Dan Kervick's picture

    What I Learned At Occupy New Hampshire

    Well, not much really.

    There were about 350 people there.  That was good.

    But here's the bad news:

    One of the apparent leaders and key organizers is a Ron Paul guy.   He's a Republican state rep.  He was there with his Ron Paul sign and a megaphone.  He is also, I think, the moderator of the discussion forum on the Occupy New Hampshire web site.

    This was something close to my worst nightmare.  I have absolutely no interest in being part of a movement that is some sort of junior version of the Tea Party, and it depresses me that what I had hoped was the awakening of a progressive movement is so incoherent and unsure of itself as to include these radical right crackpots under their tent.  If the Occupy movement is not able to develop even enough coherence to kick these guys to the curb, it's not something I'm going to be able to participate in.  I've had enough of laissez faire - and at bottom, that's what these guys are all about.

    I actually had a very enjoyable half-hour conversation/debate with the guy.   It was about the usual Paulist obsessions: fractional-reserve banking; fiat money; ending the Fed; the evil government that wants to inflate my money while I'm hiding it under my mattress; a world in which there are no laws besides property rights laws, and where everything is purely voluntary, etc.  But it was only enjoyable because I like to talk and argue.  I was OK while I was there, and held up my sign for few hours and chanted a bit, but then fell into despondency when I got home. 

    Plenty of other people there seemed vaguely or specifically left wing.  There was a table of guys representing something called "Socialist Alternative."  There were some anarchists.  There was a group teaching about nonviolence, which was enjoyable.   But apart from that, there were just a lot of young people, with 99% signs, with a few generic slogans, conveying no sense that they had the slightest idea what they were actually trying to achieve.   Overall it just seemed to be a lot of chanting for the sake of chanting, drumming for the sake of drumming, and organizing for the sake of organizing.   I was hoping there might be some experienced left-progressive organizers in attendance, maybe from the unions, exerting some kind of leadership.   But I didn't see any.   Apart from the Paul guy with the megaphone, there was no leadership to be detected.

    A movement that represents everything represents nothing.  I'm really not that interested in wasting my time inside a tent that is that big.

    There are also the anarchists to deal with, and they seem to be a significant part of the national movement from what I can tell.  To be frank, I consider anarchism a child's philosophy, despite the fact that there are a few well-known adults who hold it.   Today in New York some people apparently tried to do a mass withdrawal of deposits from Citibank.  This suggests to me that there is an element in the Occupy movement that is planning, or at least toying with, the idea of intentionally crashing the economy - in classic anarchist fashion - to usher in some period of creative anarchic destruction.   Well screw that.   I've been too busy advocating all kinds of things to prevent a second depression to be messing with a bunch of kids who want to fuck up the world because they thing it would be cool and exciting to bring "the system" down.   I'll leave them to play with their "V Is for Vendetta" Guy Fawkes masks; their "Anonymous" hacker games, and their anti-social youth rebellion - and hope they aren't able to cause too much people for people who are actually trying to hold their lives together rather than blow them apart.

    You hear some people within the movement crying out from time to time about their fear of being co-opted.  Well I hope to God somebody co-opts these folks pretty fast, because otherwise they are just a parody of half-baked revolutionary cliches, and are headed toward self-destruction, tragedy, stupidity and a repetition of every failed revolution spasm of the past.

    Comments

    are headed toward self-destruction,

    The Nation or the World?

    Free will isn't so great after all;...... is it?

     


    It played out different here in my small town. The gentleman that I talked to was amazed out how grassroots this group was. Young people didn't have masks on. There was no magaphones. The organizer explained the local laws to us and we all agreed to disperse if the police asks us to. A couple of young people sat under a tree and sang folk songs. An elderly couple was on the side of the street were we did not have a permit sat in lawn chairs with a long sign. They had written on a roll of shelf paper "end corporate personhood." The center of it was taped to a walker for support. Later another person joined them in a electric scooter chair waving a flag. He saw us when he was shopping at the drug store on that side of the street. The organizer went over and talked to them but the stubborn old coots stayed put until they got tired. They were very popular with the traffic. Hated to see them go. The local police just smiled at us as they drove by. The drug store didn't complain about the old farts on their sidewalk. We grew to around 60 people at one point. It was easy to count because we stood or sat in a line. We had the local AM station talker there telling us that he lost 2of his important sponsers because he had been supporting the clean up wall street movement. A reporter was taking pictures. I walked away feeling good and needing a nap from all the standing and waving.

    A couple of young people sat under a tree and sang folk songs.

    Wait, wait,  don't tell me; they were singing Obama's favorite bipartisan song;  Kumbayah?


    LOL. No more like Dyland, Peter Paul and Mary and Guthery.

     

     


    I think I was going to do a blog on avarice. ha

    But I wonder sometimes....

    I have this song that just rings in my head sometimes:

    I think that the lower classes think about relativity.

    I mean they think that the Mexicans and the Blacks and the....whatever are getting too much and they just would like to see others fail rather than cling onto some ephemeral concept that somehow things will all work out.

    JUST SO THAT I HAVE MORE THAN THE OTHER GUY!

    These folks, unlike their ancestors in the 30's do not believe that some 'hero' will ever free them.

    So they stick with concepts, with maxims, with the hope that they will at least have more than the Ni**er and the Sp**.

    the end

     

     


    Dick thanks it's one of my favorite songs.

    Heres another.

     


    Ron Paul is a pressure valve.  The media ignore him at their peril.


    I have absolutely no interest in being part of a movement that is some sort of junior version of the Tea Party, and it depresses me that what I had hoped was the awakening of a progressive movement is so incoherent and unsure of itself as to include these radical right crackpots under their tent.

    To be sure, there's a danger there, and one must be careful in forming allegiances. However, there's also an excellent opportunity there.


    I disagree.   During the Iraq War I thought otherwise.   But there is simply nothing progressive at about Ron Paul and his calls for ending fiat money and putting us back on the gold standard, his calls for laissez faire economic arrangements, and his loathing of government.   Almost every single goal of progressives in the economic realm, as I understand those goals, will require an activist federal government run by a democratic citizenry, imposing and enforcing new regulations and taxes, building out a more expansive safety net and playing a larger role in the economy.

    I need to see this movement articulate a clearer agenda.   Because if Paul's ultra-conservative quackery is going to be part of it in the end, I want nothing to do with it.


    And his belief that women don't have the right to make decisions for their own bodies. Somehow his anti-government stance doesn't include women, when it comes to women he wants to the government to regulate them and their physicians.


    Just because he's wrong about so many things, it doesn't mean we can't forge common ground on the things we do agree about. I'm not advocating helping Ron Paul at all. In fact, if anything I'm advocating harming him by siphoning off some of his supporters where we can find common ground. The risk is that they would subvert the movement, but I think that vigilance could prevent such an outcome.


    Reducing the size of the defense budget and the US military base presence abroad might be one of them, although so far that doesn't appear to be a central concern of the various fledgling movements although such a concern certainly could tie-in with overall concerns about economic policies in our country commanding too many taxpayer dollars for the defense budget and foreign wars and base locations.  As an aside, as a Ron Paul devotee, has the NH State rep you engaged in conversation on economic policy issues, Dan,  been active in organizing opposition to defense contracts from the federal government for New Hampshire?  Organizing Republicans who want us to get out of Afghanistan or Iraq?   


    Guess you weren't feeling much solidarity.

    The Miami event got close to 1000 and was very inspiring. Great diverse mix of folks. Huge support from passersby in cars.  Favorable local news coverage. I eavesdropped on the discussions between the organizers and the cops and they were both extremely cordial. Now they are setting up tents at the local government complex.

    Saw an arriving older couple pulling an "Eat the Rich" sign out of their pearly new Escalade. No joke.


    I believe you. When the Republicans started on how they have to cut social security it woke up a few of the retirees and they got out their old love beads. We had a good mix too in our small group on the west coast.

    I was feeling solidarity, until I realized this very aggressive Ron Paul cadre was trying to co-opt the who event.


    Shorter version: "Hey! Get off my lawn!" LOL!

    Yes, we must remain vigilant that no one is allowed to co-opt the OWS Movement and its message.** And, yes, I would be disturbed to discover a Ron Paul acolyte "in charge" of a 99% rally and "organization."

    But I find it interesting that your remedy is to get some professional organizers in place instead, perhaps from a union or (presumably) from the Democratic Party or Third Way or...

    Bullshit! Who do you suggest? The same union leadership that bargains two-tiered wage provisions into contracts, thus maintaining their hold on power at the whim of the owners whilst selling out the next generation?

    Or maybe the Dems like Obama? Right! Maybe if we could just attract enough Wall Street cash into the movement, it would go mainstream and perhaps even be able to purchase a few pols in Washington, right?

