Occupy Wall Street Fail
- Thread starter Locutus
- Start date
Jonathan Kay: Jeffrey Sachs and the end of 30 years of Reaganomics
In a new book, The Price of Civilization, economist Jeffrey Sachs argues that America’s economy is undergoing a major structural crisis. The biggest problem, he argues: Both of the country’s major political parties have become hostage to special-interest corporate lobbies. I sat down to talk with him in Toronto.
Jonathan Kay: Your new book is all about the United States. Do you think Canada is avoiding some of the mistakes on display south of the border?
Jeffrey Sachs: Canada is avoiding some of the pitfalls, but not all of them. Canada spends more money in the social sphere. It has less poverty and more social inclusion. But Canada is a hydrocarbon country – and has, in my opinion, shirked its responsibilities on global climate change.
Overall, Canada lies in between the United States and the countries I most admire: the northern European social democracies, which have gotten it best in terms of high productivity, high innovation, social inclusion and environmental sustainability.
Jonathan Kay: What do you think of the Republican leadership debates?
Jeffrey Sachs: The Republican Party has become the party of greed. It is heavily funded by the richest interests in the United States, especially the Koch brothers. It has become the champion of opposing basic compassion and social inclusion. The novelist Ayn Rand, who had a philosophy that disdained the ideas of compassion, altruism and sharing, now [embodies] the philosophy adopted by much of the Republican leadership. The libertarianism on display is in my view a great danger to the United States. Likewise, the aggressive anti-science and anti-environmentalist message is partly a reflection of the Koch brothers, Rupert Murdoch and big oil, which is the most powerful interest group in the GOP consistency.
I should add that I’m no fan of the Democrats either, because the Democrats are also beholden to special interests: They also take money from big corporate financiers.
Both parties are corrupt. But the GOP position is actually shocking and extreme. This party was once a mainstream party that was part of a national consensus on the responsible role of government. That’s not the case right now.
Jonathan Kay: Some people are calling for a third party. What about you?
Jeffrey Sachs: In the New York Times, a couple of days ago, I wrote an article called “The new progressive movement.” I argued that I think the United States is at a turning point, because we’ve been going in this Reaganomics direction for 30 years now. It has led us into a very deep ditch. I compare our position to that at the end of the Gilded Age at the end of the 19th Century — which brought us the Progressive Era. That era began in the 1890s and extended to 1917. The reforms had two great presidential leaders behind them – Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson – one Republican, the other Democrat. [An equivalent modern movement] wouldn’t be a third party per se, but a new way of doing business. I am trying to create a network of politicians who refuse big-donor money. I’m suggesting that politicians put a ceiling of 99$ per donor – that they will reject the PACs, super-PACs, and the bundlers, and every other form of channeling big money into politics.
It is my theory that we can create a broad social movement that gives a base for such candidacies, and allows them to enhance their public exposure through social media. The problem we’re facing is a major tactical one. Pleading for campaign-finance reform at this point, given the recent Supreme Court ruling on the issue, is howling into the wind. We need a better way of competing for political power, and I think social media is an effective way to do it.
Jonathan Kay: Obama is in Hawaii, looking to negotiate a Pacific free-trade zone. Is more free trade a good idea?
Jeffrey Sachs: I should be clear: I’m in favour of a market economy and open trade. But a reasonable market economy isn’t a [totally] free one. The notion that markets alone, with deregulation of the environment and finance, with little spending on education or infrastructure, could get us to a viable, decent society – that’s wrong. My book is all about the importance of a mixed economy. The government is a pillar of a mixed economy, just as the market is. Functional, decent, honorable capitalism, where these principles can be seen, is the kind that we see in Norway, Sweden, Denmark and The Netherlands.
The “free market” we hear about in the United States is phony anyway. The very moment that Wall Street was in trouble, you had the Wall Street Journal, [GOP Representative] Paul Ryan, the Republican leadership and the Democrats all calling for a bailout of the banks. It would be funny if it weren’t so tragic. And as soon as the bailout was done, the Republicans turned around and started with the free-market rhetoric again, and said that the market shouldn’t be regulated.
