I want real change and real reform, and that starts in Washington, DC not NYC.

Since Wall Street is essentially running Washington, DC, as you yourself say, why not just go talk to the boss instead of haranguing the hired help?

StewartM

Violence is inherently authoritarian, regardless of who is violent.

That cuts to the heart of this and why I will not condone violence under any circumstances.

And I think it is radioactive to building the movement. There is tremendous power in sustaining a non-violence movement in the face of police violence. That does not mean pacificism, just non-violence.

@ks:

Oh c’mon now, what does that even mean? That may sound good but it doesn’t make sense.

One approach I will take will buttress Ian’s, um, “tolerance” for the occasional percolation of “useful” violence – and that one has to recognize that the firm hand of the system is indeed already engaging in a form of violence against the population, a violence that is directly responsible for the death and suffering of the un-empowered. That is authoritarian violence.

From the other side – a :”anti-authoritarian” rocks tossed at the establishment’s windows are open bids for an emerging, new authority. That’s the old “old-boss-meets-the-new” thing, and what must be avoided for successful revolution.

On the specific conundrum being addressed in the original post, and in this thread:

Occupy’s Asshole Problem: Flashbacks from An Old Hippie

Relevant paragraph:

3. The consensus model has a fatal flaw, which is this: It’s very easy for power to devolve to the people who are willing to throw the biggest tantrums. When some a drama king or queen starts holding the process hostage for their own reasons, congratulations! You’ve got a new asshole! (See #2.) You must guard against this constantly, or consensus government becomes completely impossible.

I would tag the greedheads in the linked Fritz Tucker essay as displaying similar character to the “assholes” that Sara Robinson is writing about.

My point is that what is being characterized here as some sort of fascist purge on the part of the OWS occupiers, translates instead as a sincere effort to deal with the conundrum of personal-agenda folks who would water down the force of the movement with their own egocentricity. And these criticisms do burn, because there is no love for coercion in the heart of this movement.

Overall, since we’re back to the whole violence vs. non-violence thing again, it’s time to repeat Ian’s brilliant point made a few threads ago which really does say it all:

Oh sweet Jesus. The stench of non-violence mythology is strong. Most revolutions in world history have involved violence. Your country was formed by a successful violent revolution.

This is not about compassion either. People are dying right now, lots of them. They are dying in America, because of America’s economic arrangements. They are dying overseas, because of the West’s economic arrangements. (Most deaths in the Congo, for example, are so you can have cheap electronics and expensive diamonds, most rapes, too). And that’s before we get to the people the West is directly killing in military action. It is also before we get to the millions of lives which could be saved for amounts of money which are pocket change to the West, which we refuse to spend.

The violence is already ongoing. What you object to is being personally involved in the violence. You want to feel good about yourself, you want to keep your hands clean, you want other people to do the killing for you. Your entire lifestyle is based on other people killing for you. The US uses 25% of the world’s resources, and uses them badly. That kills a lot of people.

There’s a ton of violence going on already.

But the important thing is that you can pretend your hands are clean, and continue to use exclusively “non-violent” methods which haven’t worked in the West in going on 40 years.

Your elites are not going to give you what you want (a share of the money they’re looting) because you ask nicely. If you want non-violence to work, it’s going to involve a ton of getting in people’s faces in really unpleasant ways, and even then, it is unlikely to get you the victory you want. Instead it will put in charge whoever is ready to be in charge already. In Egypt that was the army. In the US it is the resource barons, who will happily sack Wall Street for you, then Frack up a storm.

I have rarely, if ever, seen it put better than that.

Petro,

Again, I hear you but I’m not really into the esoteric part of this debate per se. When I said violence was inherently human, I wasn’t talking about belief systems, the priciples some of us aspire to or live based on, etc. but, the reality in which we’ve existed and I don’t see that reality changing anytime soon. Perhaps I should have said humans have always engaged in violence. Have all humans engaged in violence throughtout all of human history? Of course not but the overall record is pretty clear and to attribute that to the “warrior class” of Western civilization is a bit much.

In terms of drawing stark lines, I’m not sure there is something evolutionary about dying for one’s beliefs. While the instances you mentioned are certainly courageous examples of this and appear to be more appealing to you than say, going down actively fighting, I don’t think the former is evolutionary.