    Democracy is a messy business. But, really - if you don't like what is being offered by the man on the soapbox, get your own soapbox. Stay involved. Do what you did. Confront these crackpot ideas with your own reasoned opinions. Be persistent. And have faith in others to sort things out for themselves, while remaining vigilant to ensure no one chokes things off and prevents the people from gaining opportunity to think for themselves.

    **(Message): Even the mainstream media are beginning to get the message of the 99%ers. From this NYT article:

    "Yet despite the difference in language, landscape and scale, the protests were united in frustration with the widening gap between the rich and the poor."

    It's about power. It's about class warfare. It's about economic justice. And it doesn't get much more fundamental than that. WE are the 99%. We can do this. Occupy Wall Street. Occupy Everywhere.


    I've spent the last week on and off with Occupy Everywhere - Seattle, there are Paul folks and Larouche folks there, but they are not in charge of anything and are continually pushed to the edges, in fact most of the people do not associate with the Laissez Faire/ I <3 Somalia folk. The Larouchies as I call them keep getting into long protracted arguments, okay I started on of them, about their felon leader.. hahaha.

    Do you think possible that the Paul thing is indicative more of NH politics? I have a few relatives in NH and all they ever talk about it is how they pay too much in taxes, seriously.  I will be heading back to Seattle's movement tomorrow, as it grows daily, and then at the end of the month I am heading up to Vancouver to see how the movement is growing in Canada.

    Certainly I agree with your sentiment, the Paulites must be marginalized and not represent any part of what is growing into a world wide movement. My mom is heading to a Occupy the World movement in Manila tomorrow to observe. I will find out what she sees and hears there.


    Do you think possible that the Paul thing is indicative more of NH politics?

    It's possible.  But remember this guy is already a Republican State Rep.  He has a web site, with links to all sorts of Tea Party faction organizations.  He was there with only one friend, a sign, and a megaphone.   So I think this is less a case of some deep New Hampshire thing, and more just a guy trying on his own to take over the New Hampshire version of this movement. 

    The difficulty in feeling solidarity was due to the fact that, since there is no articulation of even broad fundamental principles and goals, it is hard to know what to feel solidarity with.


    What you need is your own megaphone.  A loud one.


    That's a good idea.   But I was sort of under the impression that megaphones were frowned upon.   From what I had read about other events in the movement, the ideal is a more spontaneous, person-to-person style of communication.  I guess I have no problem with the fact that there is a Ron Paul guy there doing his thing.  I think what bugged me is that he had actually succeeded in taking over as one of the organizers.


    You wrote:

    ...no articulation of even broad fundamental principles and goals...

    This is very true and this is a problem.


    For the life of me, I cannot begin to comprehend how anyone could remain "uninformed" about the "principles and goals" driving this globally spontaneous insurrection.

    Try this for openers on gaining an explanation. It's about greatly increasing disparity in wealth and income. It's about class warfare. It's about power. It's about a thirty year experiment in Ayn Rand-style Libertarian supply-side trickle-down economics; an experiment that has wholly failed to support the 99% (see the charts at the link) and failed miserably! 

    It's about money in politics in place of people's voices being heard.

    It's about outright corruption of the political system at virtually every level, from the way we do business, to our choice of business ("Defense" contracting), to the counting of our votes, to the cost (in actual dollars and cents) of purchasing "representation" in even the most hallowed halls of government - including the United States Senate, House of Representatives, our Supreme Court, and our White House.

    It probably challenges a few of the sacred cows we each hold dear, be it the Dem Party or the Unions or our personal comfort in status quo process or whatever. But so be it. The assault we are experiencing on the 99% is insidious. It must be stopped. We can do this. We ARE the 99%. Occupy Wall Street.


    Maybe you should bother to follow our entire conversation, rather than being perpetually angry with me. In any case, I was simply agreeing with Dan's assesment, having been at the Seattle march myself for several days, and seeing the lack of cohesive ideas and methods to make change and central mission, one that could actually have long term impact.

    Long term impact? YeeGads!

    We have spent HOW MANY MONTHS now in Washington and on dagblog arguing about budget deficit and tax policy (do we tax? Or don't we tax?) in the midst of a crippling recession, and you wish to talk about the impact of OWS?

    OWS has - at the very least! - redefined the narrative. And from this new perspective, the Dems should be very embarrassed to realize just how completely the 1% have been leading them around by the nose to address a "budget deficit crisis" while they continue stealing the common wealth.

    Perpetually angry? It ain't all about you, TMac. You'll maybe come to understand that some day. In fact, I had not one thought about you personally in writing my previous comments. I know. It's tough. But get over it.


    OWS has - at the very least! - redefined the narrative.

    I think it is certainly starting to.  And I think there is at least one core message that is clear enough:   A few people have too much, and everybody else has too little.   But it seems to me that a lot of people are holding back as well because they are puzzled about what it is the movement seeks to accomplish.


    "A few people have too much, and everybody else has too little." by Dan Kervick

    Yes, of course; George ought to help.  *rolls eyes*  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGMQZEIXBMs 


    I followed the link. I actually listened to the whole video. I was waiting for the punch line. It never came.

    You are actually serious about this libertarian "voluntaryism" nonsense? Most third graders would recognize the intellectual dishonesty inherent to such arguments as this. The very moment you step away from anything like total anarchy, the nonsense you spew in such an argument as is made here simply falls apart. And I doubt very much you are an anarchist.


    Most third graders would recognize the intellectual dishonesty inherent to such arguments as this.

    Creator of George Ought to Help here. Help me out please: can you explain how the video is guilty of intellectual dishonesty, in your view?


    I spent the afternoon at an event and I also don't see how people don't get how clear the message is. Folks are just saying the money-corrupted system needs to change and that elections ain't going to do it. Been there done that.


    This is the simple message on a little card the organizers of Occupy Miami handed out:

    Organize. The 99% is now breaking down those barriers between each other. We are not appealing to those in power. We are simply informing those in power that we are done letting them rule at the people's expense.

    We are a global family along with all the creatures that share this home with us. Restore human dignity. We are NOT democrats. We are NOT republicans. We ARE the 99%.


    Profound, yet simple. And it makes incredible sense to those who will listen. Thanks for this Rootman. 

    Now, if only they would hire a lobbyist. Maybe form a Super Pac. Who will they support for President? Obama? Oh, please tell me it ain't Nader! How can they accomplish anything unless they play the game by the roolz? ;O)


    The local TV news channels last night just described the movement as "opposed to corporate greed." That works for me.

    http://www.local10.com/news/29498317/detail.html


    It's about a thirty year experiment in Ayn Rand-style Libertarian supply-side trickle-down economics.

    And yet a defender of the libertarian, laissez faire philosophy of Ron Paul and the Austrian theorists was at Occupy New Hampshire, apparently under the impression that his philosophy fits under the big tent of the movement.    If a movement stands for everything it stands for nothing.  Where are the boundaries?


    And what are Ayn Rand/Rand Paul acolytes if not delusional? I have no problem with sharp elbows jostling to gain the attention of the audience. A democracy is a marketplace of ideas, sensible or otherwise. I place faith in people to sort it out for themselves, messy as that may be. Besides, at this point in it's progression, it's pretty difficult to envision just how or who enforces some notion of ideologic purity. And if, in the end, the consensus among ideologic opposites involves getting money out of our politics, you would object why?

    Because the Ron Paul types don't actually want to get the money out of politics.   They just hate the government, and want to get the government out of politics.  They'll leave the money just where it is, with all the freedom it wants and needs to exert political domination.  They believe in the rights of private property and accumulated wealth, and have no intention of attempting to wrest power from those people.


    I find your assertion very interesting. What "power" do you believe is to be wrested from "those people"?

    Power to take your money? Ooops, that's a govt power.

    Power to take your stuff? Ooops, that's a govt power.

    Power to kidnap you? Ooops, that's a govt power.

    Power to condemn your home? Ooops, that's a govt power.

    Power to send you to kill and die against your will? Ooops, that's a govt power.

    Power to tell you what you may and may not eat, drink, smoke, own? Ooops, that's a govt power.

    I agree with you that some people have too much power, they abuse that power, and I want that power removed from them because it is destructive. I even agree that they accumulate to themselves wealth through abuse of that power.

    The difference between you and I is that I understand what that power is. You obviously do not.


    Great link, SJ.  Thanks.


    I think that far too many people who consider themselves on the left side of the equation have given too much credence to a guy like Ron Paul because of his libertarian essence.  So we laud his challenges to our foreign interventions and the president's interpretation of his constitutional and statutory mandates, and we forget that Ron Paul is really not that much different than Pat Buchanan--except he's groovy.