Jonathan Kay: I’ve been in the United States a fair bit recently, and I’ve spoken to two camps, left and right, which seem very polarized. Can they come together for this sort of major fundamental change you’re proposing?
Jeffrey Sachs: There is a view that Americans are highly polarized. But that is the surface, not the reality. The Tea Party represents about 15% to 20% of the American public. These are largely southern white Christian fundamentalists. They’ve been there all along. The only reason they are now so notable is almost entirely due to Fox News. This is a media creation, and a very effective one.
A large majority of the American people support three main points: Tax the rich, end the wars, and sustain government as an instrument of decency and public service and investment. This is what all the surveys show – that is what about 60% of the American public support.
Unfortunately, the Democrats don’t represent these people any more than the Republicans do. They both sup at the same corporate table. The Democrats also favour low taxes for the rich. They also continue the wars and support large [levels of] military spending. They also support the sharp cuts for the non-security discretionary budget, which is education, infrastructure, climate change [abatement], energy systems, job training, and environmental protection. The Republicans want to go farther, yes, but the Democrats are just slowing down the political juggernaut, not reversing it.
The electorate is unhappy, feeling that neither party represents them. The real division isn’t between the shouters on either side who we hear on TV, but the division between ordinary people and the corporate interests.
I want to add one more thing: There is a debate in Toronto [Monday night] between [left-wing New York Times columnist] Paul Krugman and [former U.S. Treasury Secretary] Lawrence Summers. I think they both have the wrong approach.
Summers represents the right-of-centre, do-little-but-do-stimulus approach – so he’s kind of reflecting a Keynesian aggregate-demand policy, but with very little structural change. Krugman also takes a Keynesian view, but just says we need more stimulus. He isn’t satisfied that interest rates are near zero and budget deficit as a percent of GDP is huge, and quantitative easing that have pushed $2 trillion of liquidity into the system. My approach is totally different from that debate.
I don’t believe in stimulus. I’m not a Keynesian. I believe that government has a structural role to play in overcoming what is a structural crisis. What is that crisis? It is that a large part of America doesn’t have the skills and training to generate a middle-class life. America doesn’t have a sustainable and secure energy system. Our infrastructure is half a century old and decrepit.
This is why America is losing competitiveness, and why income inequality has soared, and why environmental sustainability has ebbed globally — because of a lack of U.S. leadership.
My view is that the U.S. government should not be in the business of aggregate-demand generation, but rather it should be in the business of public investment and public goods. There are what have been falling so miserably short for a generation.
Jonathan Kay: Jeffrey Sachs and the end of 30 years of Reaganomics | Full Comment | National Post
In a new book, The Price of Civilization, economist Jeffrey Sachs argues that America’s economy is undergoing a major structural crisis. The biggest problem, he argues: Both of the country’s major political parties have become hostage to special-interest corporate lobbies. I sat down to talk with him in Toronto.
Jonathan Kay: Your new book is all about the United States. Do you think Canada is avoiding some of the mistakes on display south of the border?
Jeffrey Sachs: Canada is avoiding some of the pitfalls, but not all of them. Canada spends more money in the social sphere. It has less poverty and more social inclusion. But Canada is a hydrocarbon country – and has, in my opinion, shirked its responsibilities on global climate change.
Overall, Canada lies in between the United States and the countries I most admire: the northern European social democracies, which have gotten it best in terms of high productivity, high innovation, social inclusion and environmental sustainability.
Jonathan Kay: What do you think of the Republican leadership debates?
Jeffrey Sachs: The Republican Party has become the party of greed. It is heavily funded by the richest interests in the United States, especially the Koch brothers. It has become the champion of opposing basic compassion and social inclusion. The novelist Ayn Rand, who had a philosophy that disdained the ideas of compassion, altruism and sharing, now [embodies] the philosophy adopted by much of the Republican leadership. The libertarianism on display is in my view a great danger to the United States. Likewise, the aggressive anti-science and anti-environmentalist message is partly a reflection of the Koch brothers, Rupert Murdoch and big oil, which is the most powerful interest group in the GOP consistency.