Petro, Indeed. Thank you as well. I too suspect we are closer than we imagine but I tend to lean hard on the cynical side of things while you seem to let your better angels fly.

ché pasa, thanks. very encouraged by your comment and what you have to say about oakland.

Way Off Topic of non-violence and whatever.

George Monbiot of The Guardian writes:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/nov/07/one-per-cent-wealth-destroyers

a most rational view of the problem 1%. Pay attention to Monbiot’s numbers and the narrative they are embedded in. This gives a most clear view of those forces directing against the OWS movement. What OWS and the 99%ers (multiple groupings, some overlapping) must prepare to contend with is a psychotic psychopathic adversary – needs be prepared for full crazy. This is not the time to disarm, remove any resource from the table, or tie a defending limb behind the back. No one is saying each has to become involved in what is alien to themselves, but it is also not the time to become fecklessly moral and impose those restrictions on those who maintain otherwise. These conversations are repetitive and absolutely uninteresting, containing nothing that illuminates nor addresses what may be required to survive the present crisis. The ever-present fog of opinions only acts to obscure the reality that needs be faced. It once was a point of ridicule to point out the numbers of angles dancing on the head of a pin, this discussion hasn’t much more to recommend itself.

More Off Topic:

‘No evidence’ for extraterrestrials, says White House

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15635612

Hell, the White House has no evidence of life outside Wall Street.

Thanks Celsius 233,
it seems a more rewarding effort to find examples how similar crisis has been handled, economic failures are all too common and to dismiss the past as incapable of addressing problems is pure hedonistic, hubristic ignorance.

Celsius 233, i think most of us are confused and/or disagree about what nonviolent action is (both the supporters and objectors). it’s not about pacifism, avoiding conflict, following the rules or being good little girls and boys so everyone will like us.

jmo, but i think strategic nonviolence is mostly about how to understand political power and how ordinary people can act to try to exercise that power.

in any event, one can’t choose nonviolent action for others (and to attempt to do so is particularly hypocritical when it comes from someone who won’t chose it for their own actions): in my opinion, turning someone over to the cops (or throwing them to the ground) for spray painting a wall during a protest is anti-nonviolence — not the spray painting itself.

just bullies trying to enforce pacifism and rule following on others. blech.

From a new OUP (Oxford University Press) abridgement of Karl Marx’s “Capital” comes an economic survey of the English cotton industry’s state:

“From 1770 to 1815 this trade was depressed or stagnant for 5 years only. During this period of 45 years the English manufacturers had a monopoly of machinery and of the markets of the world. From 1815 to 1821 depression; 1822 and 1823 prosperity; 1824 abolition of the laws against Trades’ Unions, a great extension of factories everywhere; 1825 crisis; 1826 great misery and riots among factory operatives; 1827 slight improvement; 1828 great increase in power-looms, and in exports; 1829 exports, especially to India, surpass all former years; 1830 glutted markets, great distress; 1831 to 1833 continued depression, the monopoly of the trade with India and China withdrawn from the East India Company; 1834 great increase of factories and machinery, shortness of hands. The new poor law furthers the migration of agricultural labourers into the factory districts. The country districts swept of children. White slave trade; 1835 great prosperity, contemporaneous starvation of hand-loom weavers; 1836 great prosperity; 1837 and 1838 depression and crisis; 1839 revival; 1840 great depression, riots, calling out of the military; 1841 and 1842 frightful suffering among the factory operatives; 1842 the manufacturers lock the hands out of the factories in order to enforce the repeal of the Corn Laws. The operatives stream in thousands into the towns of Lancashire and Yorkshire, are driven back by the military, and their leaders brought to trial at Lancaster; 1843 great misery; 1844 revival; 1845 great prosperity; 1846 continued improvement at first, then reaction. Repeal of the Corn Laws; 1847 crisis, general reduction of wages by 10 and more per cent. in honour of the’big loaf’; 1848 continued depression; Manchester under military protection; 1849 revival; 1850 prosperity; 1851 falling prices, low wages, frequent strikes; 1852 improvement begins, strikes continue, the manufacturers threaten to import foreign hands; 1853 increasing exports. Strike for 8 months, and great misery at Preston; 1854 prosperity, glutted markets; 1855 news of failures stream in from the United States, Canada, and the Eastern markets; 1856 great prosperity; 1857 crisis; 1858 improvement; 1859 great prosperity, increase in factories; 1860 Zenith of the English cotton trade, the Indian, Australian and other markets so glutted with goods that even in 1863 they had not absorbed the whole lot; the French Treaty of Commerce[lowering trade barriers twixt England and France], enormous growth of factories and machinery; 1861 prosperity continues for a time, reaction, the American Civil War, cotton famine: 1862 to 1863 complete collapse.” p 275 – 276 ibid [do note 1815 dates end of continental Napoleonic Wars; operatives are industrial labourers; check wiki for Corn Laws]