    I think in the aggregate the Paul/Buchanan wing of the 99% constituency is not going to gain much traction.  But it's disturbing, and I understand how that can derail enthusiasm.  I was also derailed by things I saw in Manhattan and I wrote about that and I wrote about that on these pages.  I'm over that now, and while I don't buy the leaderless, multiple-message approach in the long-run, I honestly think that it's OK and a positive thing for the most part in the near-term.  I think the kids who predominate, at least in New York, have to come to the realization on their own that at some point they will need to get organized.   But ever try to tell a kid something that he or she is not prepared to accept?  

    Addendum: I forgot to thank you Dan for your timely and interesting account marked by the independent thinking and candor that so many of us have grown accustomed to from you.  Keep the faith.

    Bruce

     


     

    But ever try to tell a kid something that he or she is not prepared to accept?  

    Yes.  And I know you have as well, Bruce.  wink

    Addendum: I forgot to thank you Dan for your timely and interesting account marked by the independent thinking and candor that so many of us have grown accustomed to from you.  Keep the faith.

    +1


    Yea, AD, we're on the same page on that  one!


    Thanks Bruce.  I suppose I'll be able to deal better with my emotions today.  All I know is that I expected to come home feeling energized and invigorated.  But instead I felt mainly confused and depressed.


    I'm pitching my lot in here. Thanks to both.


    I was thinking about heading to Frankfurt to participate in their global Occupy event, However, with the turmoil over the PIIGS, especially Greece and now Italy, careening at the edge of the abyss, I suspected the event would be more Euro-centric ... which it was. Both are fraternal twins born of the same event, but each have different characteristics that differentiate them from one another because of the politics of their geographical areas. I'm waited for them to tie the two together ... they share the same birth mother. The euro crisis is a stage beyond what the Wall Street protest is based upon ... while individual states don't have the capability to bring down the value of the dollar, the industries based in their states have the capability of bringing about a similar meltdown in the form of still lower wages, scarce to minimal benefits coupled with higher prices for the products and services offered. Scarcity of money in the hands of the public chasing high priced, essential goods is a form of currency devaluation ... purchasing power is diminished which is a form of devaluation. Some might counter it's inflation not deflation/devaluation. I could be wrong, but I consider inflation to be were wages are steady while prices for goods and services increase. When wages drop while resulting prices for goods and services remain high or increase I see dollars earned as being devalued ... one has to work more to earn that dollar value.


    I read an article the other day, I think it was in the Financial Times, claiming that the talk going on privately within the 1% is saying that the movement is not important because it doesn't involve the middle class. I have since encountered a couple of OWS promoters on trains and sidewalk of NYC handing out invites to rallies who were doing their best to engage with precisely that group; People who have earned a place in the system, have jobs, and know that the marketplace is not their keeper.

    The events have two sides to them, the people who go are cheered on or castigated by those who don't. Whether we are looking at an iceberg or a rubber ducky cannot be determined by the events by themselves.

    There is one positive benefit to the anarchic quality, nobody owns the event. In that regard it has a much greater potential than the tea party who were fighting from the very beginning about who owned the pot and who owned the cups.


    Dan, thanks for the report. I feel that some good may come from the simple fact that so many are demonstrating their dissatisfaction even if it is scatter shot in nature. I bet there are a variety of complaints and desired solutions in this group.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=SjUIEAZr4Yo


    Dan,

    I hope you 'll come back, with your sign, and talk with the people you suspect have "no sense that they had the slightest idea what they were actually trying to."  Maybe you'll find out they do have some ideas.  In any case you can share some of yours.  A movement based on the idea that extreme inequality of wealth and power is corrupting our economy and political system is headed in the right direction.  But it will need some steady steering to get where it needs to go.  


    +1 Bravo!


    Agreed, Arnie.   And I know I probably have a tendency to over-intellectualize things at the start.   I just want to make sure this movement isn't co-opted by the Tea Party.

    And are you the Arnie I talked to yesterday?


    A movement based on the idea that extreme inequality of wealth and power is corrupting our economy and political system is headed in the right direction.

    Having just come back form the General Assembly meeting, I couldn't even tell you for sure that they agree about that much.


    The OWS  message, is one of anger.

    Were mad as hell; and we aren’t going to take it anymore.

    Now comes the hard part; the System of Things is rotten to the core.

    all the foundations of the earth are shaken. (1)

    We know people have lost faith in governments; so they place their trust in money.

    “For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evils. It is through this craving that some have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many pangs.” (1 Timothy 6:10 ESV)

    Money has corrupted our politics, it has corrupted religion, and it has corrupted Justice.

    People can see; there is no justice any longer.  

    The Supreme Court can only deliver justice, based upon the laws, passed by the corrupt politicians.

    How do you get justice, if the legislature only passes laws so they and their lobbyist friends and the corporations they work for, serve the only thing they love; ….. MONEY?If there is not going to be justice; only the love of money, why be constrained?

     

    We know the solution; rid the people of the love of money? Go ahead; you can live like Mother Theresa.

     

    Justice has become perverted.

    “How long will you judge unjustly and show partiality to the wicked?

     

    Give justice to the weak and the fatherless;

    maintain the right of the afflicted and the destitute.

    Rescue the weak and the needy;

    deliver them from the hand of the wicked.”

     

    They have neither knowledge nor understanding,

    they walk about in darkness;

    (1)    all the foundations of the earth are shaken.

    (Psalm 82:2-5 ESV)

    Everybody, Somebody, Anybody, And Nobody

    This is a little story about four people named Everybody, Somebody, Anybody, and Nobody.

    There was an important job to be done and Everybody was sure that Somebody would do it.

    Anybody could have done it, but Nobody did it.

    Somebody got angry about that because it was Everybody's job.

    Everybody thought that Anybody could do it, but Nobody realized that Everybody wouldn't do it.

    It ended up that everybody blamed Somebody when Nobody did what Anybody could have done

    MORAL

    Somebody can’t force everybody to care.  Go ahead somebody,……. anybody?  


    It's hard to have 99% if you don't accept a few Ron Paul folk.

    It's hard to be officially leaderless if you don't accept that occasionally a Ron Paul person will run a rally.

    It's hard to be 99% if you have to nail down a specific platform.

    The part where Ron Paul folks meet left-wingers is the hatred of the stealing.

    If the Fed's role is to abet theft by Wall Street, then why are we disagreeing among ourselves?

    Whether Ron Paul favors a return to the gold standard is highly irrelevant, even if comic.

    The government did inflate money to fill other people's mattresses - the "cheap money" strategy since Bush took over killed the economy - we just didn't notice it so much since the effects were "over there". Only when we look up the deficits or try to import something from Europe.

    This is not a "progressive" movement - it's a single issue, "they're gaming the system to steal our money" that can unite the 99%. Almost everyone's a victim.

    If you want to tack on your list of progressive causes, you'll drop the consensus to 35-40%, which will effectively kill it.

    It's been humorous - Fox has been trying to pigeon-hole the movement since day 1, and they're rather flummoxed that they can't, aside from trotting out 60's era "bunch of smelly hippies" lore. Which doesn't work very well when the revolution is broadcast by phone cam.

     


    I think it's brilliant that the movement is unfocused. Just united in the unity of not being in the 1%. This driving some people nuts, but it's an apolitical uprising.

    A reporter here complained that the organizers won't speak to the press.


    Rick Santorum said that the demonstrators are the same people who have been demonstrating since the Vietnam War. If that's the case, screw the 1% because the demonstrators have discovered the fountain of youth and I'll have what they're having.


    He could Google that and find out it's not true.


    Ever since he Googled "Santorum", he no longer trusts it...


    What is the 1%?  What is the 99%.   99% of what.   Nobody can even tell you.


    Sorry, I can't agree with this.  When this movement started, I was very excited that a real progressive movement was taking shape.   But the Ron Paul fans are just part of the Tea Party.  So no thanks.

    The Paul folks have absolutely no intention of doing anything to tackle inequality or private sector power and wealth concentration.  They will do absolutely nothing to help relieve debt burdens.  They only hate the government, which they believe is the source of all evil, and believe deep in their hearts in laissez faire economics.  This isn't just a little off, as far as I'm concerned.  It's almost 180 degrees wrong.   And following these radical right-wing cranks would only set back the cause of social justice and democratic equality, as well as further empower Wall Street, not challenge it.

    This is a teachable moment, and it is important to use it to teach people what is wrong with the theories of Ron Paul, and how those theories and the policy proposals they germinate will do nothing to advance progressive goals.   The Paulists are right-wingers trying to exploit the vulnerable and hitch a free ride on a progressive wave.

    By the way, the point of the 99% rhetoric is not to suggest that 99% of people are equally right.  It is more accurate to say that the goal is to organize a movement that seeks to advance the economic interests of 99% of the people.  Any coherent movement needs to have some boundaries and direction.  A movement that means everything and aims everywhere actually means nothing and will go nowhere.


    The point of the 99% rhetoric is not to suggest that 99% of people are equally right.  It is more accurate to say that the goal is to organize a movement that seeks to advance the economic interests of 99% of the people.  Any coherent movement needs to have some boundaries and direction.  A movement that means everything and aims everywhere actually means nothing and will go nowhere.