I should add that I’m no fan of the Democrats either, because the Democrats are also beholden to special interests: They also take money from big corporate financiers.
Both parties are corrupt. But the GOP position is actually shocking and extreme. This party was once a mainstream party that was part of a national consensus on the responsible role of government. That’s not the case right now.
Jonathan Kay: Some people are calling for a third party. What about you?
Jeffrey Sachs: In the New York Times, a couple of days ago, I wrote an article called “The new progressive movement.” I argued that I think the United States is at a turning point, because we’ve been going in this Reaganomics direction for 30 years now. It has led us into a very deep ditch. I compare our position to that at the end of the Gilded Age at the end of the 19th Century — which brought us the Progressive Era. That era began in the 1890s and extended to 1917. The reforms had two great presidential leaders behind them – Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson – one Republican, the other Democrat. [An equivalent modern movement] wouldn’t be a third party per se, but a new way of doing business. I am trying to create a network of politicians who refuse big-donor money. I’m suggesting that politicians put a ceiling of 99$ per donor – that they will reject the PACs, super-PACs, and the bundlers, and every other form of channeling big money into politics.
It is my theory that we can create a broad social movement that gives a base for such candidacies, and allows them to enhance their public exposure through social media. The problem we’re facing is a major tactical one. Pleading for campaign-finance reform at this point, given the recent Supreme Court ruling on the issue, is howling into the wind. We need a better way of competing for political power, and I think social media is an effective way to do it.
Jonathan Kay: Obama is in Hawaii, looking to negotiate a Pacific free-trade zone. Is more free trade a good idea?
Jeffrey Sachs: I should be clear: I’m in favour of a market economy and open trade. But a reasonable market economy isn’t a [totally] free one. The notion that markets alone, with deregulation of the environment and finance, with little spending on education or infrastructure, could get us to a viable, decent society – that’s wrong. My book is all about the importance of a mixed economy. The government is a pillar of a mixed economy, just as the market is. Functional, decent, honorable capitalism, where these principles can be seen, is the kind that we see in Norway, Sweden, Denmark and The Netherlands.
The “free market” we hear about in the United States is phony anyway. The very moment that Wall Street was in trouble, you had the Wall Street Journal, [GOP Representative] Paul Ryan, the Republican leadership and the Democrats all calling for a bailout of the banks. It would be funny if it weren’t so tragic. And as soon as the bailout was done, the Republicans turned around and started with the free-market rhetoric again, and said that the market shouldn’t be regulated.
Jonathan Kay: I’ve been in the United States a fair bit recently, and I’ve spoken to two camps, left and right, which seem very polarized. Can they come together for this sort of major fundamental change you’re proposing?
Jeffrey Sachs: There is a view that Americans are highly polarized. But that is the surface, not the reality. The Tea Party represents about 15% to 20% of the American public. These are largely southern white Christian fundamentalists. They’ve been there all along. The only reason they are now so notable is almost entirely due to Fox News. This is a media creation, and a very effective one.
A large majority of the American people support three main points: Tax the rich, end the wars, and sustain government as an instrument of decency and public service and investment. This is what all the surveys show – that is what about 60% of the American public support.
Unfortunately, the Democrats don’t represent these people any more than the Republicans do. They both sup at the same corporate table. The Democrats also favour low taxes for the rich. They also continue the wars and support large [levels of] military spending. They also support the sharp cuts for the non-security discretionary budget, which is education, infrastructure, climate change [abatement], energy systems, job training, and environmental protection. The Republicans want to go farther, yes, but the Democrats are just slowing down the political juggernaut, not reversing it.
The electorate is unhappy, feeling that neither party represents them. The real division isn’t between the shouters on either side who we hear on TV, but the division between ordinary people and the corporate interests.