In this period England had effectively a world monopoly on cloth production, cotton, wool and silk and still their economic condition was without stability as the survey shows. Many other economic factors also enter into the economic instability, dire wages, overproduction, over capitalization, etc. Not knowing economics, the reader will not pick up on what even to look for in reading this information. Without gaining the substance of the information provided, neither cause, nor nuance, nor effect/affect can be determined, the reader leaves as unenlightened as they were before reading and poorer for the time expended. This example is but one out of economic history which does have a rich narrative of experience to draw upon in meeting todays exigencies, but it will take effort to mine its treasures.

The quote above is Karl Marx, you now can say you have actually read some of Marx’s words.

@selise:

… the three paras that begin with “I agree with the old hippie,” have zero to do with nonviolence (or as far as i can tell, my comment), so i’m going to assume they weren’t directed at me.

Yah – that was for me. Ian (apologize for the third person while you’re still in “the room,” Ian) is interpreting the GA/Spokes Council as bullying Fritz Tucker in the article – a valid construction – and turning that against my point that the GA/OWS is engaging in anti-bullying tactics against provocateurs and self-agenda folks within the movement.

My prior comment, in agreeing with your point about enforcing pacifism, will I hope underscore that I do not approve of violence against these agents in the name of suppression – and that includes turning them into the authorities. I will say, however, that justifying the “inevitable” appearance of these actors is a far swing of the pendulum in the other direction.

They should be denounced, and persuaded of their damaging ways whenever possible.

The sense I get is that liberals are not very familiar with anarchist practice and/or thought. This makes sense because the academia literally has wiped the anarchist presence from the cannon for mostly ideological reasons. The academia itself is a vertical dictatorship and hence would naturally shun an ideology that shuns hierarchy!

The OWS represents perhaps the largest historical anarchist experiment, though liberals are loath to admit it. Liberalism is essentially an unworkable ideology in an era in which reformist half-measures are powerless to halt the juggernaut of corporate capitalism. Anarchism is. People are just scared to admit that this battered creed may have some validity and point us in the proper direction toward emancipation. Let’s hope liberals catch on.

@selise:

I’m not sure we disagree that much (and I take responsibility for perceived ambiguity.) As one who is firmly against the idea of private property, it is hard for me to weep for desecration of its “value.” I’ll only say that vandalism’s intent, and effect, is clearly an inflammatory one, and such provocation is itself anti-nonviolence (there are plenty of standing grievances that are revealed by the State violence in response to non-cooperation – I’m not sure it’s particularly useful to give them PR excuses like vandalism.)

In the longer view, with all property being indeed Common, vandalism takes on a particularly anti-social taint. We’re not there yet, though, so, as they say, “shit happens.” 🙂

As much as I like seeing a broken bank window – still makes me wince inside.

@Kropotkin’s Beard:

I share your delight. And would also like to emphasize:

“A true anarchist has nothing to do with authority. Or violence.”