    Very well said. 


    Right - you mean the Republican party that's taking care of the interests of 99% of the people?

    Every movement says that.

    The nice thing about OWS is it's abstract enough to define a home for 99%. That includes the Paulers whether you like it or not. You think you got a progressive movement - you don't. If it gets enough progressive on it, it will be dragged down like many other progressive movements.


    Great.  Let's the Paultards have the 99% movement if the Tea Party isn't big enough for them.  If progressives can't find satisfaction in the OWS or 99% movement, they will eventually

    But anyway, I went to a General Assembly tonight.  And although aspects of it were sincerely inspiring, the notion that the people there in attendance actually represent 99% of Americans is, I have to say, somewhat laughable.


    "This is a teachable moment..."

    I couldn't agree more. And there will be many more "teachable moments," especially now as you have people by the millions finally awakening into a realization that they have been abused and oppressed by a ruling class of people.

    These people know what they are against. They are righteously angry at whoever and whatever is responsible for promoting the trends outlined in the article I linked to earlier. And as you have pointed out, it is easy to understand the thought progression that makes Ayn Rand and Ron/Rand Paul and even LaRouche and others look attractive at first blush. After all, didn't we all find Rand a bit intriguing in our political "youth" until we at last had time to thoroughly examine her ideology and its consequences?

    OWS is a profoundly important development in our national AND global politics. I am absolutely thrilled that at last we have people coming together in what might best be described as a "counter-culture" to the rotting political culture. People are beginning to understand that there is nothing that can be gained by "tinkering around the edges" of our pay-to-play system of governance; that big money owns our government, and all the rest is just a pretend game of politics that they let us play for so long as it doesn't disrupt or interfere with the REAL work being accomplished in the corporate boardrooms.

    These people have also come to understand that our economic system is broke, and that the consumer-driven economic model is unsustainable. Most will never have the ability to expound on the economic principles and syllogisms and whatnot that support their understanding. But they feel it in their core. They look around their neighborhoods, their workplaces (if fortunate enough to have one) and within their families and see that trickle-down ain't working. They know - at a very fundamental level! - that they have been lied to and cheated during the last thirty years of a supply-side experiment that delivered extremely well for the top 1% but robbed everyone else.

    And as these people progress from being angry toward developing a proper response, there will be a lot of teachable moments. Dick Armey, Karl Rove, and the Koch Bros understand that. Like so many fascists before them, they have successfully manipulated the Tea Party cohort of this "political awakening" into actually serving the interests of the 1% against their own self-interest. And they have done so by playing upon raw anger and mixing it with hatred, xenophobia, fear, racism, etc.

    You can see the same effort to co-opt the OWS crowd by hate-mongers and corporate interests. bslev recently pointed out a very disturbing incident in which an anti-semite was attempting to whip the crowd into a frenzy against Jews. And you point out attempts by a Libertarian/Republican to essentially incorporate this group into the Tea Party, whilst the Dem Party and groups such as MoveOn and others will attempt to steer this crowd back into the politics-as-usual arena on THEIR side.

    All of this can happen. It is in fact not beyond the realm of possibility that the OWS movement could eventually devolve into a fascist mob on one hand, or total anarchy on the other. And what will steer it along the path it will take? A lot of teachable moments. With someone there to do the teaching.


    But isn't this at the core of the issue about direction and boundaries:  who are the teachers and who are the students?  Right now it seems that everyone has been deemed a teacher.  Or everyone is a student but unwilling to grant anyone the authority to be a teacher.  Which is all just another way of talking about leaders, hierarchy etc.  and the debate over whether there should be such or not. 

     


    It is truly a movement, Trope, not just another 501c3. They (iow "we") do not need an executive Director. We do not need to hire lobbyists. We don't need to form a Super Pac. We don't need to call upon the "experts" to lead us into the lion's den of politics, mopping our fevered brow and telling us to sit down and let the experts take care of things whenever we ask "WTF?" kinds of questions.

    We 99% determine the legitimacy of those who would govern. It's a concept that lays at the foundation of our Constitution and the Magna Carta and in Justice itself. But it's a concept that's been too long abandoned in favor of a horse race politics wherein the fix is always in on behalf of the 1% who own the game.

    Ain't happening anymore. You'll figure out what that means as this progresses. And it'll drive you nuts in the meantime. So be it. But I hope Obama and the Dems and the Repubs and the pundits and all the rest choke on their corporate paychecks while watching a new political culture overwhelm them. It's called democracy. Get used to it.


    I never said anything about an Executive Director, lobbyists, etc.  But if one looks at popular movement there are those who take leadership roles, help facilitate a flurry of emotions and energies into something that achieves tangible results, channel the creativity and visions into something that brings about real impact.  That doesn't mean the voices of the group are silenced or ignored.  In other words, the movement is in a general direction towards success like the flow of a river rather than the movements of a storm-tossed sea, waves moving in every direction. 

    Now you might think that the Polish Solidarity movement would have been just as successful without the likes of Lech Walesa emerging into leadership roles, that the Velvet Revolution would have turned out the same without the likes of Vacal Havel, but I don't.


    And where would Polish Solidarity or the Velvet Revolution be now if Walesa and Havel were a couple of tongue-cluckers, pissing and moaning because the revolution wasn't delivered to them fully developed at their feet? Or throwing a hissy-fit because a few fascists or communists threw a couple sharp elbows their way?

    We are the 99%. We can do this. Occupy Wall Street.


    It seems like you're agreeing with AnotherTrope. Is that correct, or is there another interpretation of what you've written that I'm missing?


    Interesting question. Substantial difference, I believe. And it's really a matter of perspective. Inside the movement trying to move it forward? Or waiting in the rocking chair, expecting any "legitimate" revolution will be delivered to your doorstep? "Official" Leaders will arise organically, I suppose. But as was the case in Poland and Czechoslovakia, they probably won't be career pols, nor is it likely they will be anyone even on Washington's radar at present. But it doesn't really matter. Movement first. Leaders will follow.

    I sincerely think you two are in agreement.


    Yup. But seems to me that's only because sleepin' is simply more interested in seeing that everyone does the rah rah, supporting the "troops" as it were (you gotta be with em or against em,) rather than discussing things. So he picks up on the trope's Havel/Walesa without realizing trope's point that Havel and Walesa were leaders, that there's a contradiction there. But that doesn't matter to him. He talks past those he doesn't find sufficiently enthusiastic about something (like trope or like me, in the past,) and just attacks them in general. The content of your discussion doesn't really matter, unless it might hurt the agitprop needed at the moment, and then the content also needs to be attacked or censored.

    My takeaway, sleepin's general message over time: forget cognition, just stop all this discussing and thinking stuff, bunch of useless waste of time, dithering intellectualism....

    An extra irony occurred to me: Havel would absolutely hate that, being a "we are the dissident intellectual 5%" person rather than a "we are the 99%" person, a proud anti-agitprop intellectual. wink

    My conclusion: There are people that come to the political blogosphere for activism, and then there are people that come to the blogosphere for analysis and discussion, and they sometimes drive each other nuts. They really don't mix that well.


    Hey,artie! If you're going to successfully pull off this whole "agitated intellekshual" thing, you'll hafta do better than "agitprop." it's only three syllables, after all, and is like SO yesterday! Good to see you! And you know? You're still kinda cute when you get yourself all puffed up and full of yourself, albeit in a rather pathetic sort of way. Now, where were we? LOL!

    Havel also came from a cherry, well-connected family, which helps him be lofty & intellectual. Nice guy, but his myth has been blown up beyond control.


    So now we won't listen or allow someone to take a leadership role in the movement if it can proven that he or she came from a cherry, well-connected family?

    And I'm sure when he was in prison from 1979 to 1984, it was made like a vacation at Club Med because of those connections.

    But you should enlighten us all how anyone being a dissendent in the Eastern Bloc shouldn't be embraced as a hero?


    If you don't know what you're talking about, perhaps you could just step back and contemplate it for a little bit before throwing out weird hyperbole.

    Lots of people have been jailed - that doesn't make them heroes or antichrists.

    Folks in the west have this exaggerated view of Havel as Mr. Smith goes to Washington - when Havel's part of the old school, and some of the personal scandals surrounding him point to that. 

    Also, one of Havel's legacies is letting the Communist members get away with much of their loot, keeping their control. Kind of a "look forward, not backwards" approach if you get my drift.

    That doesn't mean Havel didn't do any good for the country or that he didn't have good intentions as part of Charter 77, or that he didn't indeed suffer in prison. But he certainly let himself and the country be taken advantage of.