I want to add one more thing: There is a debate in Toronto [Monday night] between [left-wing New York Times columnist] Paul Krugman and [former U.S. Treasury Secretary] Lawrence Summers. I think they both have the wrong approach.
Summers represents the right-of-centre, do-little-but-do-stimulus approach – so he’s kind of reflecting a Keynesian aggregate-demand policy, but with very little structural change. Krugman also takes a Keynesian view, but just says we need more stimulus. He isn’t satisfied that interest rates are near zero and budget deficit as a percent of GDP is huge, and quantitative easing that have pushed $2 trillion of liquidity into the system. My approach is totally different from that debate.
I don’t believe in stimulus. I’m not a Keynesian. I believe that government has a structural role to play in overcoming what is a structural crisis. What is that crisis? It is that a large part of America doesn’t have the skills and training to generate a middle-class life. America doesn’t have a sustainable and secure energy system. Our infrastructure is half a century old and decrepit.
This is why America is losing competitiveness, and why income inequality has soared, and why environmental sustainability has ebbed globally — because of a lack of U.S. leadership.
My view is that the U.S. government should not be in the business of aggregate-demand generation, but rather it should be in the business of public investment and public goods. There are what have been falling so miserably short for a generation.
Jonathan Kay: Jeffrey Sachs and the end of 30 years of Reaganomics | Full Comment | National Post
Last edited:
Did GM Pay Back Its Loan? Sort of. | The Everyday Economist
It all depends on what you mean by paying back.
I'm still waiting for you to provide proof that Sunday falls on a Tuesday, as you continue to claim.
Occupy Lawyer Defending Camps in Parks
The Occupy Toronto camp is “hope made visible” and an “exercise of conscience” protected by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, an Occupy lawyer told a judge Friday.
Susan Ursel made the remarks at the start of a hearing on an application to quash the city’s efforts to shut down the month-old protest camp in St. James Park in downtown Toronto.
Ursel said the protesters are trying to demonstrate to “the world at large” an alternative community where conflicts are resolved through peaceful discussion, institutions are freely criticized and “everyone is engaged in this effort.”
The collection of tents in a city park is a form of freedom of conscience, expression, peaceful assembly and association protected by the Charter, Ursel told Justice David Brown.
The camp is “symbolic of an attempt to redress inequalities in society,” she said, adding that what’s “novel” is “the importance that the location plays in the message.
“It is a manifestation of what they are trying to create in the world.”
Toronto News: Judge questions Occupy
The Occupy Toronto camp is “hope made visible” and an “exercise of conscience” protected by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, an Occupy lawyer told a judge Friday.
Susan Ursel made the remarks at the start of a hearing on an application to quash the city’s efforts to shut down the month-old protest camp in St. James Park in downtown Toronto.
Ursel said the protesters are trying to demonstrate to “the world at large” an alternative community where conflicts are resolved through peaceful discussion, institutions are freely criticized and “everyone is engaged in this effort.”
The collection of tents in a city park is a form of freedom of conscience, expression, peaceful assembly and association protected by the Charter, Ursel told Justice David Brown.
The camp is “symbolic of an attempt to redress inequalities in society,” she said, adding that what’s “novel” is “the importance that the location plays in the message.
“It is a manifestation of what they are trying to create in the world.”
Toronto News: Judge questions Occupy
Actually the stupidity is partly mine, I got the link but there is no way to tell how much is truth and how much is bullsh*t. I have absolutely no doubt that there is SOME corruption going on in virtually all business. I'm just wondering if perhaps Shaw Cable doesn't warrant a close "look". I just got to thinking that my annual Shaw bill for Phone, internet and t.v. is twice my annual heating bill (in the interior or B.C.)
‘We Charge You With Genocide’: Occupy Nashville Protesters Infiltrate Donald Rumsfeld Dinner
What started out as a calm, organized and private fundraiser descended into a brief fit of chaos last night when Occupy Nashville members infiltrated the occasion with the intent to disrupt.