@petro,

will reply, if you don’t mind, at your place in order not to continue to trespassed on ian’s hospitality with more OT nonviolence comments here.

p.s. human discussion always comes with misunderstandings and ambiguities. appreciate what you wrote but no need to take special responsibility. we’re all human here. 🙂

With the exception of one well-written response to the history provided by Karl Marx, there have been no comments of the facts provided. What Marx wrote in a single paragraph was over 90 years of economic history of the leading productive effort of the Industrial Revolution. This history begins in the same decade that Adam Smith published his seminal “Wealth of Nations” (1776) and outlines the economic conditions that pertained to the economic development of the spinning and weaving industry. Where Smith only observed the beginning stages of manufacture, the cooperative division of labour, the efficiency of manufacturing over the master controlled craftsmanship guilds, Marx observed the further development of capitalist controlled industrialization of the production of economic goods (commodities). Two parallel developments were taking place simultaneously; first was the change from labour’s muscle power and learned skills to other sources, water and steam, to power ever more elaborate machinery that displaced human skill required for production, the second was the replacement of skilled workmen with less skilled or unskilled living adjuncts to tend the machines that produced the commodities. Marx observed the degradation of labour as an economic actor in the production of economic goods, the returns diverted to the benefit of capital, labour left to languish in economic poverty. Charles Dickens made a livelihood writing of these consequences.

In Marx’s paragraph of summary of economic development, the first 45 years were condensed into a brief statement: those years contained 5 stagnant years or 1 year out of 9 years were economically unproductive or another way 11% of the time produced diminished returns. This compares with the following 45+ years in which only at the start of the latter period were there more than 3 years consecutive before a reverse of fortune occurred (curiously timed with the end of the Napoleonic Wars and the beginning of 50+ years of European peace). The likely parallel was the advent of economically efficient industrialization of the weaving and spinning process (or the change from manufacture to industrial factory) that outcompeted and overwhelmed the earlier production in supplying goods to available market (note too the references to export throughout Marx’s summary). There appear to be too many goods produced for the market to absorb, also too much invested in production of those goods and creating the noted unstable market with its adverse consequence to labour and the political and social repercussions ensuing.

There are similar developments at work in the present period dating from the 1960’s and rooted in the early Cold War political and economic environment, namely the development of a standing military establishment as well as the political and economic infrastructure that support it, aka the military, industrial, governmental complex. Post WWII saw the accumulation of large volumes of funds, in Europe from the Marshall Plan for economic recovery engorged on U.S. military spending for standing armies posted in Europe, and later the appearance of petroleum dollars, notably after the 1967 and 1973 Israeli attacks on neighbouring Arab countries. Concurrently both sovereign funds and funds of transnational corporations sought interest return on their savings. One result became the Junk Bond Era, funds obtained to takeover concerns, strip assets and peddle the eviscerated corpse; habituating bondholders to returns well beyond the traditional levels. Takeover avoidance required poison pill, creation of unsupportable debt, and other financial manipulations designed to forestall all such attempts. This period (up to ca. 1978) also the highest levels of income for wage earners. It also saw the beginnings of management’s defenestration of economic production to enhance the quarterly bottom line; the age of Wal-Mart began an assault upon both independent as well as chain business establishments, driving most to the wall. The Reagan regime saw the final destruction of labour viability in the Air Controllers strike-breaking and the withdrawal of the government provided level pitch required to ensure equal footing with capital. Without fanfare or public debate, those public projects built to provide work income during the depression were sold off e.g. TWA, diverting those incomes to private pockets. The U.S. has been stripped of public assets until only national parks remain and they are under threat, public lands are routinely pillaged. About the only asset not fallen into private hands is the trust fund established to fund old age retirement, and it is under constant peril from perfidious keepers. Oversight of markets and the financial elite does not exist, the government is thoroughly corrupted, the power of law has been suborned to ideology; the country is swimming with very large, very hungry sharks.

It is necessary to revere knowledge and facts again, to build discourse from these sources. It is facile to endlessly spout beliefs, enunciate feelings, proclaim opinions but each is like a flag in the wind, pointing whatever direction the wind of the moment dictates. If anything is to be done to wright the plethora of problems that beset, the only possibility is to know and to act on that knowledge; there is no surer compass.

Nostradamus, Jr. permalink
October 8, 2011

The police and the military are itchin’ for a fight. They’ve spent the last 10 years preparing for it. They’re are well armed and ready to do more that just bust heads. There’s still a lot of pent up rage over 9/11 and America’s decline in the world. It won’t take much of a spark on the part of the protesters and there’s scant difference between dirty fucking hippies and foreign terrorists. The end will soon and it will com come fast and furious. This will all be over by Thanksgiving.

The clearout was managed federally.

Yup. And they made that just a bit too obvious this time.