    In short, it's not that the King has no clothes - he's just not nearly as pure as the myth surrounding him. Believe it or not, even the Czechs realize this. As a playwright-prisoner released to the castle though, the fairy tale is beautiful.


    can you point out where anyone is trying to make Havel the pure saint of perfection of being a human, activist, and statesman. He was brought up in the context of the issue to what extent do popular movements need leaders.  I can understand the frustration that comes from those mythologize folks like Havel, but I don't see anyone here doing that.  In spite of his faults, which we all have, he played a major role in the dissendent movement in the Eastern Bloc, a role which carried with it significant risks, including the possibility of a loss of life.  In some ways, the fact that he came from privilege makes his choices prior to the fall of the Soviet Union even more admirable since he could have taken the easier path with less risk. 

    So while your mission to debunk the myth of Havel is worthwhile, you might want to reconsider asserting it into every thread where Havel is mentioned.


    1) your first entry above is pure snark, and ignores the real damage Havel did. You say "we all have", but not all of us have presided over the ransacking of a nation's industry by the same people who nationalized it in the first place. But try to show we're all guilty to an equal extent - it's a lovely sentiment.

    2) I believe I've posted about Havel twice, once which was completely ignored, 2nd was only commented by you - so if that's "asserting it into every thread", your counting ability is capped low. I also noted that the Czech "Velvet Revolution" was rather johnny-come-lately compared to the Poles, East Germans, Hungarians and Bulgarians. The heavy, dangerous lifting was done elsewhere, thus the low loss of life and minor chaos.

    3) Your followup estimation of Havel is just more hagiography. It's easier for someone well connected to go to prison because they don't just disappear. Nonetheless, Havel was a dissident and did spend long years in jail, and that's not something I dismiss. The bit about risk of life is exaggerated - the Czechs didn't kill that many - they turned people gray.

    As bad in some respects is he basically lost his calling post-1968, like so many others - the system didn't just work by throwing peope in jail - it sapped all opportunity for anyone who protested. Havel of course was only 1 of hundreds of thousands who suffered this fate, but certainly he could have had an easy career if he had just gone along and thrown out the occassional "rah rah Communism/ich liebe Brezhnev" reference. Actually not - he was too well connected, so the government wouldn't have trusted him, but it could have been easier than it was.

    4) I also brought up examples like Jaruzelski of rather conflicting under-appreciated types in the middle of the sea change.


    Since things are getting skinny here, I will respond below.


    I agree.  Remember the '08 campaign kerfluffle involving a remark by Hillary Clinton that, paraphrasing, leadership from the Kennedys and LBJ was necessary--in addition to, not instead of--the efforts of the civil rights movement (including its leaders, of course--while there was much jockeying for position among the individuals heading the coalition of groups, the groups themselves did select leaders in one way or another), to get civil and voting rights legislation?  Some in the Obama camp apparently thought that was controversial, that by that remark she was somehow dissing the importance of that social movement.

    (I thought it was an entirely unremarkable observation, with a subtext that had everything to do with the skin colors and perceived preferred MOs and backgrounds of the two leading candidates for the nomination.  Obama--ironically in retrospect--was seen as someone who, as a result of his humble and consummate outsider roots and experience as a community organizer, understood grassroots politics and would overcome Beltway inertia and corrupt interest groups by collaborating with the grassroots network of supporters that surrounded and supercharged his campaign.  Clinton was seen as a total insider who supposedly had no real grassroots support and would therefore have no "outside game" if elected.  Obama was metaphorically the African American, outsider King and the grassroots civil rights movement.  Clinton was the white insider Kennedys/LBJ, seen as  hogging all the credit and sense of self-importance for what was made possible only through the grassroots efforts of thousands of individuals who will forever remain anonymous to the historians.  If one is more insider-oriented one may tend to emphasize the role and importance of insiders, including formal leaders in and outside of government.  If one is outsider-oriented, one may tend to emphasize the importance and leadership role of outsiders who are sometimes seen as only or mainly "followers".  If one takes a step back and looks at the social processes involved wholistically one can perhaps more easily appreciate the essential role of both "types".  But I digress.)

    This exchange reminds me of discussion that took place around that incident.  Is a coin "really" heads with a tail side, or tails with a head side?   What there isn't is substantial political change in a society such as ours without some combination of governmental and non-governmental leadership, with both including leaders and followers.  The line between leader and follower is often blurry and fluid rather than bright-lined and fixed, from what I observe and have experienced.  So-called followers often exert indispensable acts of leadership and leaders often are racing to catch up with their supposed followers (thus the saying, sometimes uttered by formal leaders: "I am their leader.  I must follow them.").  And sometimes--sometimes even on the political left although not for a long time, it seems--leaders emerge and actually lead in the more boring, conventional senses and followers actually follow, with no great sturm and drang about that.  There are literally no leaders without followers and a group of would-be activists or advocates with no direction is just--at that point in time--a leaderless or rudderless group of people who can't be seen as followers, either, because there is nothing or no one they understand themselves to be following in common.  

    One thing that seems pretty constant is resentment by outsiders of insiders seen as hogging all the credit, or disproportionate credit, when good things happen.  Insiders often have access to the media or a bully pulpit and get to tell the story from their point of view, whereas outsiders typically don't, and don't.  The work of people such as the late Howard Zinn, Ray Raphael, and many others who focus on the lives and contributions of ordinary people ("history from the bottom up") has been an attempt--by no means greeted with universal approval among historians, some of whom see it as a kind of political correctness run amok, some of whom question the accuracy and balance of such accounts--by some to try to correct that perceived imbalance in historical accounts.


    kind of makes it more difficult when people are saying "leaders, we don't need no stinkin' leaders.  we're the 99%"  One has to be open to the idea of teachers and leaders.  They don't arise in a hostile environment.

    And I'm not advocating a legitimate revolution be delivered on the doorstep.  In fact I wouldn't be advocating for any kind of revolution, which is where we ultimately differ. You've got that revolutionary spirit.  Good luck with that.  I, on the other hand, am looking for grassroot movement which results in tangible reforms of the current system. 


     I, on the other hand, am looking for grassroot movement which results in tangible reforms of the current system.

     

     


    WARNING --  CUSSING


    The Velvet Revolution was led by East Germans fleeing through Prague and leaving their Trabis behind. Once the Czechs let all the East Germans pass to the west - i.e. once Gorbachev said, "so be it" and the curtain was down for Ossies, it was hard to say no to Czechs as well. But Havel and others did very little to bring this revolution about - they just happened to be the only resistance around.

    Chronologically, Solidarity won in April & formed a government in September; Hungary's parliament voted itself out of power in October, the Germans replaced Honecker with Gorbachev's support in October, the Czech border was opened to Ossies Nov 3, the Berlin Wall fell Nov 9, the Bulgarians threw out its leader Nov 10, the Czech & Slovak uprisings began Nov 16/17. Kinda the safest protest you could have at that point, despite a few deaths.

    Solidarnosc on the other hand was a full resistance movement in 1981, with serious underground press supplied by the US, etc. And with a full military crackdown, not just a few hippie playwrights thrown in jail. And then their legislative triumph.

    Worth reading an interview with Gen. Wojciech Jaruzelski:

    http://www.ocnus.net/artman2/publish/International_3/Wojciech-Jaruzelski-Interview.shtml


    We 99% determine the legitimacy of those who would govern.

    It's arrogant and a bit foolish for a small group of people who manifestly do not represent 99% of Americans to call themselves "the 99%".   And there is nothing in the movement I saw tonight, at least the smallish New Hampshire chapter thereof, that indicated a serious effort to reach out and incorporate the views and aims of even 51% of Americans, much less 99%.   It seemed like just a bunch of anarchist and radical libertarian cranks, dreaming revolution dreams.

    Now hopefully, this is all the beginning of something, and this movement will evolve over time into something more mature and weighty and coherent.


    New Hampshire is famously weird.


    They don't "represent" the 99% - they're just part of the 99% who are getting the bum end of the stick. There is no bigger message - "we're all getting screwed by the 1% or top half of 1%". That's it. That's where they all join. 

    No one asked you to join the male gender - you're just there.

    No one asked to be screwed by the top 1% - it's just taking place. Recognizing the sickness is the first step - you can debate the causes and solutions afterwards, but if it's just a burning house, the solution is to get out the door quick.

    Then they can split up in groups and go back to fighting.


    Very well said. And it represents a potential game changer for the way it frames the political discussion. Just as an example, it is difficult from this perspective to deem credible the suggestion that we will gain jobs if only we would give more tax breaks and more common wealth to the "job creators" (aka 1%, or "Robber Barons"). Once you establish who are the oppressive and the oppressed, you can then begin sorting our remedies. But first you must harness the power of the 99%, because the 1% ain't going to relinquish power without a fight.