The event, which was put on by the Heritage Foundation and held at a local Hilton Hotel, included a keynote address from former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. Knowing beforehand that the controversial former George W. Bush administration employee would be there, the protesters acquired tickets and plotted their occupation.
Once inside, they became confrontational, accusing Rumsfeld of war crimes in a showing that the Tennessean described as “a scene.” According to a release that was put out by the group, they yelled, “I call upon you to surrender yourself as a war criminal!” A press release on the Occupy Nashville web site reads:
Once they came out of the hotel, the protesters were greeted with cheers. Then, they passionately described the “sacrifices” they made by attending the event and they, of course, self-congratulated themselves.
Occupy Nashville Infiltrates Rumsfeld Dinner! - YouTube
This, according to the members, was Nashville’s contribution to the national “Day of Action,” which commemorated the two-month anniversary of the Occupy movement.
‘We Charge You With Genocide’: Occupy Nashville Protesters Infiltrate Donald Rumsfeld Dinner | Video | TheBlaze.com
What started out as a calm, organized and private fundraiser descended into a brief fit of chaos last night when Occupy Nashville members infiltrated the occasion with the intent to disrupt.
The event, which was put on by the Heritage Foundation and held at a local Hilton Hotel, included a keynote address from former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. Knowing beforehand that the controversial former George W. Bush administration employee would be there, the protesters acquired tickets and plotted their occupation.
Once inside, they became confrontational, accusing Rumsfeld of war crimes in a showing that the Tennessean described as “a scene.” According to a release that was put out by the group, they yelled, “I call upon you to surrender yourself as a war criminal!” A press release on the Occupy Nashville web site reads:
Several minutes into Rumsfeld’s speech, an Occupy Nashville protester stood up and shouted that one of the primary architects of the Iraq war misled the American public and said, “Citizens are waiting outside to receive you and render you to the custody of the authorities.”
Rumsfeld was accused of authorizing torture, causing the deaths of more than 6,000 American servicemen and woman and lying about the presence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
An anonymous donor apparently paid for the four Occupiers to attend, as the cost per plate was $125. After the group stood up and interrupted the speech, security promptly escorted the members out. Outside of the building, 40 protesters were chanting, “Hey Donald, you can’t hide! We charge you with genocide!,” passing out fliers and waiting for their covert heroes to emerge.Rumsfeld was accused of authorizing torture, causing the deaths of more than 6,000 American servicemen and woman and lying about the presence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
Once they came out of the hotel, the protesters were greeted with cheers. Then, they passionately described the “sacrifices” they made by attending the event and they, of course, self-congratulated themselves.
Occupy Nashville Infiltrates Rumsfeld Dinner! - YouTube
This, according to the members, was Nashville’s contribution to the national “Day of Action,” which commemorated the two-month anniversary of the Occupy movement.
‘We Charge You With Genocide’: Occupy Nashville Protesters Infiltrate Donald Rumsfeld Dinner | Video | TheBlaze.com
In terms of assessing blame via wrong-doings or incompetence is a very difficult task at the best of times. Looking back at the GM example, you have multiple layers of management, labour, 3rd party contractors, etc, let alone the economic climate, competition, etc.. Outright fraud is one thing, but by in large, it is provable in the courts, but statements as to the effectiveness of management is far more complex as it occurs in the context of numerous variables and compelling factors.
The bonuses issue is a non-starter in relation to this event as all of the recipients had firm legal contracts in place that detailed how they were to be compensated through the bonus programs - this is the reason that Obama could only stand back and waggle his finger at the recipients, those funds were protected by contracts.
The Occupation is over. What did it achieve?
The Occupy movement’s 15 minutes appears to be all but up, as they face eviction from parks across North America. Did they accomplish anything? Supporters maintain the “occupations” have brought their issues to public attention and sparked a dialogue. Have they?
more
Occupy Wall Street movement is all but over; what did it achieve? | Full Comment | National Post
The Occupy movement’s 15 minutes appears to be all but up, as they face eviction from parks across North America. Did they accomplish anything? Supporters maintain the “occupations” have brought their issues to public attention and sparked a dialogue. Have they?
more
Occupy Wall Street movement is all but over; what did it achieve? | Full Comment | National Post
This quote from the article says it all:
"The Occupiers can claim a victory, if they set their bar low enough."