    I've been thinking about this a fair bit, and although I'm not certain you're wrong, I'm also not certain you're right. It seems that OWS is exemplifying, on possibly the largest scale to date, the wikification of politics. Having a truly leaderless (in the sense of having a small number of leaders speaking for a larger group) revolution wouldn't have been possible even ten years ago. Whether it's possible (or desirable) now is yet to be seen. I'm all for them trying, though.


    lol, I was just talking about Occupy becoming a watered down, hijacked, or otherwise misdirected movement just earlier today. Now the "left" has a Tea Party-esque movement! HOORAY!


    Sadly, Dan K is misrepresenting what happened at Occupy NH.  He was unwilling to discuss things in good faith, and persisted in attempting to coopt the movement for his extreme Socialist agenda, rather than focusing on the points on which the 99% can agree.

    Yes, there are Republicans and Anarchists and Libertarians and "Paulestinians" and such there.  There are also Democrats and Union Reps, and members of Socialist Alternative and avowed Communists and folks (like me) who don't participate in politics at all.

    The object of the movement is to bring together people of all backgrounds and beliefs, who share one certainty at this point:  Something is very wrong with how things are going right now, and there need to be some changes.

    ​Yes, to many who are in a hurry to pigeon-hole the Occupy Movement so they can coopt it or dismiss it, it may seem a bit aimless at present.  That is because we are taking our time, getting to know each other, working through our frustrations, and attempting to determine our points of common ground.  And those things will be done.  One of the points on which we have already agreed is that this is a Non-Violent Movement.  If there is violence, it will not be initiated by members of this movement.

    Many of the people participating in this movement (in NH) have already taken a pledge to enter the discussion in good faith, and at least listen respectfully to opposing views.  Dan K has refused.  He has persisted in trying to push his extreme views even when it is obvious that they are not ones with which the entire 99% agree.  When repeatedly asked to focus on the points on which we can agree, he refused.  When he continued to push his  extreme agenda, some of us who disagreed with him attempted to explain our disagreement--and he refused to engage in a dialog--he just took his ball and went home. 

    Too which we reply: "Go in Peace."


    Well, Mr. Ruff, I read your whole piece, but candidly you lost me and never recovered my respect when you referred to Dan K's alleged "extreme Socialist agenda".  Many of us, yours truly included, have known Dan K quite a long time, and I can tell you that there are all kinds of things that Dan and I have fundamental disagreements about.  But I try not to label him, as you have here.  I think I know some "extreme socialists" and I don't think Dan is one of them.  And, candidly, if he was, unlike you I would engage him in good faith.  By the way, just what is an extreme Socialist, with a capital S?

    If you believe that the New Hampshire movement, as both you and Dan have described it, is anything like what I've seen in NYC and what I've read about elsewhere, you are mistaken.  If you believe that the extreme (used intentionally) anti-government positions of Ron Paul has a place in this movement as a whole, I choose to disagree again.  Ron Paul's ideas--just as the ideas of classical monetarists and marxists alike-- may sound great in the classroom or when your having a beer with your buddies.  But in the real world people are hurting.

    For you to come on here and talk about good faith and then refer to Dan K as you just did is absolutely astonishing, ironic, and textbook and utter hypocrisy. 

    Bruce S. Levine

    New York, New York


    Funny how people fail to realize that ad hominem consistently reveals more about the attacker than the target.


    So true Donal--I am baffled by this attack on Dan.


    Excellent parry and thrust, Mr. Levine! You really did nail it by focusing upon Mr. Ruff's "good faith" call-out of an "extreme Socialist." Sheesh! It's almost too funny!

    More seriously, however, it occurs to me that what we see here is precisely what I want to see at the GA's and in general throughout OWS. Let DanK and Ruff(!) suffer their dispute in public, and let the rest of the crowd learn from it. As I pointed out elsewhere upthread, LaRouche and Rand Paul and some of these other crackpots can sound quite attractive to those who are perhaps first awakening into political thought. But they are also pretty easily discounted and even embarrassed by those who will apply a little logic and commit the parry and thrust as necessary. (And you did it all very well above!)

    But it's pretty tough to do that from the outside. From everything I read here from DanK and even from your experience with the anti-semite, there seems to be a common complaint: We must never suffer fools gladly. I would caution in this circumstance, however, that we must not turn our back on them either lest we watch the great possibilities for an active and effective reform movement devolve into just another Tea Party.

    Ultimately, it may become necessary to abandon "OccupyNH" and surrender it to the control of Mr. Ruff. At that point, we can hope he has difficulty assembling acolytes in sufficient measure to march a fife and drum beneath the Gadsden flag. But it really doesn't matter. If we have met OUR responsibilities to our democracy, we should find that the Libertarian comedy remains at the extreme fringe (at best!) of the political counter-culture that IS the OWS movement.

    Keep 'em honest. That's all I ask. And then let the newly awakened sort things out for themselves from there. THAT'S what democracy looks like!

    Jeff Pieterick

    Madison, WI


     

    Here's a little bit more about Mr. Ruff, through the wonders of google.  He appears to be a member of the New Hampshire Liberty Alliance, which doesn't seem to be the kind of group that would attract most of the folks around here (not there's anything wrong with it).  So if Mr. Ruff is representative of the folks up in NH, I think we can all understand Dan's frustration:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mPT15p8ZLBs

     


    "Marching fife and drum beneath the Gadsden flag" was only a guess; a rhetorical flourish, if you will. But, damn! I think I'll go play the lottery today! ;O)

    And so he's gathering all like thinkers to NH? That's his schtick? Hmmmm... Pity the poor citizens of NH. But I guess that's what you get when you sit on the map looking like Vermont standing upside down. Some clown was bound to see it as an invitation.


    Calling Ron Paul anti-govt is foolish. The man has not one anarchist bone in his body.


    "The man has not one anarchist bone in his body."

    And therein lies your problem. You cannot make the Libertarian argument without soon confronting the anarchy contradiction. Once you move away from anarchy and allow for the need for taxation and other trappings of government in any form, you move from the realm of ideology into the much less exact policy arena. And it's never pretty for you "Libertarians," it seems, for it always quickly devolves into an insistence that YOUR closely defined needs and desires be met by the common wealth (i.e. roads, bridges, specific tax policies, "national security," etc.), letting everyone else be damned.

    Indeed, the Libertarian government always seems to be the one that promotes "government of, for, and by the one percent." And we've seen just how well THAT has worked for us these last thirty years!


    "You cannot make the Libertarian argument without soon confronting the anarchy contradiction."

    Good sir, I assert no such contradiction. I am an anarchist, I believe there is no function of govt that is a "necessary" evil. Coercion is just evil.

    And again, you have confused me for someone who doesn't understand that govt power is being used to benefit vested interests.

    The reason I object to many of the statements in the blog and in the comments has nothing to do with my full agreement that power is being abused.

    What I object to is the mindless faith that, if only the RIGHT people are in power, if only the govt has MORE power to regulate the morality of the people, then there will be no corruption and abuse of that power.

    The only difference between the radical conservative with his legislated morality (vice crimes), and the radical progressive with his legislated morality (social justice), is that they say they want to outlaw different problems by making govt bigger, more intrusive, more powerful.

    A libertarian wants LESS. Always less.

    Just as there are "progressives" who think certain drugs are too dangerous to have legal, and "conservatives" who respect other's religions, there are "libertarians" who think there are necessary govt services.

    If govt weren't a huge abusive monopoly eating everything around it, Ron Paul wouldn't look anything like a radical. The fact that he does, compared to the mainstream, just shows how far from anything like a "limited" govt the mainstream is.


    I never said Ron Paul looks like a radical. I said he looks like a hypocrite, as do most (all?) libertarians.

    The anarchist Ron Paul holds a seat in the U.S. Congress. 'nuff said.

    Libertarians hide behind the "No government is the best government" juvenile grasp of anarchy, but then refuse to argue for the complete dismissal of all things government. They want THEIR government programs and expenditures and whatnot. It's just MY (YOUR) wants and desires that are so problematical.

    YeeGads!


    Libertarians hide behind the "No government is the best government" juvenile grasp of anarchy, but then refuse to argue for the complete dismissal of all things government

    I'm a libertarian, and don't shy from arguing against the existence of government. I'm happy to have been able to correct a misconception of yours today. In future, more caution regarding the use of blanket generalisations will help you avoid similar mistakes.


    Indeed! The most ignorant of all libertarians are those who argue with all the intellectual vigor one would expect from a vegetarian carnivore. Congratulations, sir! You've certainly squared the circle with your comments! LOL!

    I'm not even sure it's possible to BE an "Extreme Socialist." It's like asking for a steak "Super Medium Rare."

    (With apologies to any vegetarians in the crowd.)


    I wasn't there, but first off the concept of "good faith" denotes sincere, honest intention or belief, regardless of the outcome of an action.  From what I have seen of Dan's communications, he was quite sincere and honest about both his intentions and beliefs regarding himself and his vision for the movement.  They just don't coincide with yours.  It would have bad faith engagement had he held these views but let you believe that he was for just getting to know one another, etc.

    And let me say that if you waiting to find the point where the 99% is in all agreement before the movement goes forward, whatever it is that one finds won't be much.  We're not talking about getting agreement over whether some brutal dictator should be removed, we're talking about how we as a society should govern itself, the role of government, the limits and freedoms allowed in an economic system. 

    I'm all for finding common ground, etc in a community discourse.  There can be some very positive and powerful outcomes from that. And actually I would say that such a mix of Republicans and Anarchists and so on is probably the way communities are going to find a way forward.  But it won't be a "movement."  It will be the slow slog of community organizing and development, which is less glamorous than a movement and protest rallies. 

    In other words, I think what you seem to have there is powerful, but attempting to push the square peg into the round hole of a political movement will only serve to undermine the potential for achieving positive results. 


    Hi!

    I attended the Occupy NH rally on Sunday when I was up in NH during my fall break. You can read about my experience on my blog (link provided under "homepage").  I took have problems with the right-libertarians who insist on turning every single political event into a Ron Paul promotion. It's just stupid. There was this loud-mouth there who wanted the entire rally to be both a Ron Paul rally and anti-war rally, which seems counter-intuitive since a lot of what Ron Paul proposes would create high incentives for more war. It was a good experience though and gave me a nice little glimpse of the people who are moving to the 603 (or "The Shire" as they call it) as part of the Free State Project. I seriously doubt their efforts will do much for people in NH though.

    Just letting you know, I am an anarchist as well (though my views are those of traditional anarchism which is anti-capitalist as well as anti-state). You should learn more about the philosophy to understand why we hold the views we do and the large amount of empirical evidence (mostly from anthropology) which shows that our proposals and ideas of non-hierarchical social organization work very well when played out in reality.


    I'm anarchitect myself. We don't care what you do as long as you follow our plans.


    [in response to PeraclesPlease upthread]

    First, I think you need to look up the definition of snark, because what I wrote was anything but "pure snark."  Havel did play a major role - if for nothing else by bringing international attention through the literary world.  Moreover in the Czech culture, the artists were given a pedestal and authority not seen in too many other cultures.  It was those in the theater that helped pushed the protests of the students into a national protest.

    Saturday, November 18

    Two students visited Prime Minister Ladislav Adamec at his private residence and described to him what (really) happened at Národní Street. The declaration of the strike at the Realistic Theatre in Prague occurred, and other theatres quickly followed. The theatres opened their stages only for public discussions. At the initiative of students from the Academy of Performing Arts in Prague the students in Prague began a strike. Gradually, this strike was joined by university students throughout Czechoslovakia. The students were supported by the theatre employees and actors in Prague, all of whom had also gone on strike. Instead of playing, actors read a proclamation by the students and artists to the audience, that called for a general strike on November 27. Home-made posters and proclamations were posted in public places. As all media (radio, TV, newspapers) were strictly controlled by the Communist Party, this was the only way to spread the message. In the evening, Radio Free Europe reported that a student (named as Martin Šmíd) was killed by the police during the previous day's demonstration. Although the report was false, it heightened the feeling of crisis, and persuaded some hesitant citizens to overcome their fear and join the protests.

    Sunday, November 19

    Theatres in Bratislava, Brno, Ostrava and other towns also went on strike, following the example of their colleagues from Prague. Members of artistic and literary associations as well as organizations and institutions joined the strikes. Members of a civic initiative met with the Prime Minister, who told them that he had been prohibited twice from resigning his post, and that if they wanted to achieve changes, there would have to be mass demonstrations like those in East Germany (some 250,000 students). He also asked them to keep the number of "casualties" during the expected changes to a minimum. About 500 Slovak artists, scientists and leaders met at the Art Forum (Umelecká beseda) in Bratislava at 17:00. They denounced the attack against the students in Prague on November 17 and formed the Public Against Violence, which would become the leading force behind the opposition movement in Slovakia. Its founding members included Milan Kňažko, Ján Budaj and others.

    Actors and members of the audience in a Prague theatre, together with Václav Havel and other prominent members of Charter 77 and other dissident organizations, established the Civic Forum (Občanské fórum – an equivalent of the Slovak Public Against Violence for the territory of the Czech Republic) as a mass popular movement for reforms, at 22:00. They called for the dismissal of top officials responsible for the violence, and an independent investigation of the incident and the release of all political prisoners. College students announced a strike.

    To think that the Velvet Revolution would have unfolded as it did without both the dissident activities that had been done over the previous decades, and the existing networks of leadership which was already in place as result of that decades-long work is the height of naivete'.

    And quite frankly I don't understand how in what I have written you could get the idea that I am asserting we are all guilty to an equal extent for the crimes that have been committed.  When I spoke of his faults, of which we all have, it is merely to assert that one cannot ignore nor deny the good that we do in spite of other actions.  In part I was thinking of those who try to diminish the righteousness of the words and actions of MLK because he committed adultery. 

    While a statement such as "you might want to reconsider asserting it into every thread where Havel is mentioned" is rhetorical hyperbole, I think the point is pretty clear that I wasn't asserting that you were actually doing such in every thread where Havel was mentioned.  Rather that you were in this case attempting to drive home a point about Havel (which has validity) that was not warranted by the comments.  In other words, there are those that believe Havel did no wrong, but the comments made about him in no were making such an assertion.

    It does seem the attention and accolades given the Czechs pushes some buttons with you, the privileged kids on the Eastern Bloc who get undeserved and thus unjust rewards for efforts made by those on the other side of the tracks.  Again, no one here on this thread made some assertion that what they accomplished was equal or better than what was did by the Poles, East Germans, Hungarians and Bulgarians. Again, Havel was only brought up in the context of the need for those in leadership roles in popular "uprisings."  If such leadership comes in does something after others elsewhere do the heavy lifting doesn't undermine the basic concept that such leadership is still needed.

    And  - one of the reasons that the Czechs didn't kill that many may just have something to do with the fact that the Klimas and Kunderas and Havels kept an international spotlight on the Czech movement, something the Poles, East Germans, Hungarians and Bulgarians didn't have.

    And finally whatever injustice there may be in folks like Jaruzelski not being recognized for their roles should not diminish the roles of others like Havel.  I would never say Havel was the sole leader of the fall of the Soviet empire in Eastern Europe.  Which is why I wrote the phrase the "likes of Havel."  Havel, rightly or wrongly, is one of the few individuals that the majority of folks in the political blogosphere know without having to explain who they are.  But no one said life was fair.


    First, you: "In spite of his faults, which we all have, he played a major role in the dissendent movement..." Okay, so we all have faults, like Havel letting communists rip off industrial corporation earnings on the way to privatization and letting most people's shares drop into the sewer. And I sometimes forget to comb my hair on the way out the door. Alles ist egal.

    Second, my "buttons" and your sheer speculation and apologist attitude without knowing much about this are quite 2 different things. The buttons happen to be about the danger of assuming whoever walks out of a protest to take leadership is going to do the right thing. While Havel was charming as President, there's quite a bit that unfolded through the exhuberance. Which is why I brought it up in the first place, with the mention of Walesa and Havel. Yes, I know artists & students were involved in the protests, etc.

    "one of the reasons that the Czechs didn't kill that many may just have something to do with the fact that the Klimas and Kunderas and Havels kept an international spotlight on the Czech movement, something the Poles, East Germans, Hungarians and Bulgarians didn't have." - oh my, so no one heard of Lech Walesa and Solidarity? West Germans knew nothing about East Germany if it wasn't in American papers? Hungary had more or less glasnost years before the others, so conditions were easier - and Czechs couldn't travel there. And few in the west had heard of Havel or other Samiszdat protesters. 

    "whatever injustice there may be in folks like Jaruzelski not being recognized for their roles should not diminish the roles of others like Havel" - the mentioning of the Polish general is so people have an idea of the machinations at the top - that it wasn't just about protestors in the streets - it was also bargaining and hard/complicated decisions between national leaders and the Soviet Union at different times. Everyone was trapped in a game that was hard to unravel. And when it did unravel, no one knew how to control it except the guys who'd been pulling the strings from the beginning.


    okay...regarding the first paragraph - the question is: would you historically assess Havel's role as leader in the dissident movement (as well as the role of leaders in any dissident movement) had he not become president and subsequently done the things he did as president?

    the answer has to do with the second paragraph. 

    regarding the third paragraph - few of the west could point to Libya on the map even now, let alone Bulgaria.  But that is not the point.  The point is that those in the upper stratosphere - the ones who mingle at "state affairs" and the opera do know who the latest cause celebre is. The Prague Spring changed the dynamics on an international level.  Joe Plumber didn't know who Havel or Kundera was, but those within the inner circles did.  It is the same dynamic that has allowed organizations such as Amnesty International to have the leverage they have had over the years.