The 2012 US elections are being cancelled in favour of a dictatorial technocracy.
Occupy protesters arrested will be process and released in hours but Hao "Howie " Wang is going to do 2 years.
Nope. No scammers in banking....
JPMorgan banker to serve two years in prison for $1.2M theft - NYPOST.com
Occupy protesters arrested will be process and released in hours but Hao "Howie " Wang is going to do 2 years.
Nope. No scammers in banking....
JPMorgan banker to serve two years in prison for $1.2M theft - NYPOST.com
The only reason that OWS is in the news and being discussed is because of characters like lotion man....
I guess the old saying that there is no such thing as bad publicity applies to people being photographed defecating in public....:roll:
I guess the old saying that there is no such thing as bad publicity applies to people being photographed defecating in public....:roll:
Really? Or is somebody obessed with ****ting homeless and mentally distrurbed?
Have you been smoking free right wing crack with Ezra McKenzie?
Have you been smoking free right wing crack with Ezra McKenzie?
What would Lenin have thought of the fair-weather occupiers of Wall Street?
By the time I arrived in New York, the occupation of Wall Street appeared to be over. I touched down at JFK airport on Tuesday afternoon and picked up a newspaper at the arrivals gate. The headline said that Zuccotti Park had been cleared by the police while I was in the air, on orders from Mayor Bloomberg. A glance at Twitter found that Laurie Penny, the enfant terrible of British Left-wing blogging, had beaten me to the action and nearly got herself arrested in the scrum. “Why couldn’t that truncheon have been crashing down on my head?” I asked myself, the realisation dawning that I had missed a moment in history.
On Wednesday morning I took a cab to Zuccotti. We drove through Queens, an area that feels like it’s been in recession since 1776. Homeless guys pushed their belongings on trolleys through the rain. Factories sat black and closed. Young men sold drugs on the street. In the midst of all this hung a sign from a tree, written in blue paint. It read: “Ron Paul.” What did it mean, I wondered? “Ron Paul for President”? “Ron Paul woz here”? “Missing Ron Paul: Reward $50”?
Zuccotti itself was a disappointment. Only when you get there do you realise the extent to which the Occupy movement is the creation of the mainstream media. The park is tiny (it’s about half the size of Soho Square) and even when it was packed it couldn’t have held more than 1,000. The space was reduced by media presence, which is wall to wall and preposterous. Journalists outnumbered protesters by four to one – there were so few demonstrators that the reporters starting interviewing each other. Whenever something (anything!) happened, we all ran over and filmed it. This included a dog that started barking. I took a photo of it and an Australian journalist stuck a microphone under its nose.
I spoke to three youths. One was dressed like Lady Gaga and never said a word. Another had far too much to say and none of it made sense. A third ate a green salad. The salad girl said she had been arrested in the dawn raid on the park and spent 24 hours under detention without charge. She wasn’t offered any water or legal representation. The girl looked genuinely shocked; she had drifted back to Zuccotti like a Blitz victim to their bombed-out home. The loud one, who was trying to cadge a cigarette, said that more would return and the protest would only grow in size. I wandered over to a man with a Red Cross armband who was the occupation’s unofficial medic (every role is unofficial to avoid the taint of bureaucracy). “Will you give up?” I asked. “Did General Patton give up?” he replied. “No," I conceded, "but his forces were somewhat superior to yours.”
Suddenly something was happening! A youth was standing on a step with a glamorous looking lady in purple, and the two were shouting. The press swarmed around: me in the middle, crushed between CNN and ABC. It was a “teach-in”. The lady was a lawyer and was explaining to the protesters how to give good answers to sly media questions. “Why are you here?” she asked the boy. He garbled an answer and she turned to the cameras and shouted, “Always give a personal answer that people can relate to. This boy isn’t here because he wants to change the world. He’s here in Zuccotti because he works two jobs at $4.20 an hour and his last shift was 14 hours. There are millions of people like this young man – Middle Americans who are getting squeezed by Wall Street.” She asked the boy her second question: “What do you hope to achieve by standing here in the rain?” “I don’t know,” he replied. “You don’t know?” “No, I don’t know.” “Okay, well that's probably not the best way to say it. Instead: this young man is standing here in the rain to show that – fair weather or foul – he is committed to defending Middle America against Wall Street.”
Then a man in an orange raincoat interrupted. He mumbled something into the lady’s ear and she nodded impatiently. “Yes, yes,” she said. “This gentleman has just reminded me of something very important. It’s important to stress that no one person speaks for this movement. We all speak for ourselves and we all want different things from it. Now, what this young man wants is to defend Middle America against what Wall Street is doing to our country…”
I had an epiphany. The Occupy movement won’t succeed for precisely the reason identified by the man in the orange raincoat: it’s too individualistic, too diverse, too American. No one knows what it wants or where it will end. Every person I spoke to stressed that they couldn’t’ – wouldn’t – tell me what the occupation was for because that would break the rule of self-determination. But without a ruthless commonality of purpose, revolution is doomed to fail.
Sensing that there was no history to be seen here, I rode the subway back to my hotel. An old black man with a pair of drums was performing for cash. He sang “Sittin’ On The Dock of the Bay” in a beautiful, sad voice. It’s the song of a man who has given up trying to change the world and settled for survival. When he was finished, the beggar moved up the train with a hat asking for a dollar. He spied an Arab family and shouted, “I see the Gaddafis are in town. We sure kicked your asses, you mothers.” He slipped off the carriage singing, “God Bless America” and laughing maniacally.
This morning, I woke up and put on the news. It seems that “hundreds” have returned to Zuccotti and announced that they want to occupy the New York Stock Exchange and the subway. Why had they come back when everything seemed so completely over the day before? I went to the window and looked outside and got my answer: it had stopped raining. The reason why Zuccotti Park was empty on Wednesday when I went there wasn’t the police raid: a united movement could easily have regrouped and survived. No, what emptied the park that day was the damp. Now that the skies are cloudless and blue, the fair-weather revolutionaries are drifting back to Wall Street. What would Lenin have thought of an army that could be dispersed by a spot of drizzle? Not a great deal – and if the media stopped hyping the Occupy movement, neither would we.
What would Lenin have thought of the fair-weather occupiers of Wall Street? – Telegraph Blogs
By the time I arrived in New York, the occupation of Wall Street appeared to be over. I touched down at JFK airport on Tuesday afternoon and picked up a newspaper at the arrivals gate. The headline said that Zuccotti Park had been cleared by the police while I was in the air, on orders from Mayor Bloomberg. A glance at Twitter found that Laurie Penny, the enfant terrible of British Left-wing blogging, had beaten me to the action and nearly got herself arrested in the scrum. “Why couldn’t that truncheon have been crashing down on my head?” I asked myself, the realisation dawning that I had missed a moment in history.
On Wednesday morning I took a cab to Zuccotti. We drove through Queens, an area that feels like it’s been in recession since 1776. Homeless guys pushed their belongings on trolleys through the rain. Factories sat black and closed. Young men sold drugs on the street. In the midst of all this hung a sign from a tree, written in blue paint. It read: “Ron Paul.” What did it mean, I wondered? “Ron Paul for President”? “Ron Paul woz here”? “Missing Ron Paul: Reward $50”?
Zuccotti itself was a disappointment. Only when you get there do you realise the extent to which the Occupy movement is the creation of the mainstream media. The park is tiny (it’s about half the size of Soho Square) and even when it was packed it couldn’t have held more than 1,000. The space was reduced by media presence, which is wall to wall and preposterous. Journalists outnumbered protesters by four to one – there were so few demonstrators that the reporters starting interviewing each other. Whenever something (anything!) happened, we all ran over and filmed it. This included a dog that started barking. I took a photo of it and an Australian journalist stuck a microphone under its nose.
I spoke to three youths. One was dressed like Lady Gaga and never said a word. Another had far too much to say and none of it made sense. A third ate a green salad. The salad girl said she had been arrested in the dawn raid on the park and spent 24 hours under detention without charge. She wasn’t offered any water or legal representation. The girl looked genuinely shocked; she had drifted back to Zuccotti like a Blitz victim to their bombed-out home. The loud one, who was trying to cadge a cigarette, said that more would return and the protest would only grow in size. I wandered over to a man with a Red Cross armband who was the occupation’s unofficial medic (every role is unofficial to avoid the taint of bureaucracy). “Will you give up?” I asked. “Did General Patton give up?” he replied. “No," I conceded, "but his forces were somewhat superior to yours.”
Suddenly something was happening! A youth was standing on a step with a glamorous looking lady in purple, and the two were shouting. The press swarmed around: me in the middle, crushed between CNN and ABC. It was a “teach-in”. The lady was a lawyer and was explaining to the protesters how to give good answers to sly media questions. “Why are you here?” she asked the boy. He garbled an answer and she turned to the cameras and shouted, “Always give a personal answer that people can relate to. This boy isn’t here because he wants to change the world. He’s here in Zuccotti because he works two jobs at $4.20 an hour and his last shift was 14 hours. There are millions of people like this young man – Middle Americans who are getting squeezed by Wall Street.” She asked the boy her second question: “What do you hope to achieve by standing here in the rain?” “I don’t know,” he replied. “You don’t know?” “No, I don’t know.” “Okay, well that's probably not the best way to say it. Instead: this young man is standing here in the rain to show that – fair weather or foul – he is committed to defending Middle America against Wall Street.”
Then a man in an orange raincoat interrupted. He mumbled something into the lady’s ear and she nodded impatiently. “Yes, yes,” she said. “This gentleman has just reminded me of something very important. It’s important to stress that no one person speaks for this movement. We all speak for ourselves and we all want different things from it. Now, what this young man wants is to defend Middle America against what Wall Street is doing to our country…”
I had an epiphany. The Occupy movement won’t succeed for precisely the reason identified by the man in the orange raincoat: it’s too individualistic, too diverse, too American. No one knows what it wants or where it will end. Every person I spoke to stressed that they couldn’t’ – wouldn’t – tell me what the occupation was for because that would break the rule of self-determination. But without a ruthless commonality of purpose, revolution is doomed to fail.
Sensing that there was no history to be seen here, I rode the subway back to my hotel. An old black man with a pair of drums was performing for cash. He sang “Sittin’ On The Dock of the Bay” in a beautiful, sad voice. It’s the song of a man who has given up trying to change the world and settled for survival. When he was finished, the beggar moved up the train with a hat asking for a dollar. He spied an Arab family and shouted, “I see the Gaddafis are in town. We sure kicked your asses, you mothers.” He slipped off the carriage singing, “God Bless America” and laughing maniacally.
This morning, I woke up and put on the news. It seems that “hundreds” have returned to Zuccotti and announced that they want to occupy the New York Stock Exchange and the subway. Why had they come back when everything seemed so completely over the day before? I went to the window and looked outside and got my answer: it had stopped raining. The reason why Zuccotti Park was empty on Wednesday when I went there wasn’t the police raid: a united movement could easily have regrouped and survived. No, what emptied the park that day was the damp. Now that the skies are cloudless and blue, the fair-weather revolutionaries are drifting back to Wall Street. What would Lenin have thought of an army that could be dispersed by a spot of drizzle? Not a great deal – and if the media stopped hyping the Occupy movement, neither would we.
What would Lenin have thought of the fair-weather occupiers of Wall Street? – Telegraph Blogs
As long as the money kept coming from New York banks, I doubt Lenin would give a ****.
Police tape Woman Employee ****s in Elevator - YouTube
Police tape Woman Employee ****s in Elevator - YouTube