    So it was about West Germans knowing about East Germany, but about those who do pull the strings in the international machinery knowing.  And so regarding the paragraph - the fact that CZ could transfer so easily to a new order without massive bloodshed may have something to do with the fact that folks like Havel were there in the whole machinery of pulling strings.  Which goes back to the saying that if one isn't part of the problem, one isn't part of the solution.


    Really, you're convoluting things. The Prague Spring was followed by Russian tanks rolling through the streets, and barracks of Russian soldiers throughout the country. Lots of people went into exile, and the crackdown inside the country was severe for the next years. That they didn't send people to Siberia to die in huge numbers is just a peculiarity of the culture. Murders were probably fewer in Hungary, more in East Germany, more in Poland, though I'm not sitting on figures. But this had nothing to do with dissidents abroad - they just didn't have a good reason to kill their own citizens vs. making them work horrid jobs and live in a grey landscape.

    When the change came, the communist leaders were busy hiding assets and figuring out a way to make the transition. Yes, it was very good that there was a resistance in place to take control, but that resistance also played a very useful patsy as the old guard stripped out the silverware, furnishings, and fixtures. 

    There was very little string pulling aside from that, except from the other side. Really, the reason there wasn't much bloodshed was because the wall had fallen already in Poland, East Germany and Hungary. Even in East Germany there wasn't much bloodshed. Praising Czech dissidents for some heroism in Nov 1989 protests is a bit unwarranted - they were in the streets from Nov 17-28 only, and Gorbachev had already visited the country to give them a tip which way the wind was blowing.

    Alright, enough, you know enough of my views. The main relevance today is that if protesters get control, they're still likely to watch victory slip between their fingers.

     


    And part of that main relevance, which is subject to a significant debate is whether achieving a partial victory should be considered a victory.  If some of the criminals are able not only able to escape justice but make out like bandits, would that be acceptable if the outcome means that there are positive fundamental and sustainable changes in the way that our government manages, monitors and regulates the corporations operating within our borders.  To what extent do we "play ball" with those who have created this mess in order to ensure that enough stability is maintained so that the current wobbly and corrupt system is able to continue which would allow those who currently have some income to sustain that income.

    In other words, a big part of the debate about OWS et al. among those who are sympathetic to or in agreement with its views is how do we define "victory."  What can be leveled against many leaders in too many socio-political movements is that they negotiated victories that were because of the compromise not victories, but capitulation.  And so it goes.


    I.e. what could have been won if they'd been paying attention?

    Well, the society wouldn't have been dominated by corruption, where a PM steps down and miraculously finds he'd saved up $30 million as a railway conductor and owns half an energy company.

    So 5 large companies don't own the society and control all the new legislation.

    Does some of this sound familiar?

    These aren't mistakes made as compromise in a difficult bargain. They just weren't paying attention, or actively let themselves be co-opted. The revolution was over, Communism was defeated, and they let the Communists walk away with the prize.

    They divested the government of much of its nationalized properties, and surprise, most of the businesses reverted to the populace turned out to be worthless, while a few moguls made off with the choice monopolies.

    Yes, society is still better without Communism, but it could have been much better without rampant corruption and oligarchy and political fealty.


    Sorry, the PM stepped down because the newspapers kept asking how he suddenly owned his own home on a railway conductor's salary, and supposedly there was some uncle who loaned him the money, except that uncle didn't have much either, so surprisingly he was held accountable. And got a nice parachute bank account on the way out.

    That's only 1 of many. One guy being held under house arrest for embezzling millions walked past the police in his house to "use the neighbor's phone" and ended up in the Seychelles.

    And that's minor compared to the guys who don't get questioned.


    was there corruption etc - yes.  acceptable - no.  but in the end I think I want to talk about the dynamics of rebellion that led to the formation of the US and you want to talk about the fact that pro-slavery contingent won out when it came time to ratify the Constitution. 


    You still don't get it. Even the Nov 17 protests started with the *COMMUNIST YOUTH* march about a studen killed by Nazis. There was no riotous rebellion, there was no Bunker Hill, there was no 8 year Revolutionary War. There were 10 days in the street with little violence and then it was over. And it's not because they were well-prepared - it's because the wall had fallen a month before, and communism was in tatters.

    So I'm telling you about the dynamics of that rebellion, and you want to gloss it up and put lipstick on and make freedom fighters out of everyone. 


    You don't get it.  I'm not trying to put lipstick on it.  You somehow want to just say that because communism was in tatters because of the heavy lifting by those elsewhere that all one have to do was get some folks out into the streets, the regime falls, and a peaceful transition to a new government just happened, and it would seem, without the previous networks of groups and individuals that had been built up over decades having nothing to do with that outcome.  I am merely stating that those previous developed human networks which had been in place at the time the people went into the streets and to the square enable for a transition that led something more close to what one would ideally like to have seen as opposed to some new form of dictatorship, and helped ensure the lack of great violence.  And that these human networks functioned as a result of individuals taking leadership roles.  One such leader was Havel, but there were many, many more, most unknown outside CZ.  Each one did so with varying degrees of risk depending on the times.  You jumped in and made some assertion about Havel coming from a cushy background, and my response to that is - who cares? Then you throw in stuff about how Havel governed once the new regime took power and my response to that again is - that is irrelevant to the topic that was being discussed.

    And just because I want to look at the dynamics of resistance and see similarities between various cases doesn't mean that I also believe that if there was a Bunker Hill in the US resistance than there also has to be a corresponding one in the Velvet Revolution.  I'm not trying to make freedom fighters out of everyone - nor do I believe it a case of those who were on the side of the angels and those who resisted them. 

    The whole point is that the specific outcome that happened in CZ was a function of many moving parts (something we can both agree upon) and I would emphasize that a significant factor in that specific outcome was those human networks built up over decades.  Had they not been there, things could have easily turned a bad way as groups and individuals sought to seize power in the vacuum left by the fall of communism.  The outcome that actually did happen, in other words, was not just organic unfolding of the people's movement.  Just as the American Revolution was decades in the making before there ever was a shot fired. 

     

     


    The communist student march was unrelated to Charter 77 (the origins of the Citizen's Forum), and actually started in Slovakia, not Prague.

    As for Havel & crew, their involvement was repressed ridgedly after 1977, and "Under the dictatorship, the influence of Charter 77 remained limited. It didn't reach wide groups of people and most of its members were from Prague. The majority of Czechoslovak citizens knew of the organization only because of the government's campaign against it."

    That there were dissidents in the theater and they quickly formed an anti-government consensus late at night on the 3rd day, after students had already met with the Prime Minister.

    If there hadn't been Charter 77 alumni, they would have pulled together other dissidents and sympathizers from the thousands who'd already marched.

    Yes, there was probably some influence from the Charter 77 activities before, mainly in a sense of general unrest and distrust of government, but it wasn't a serious organizational body like Solidarity. I think you overestimate how much of a "network" there was - it was just guys who drank together and read poetry and books, and the networks of students in dorms was stronger from 3 or 4 years than dissidents from 20.


    "rigidly"


    I don't have access to all of the materials regarding this event, so i was just clicking to see what I could quickly find, and from Wiki to the journal Social Forces, John K Glenn of NYU in his article "Competing Challengers and Contested Outcomes to State Breakdown: The Velvet Revolution in Czechoslavakia" writes in the abstract :

    I demonstrate that the democratic outcome was not a given by the breakdown of Leninist state; rather it was the result of successful mobilization by the civic movements that linked their demands with striking theater networks, which enabled them to overcome their organizational deficiencies. 

    The reason I put this here is that I think there is some serious debate over the dynamics of the VR and how it unfolded.  And the point I was looking to get some back up was that it wasn't just the Charter 77 crowd that was involved, as if they and only they ran the show once things got off the ground.  In other words, Havel could have done nothing during this time and things would have gone just about how they went.  I'm in no way saying he and his particular circle saved the day and that without them all would have been lost.  And in no way am I trying to diminish the role the students played in sparking the rest of the citizens that November.  

     


    And just let me add, which is key to my originally bringing up Havel and the likes of him was that after the police crack down on the Prague march (as opposed to the one in Slovakia) in two days, Havel and his likes formed the Civic Forum (which would later sweep the elections).  One looks at the current OWS groups across this country and it is doubtful that they could develop a similar formation of an alternative government in a couple of days that could command the majority of the country's citizen in the first election after a toppling of the current regime.  Given my understandings of organizational dynamics, there had to be strong existing networks already in place for such a cohesive and stable organization such as the Civic Forum to arise in just about 48 hours. 

    Moreover, when one looks at the election results in 1990, given that the Communist Party took a distant second place, had the Civic Forum not existed, the outcome would have probably led to a highly unstable coalition of parties.


    "had the Civic Forum not existed, the outcome would have probably led to a highly unstable coalition of parties" - oh my, unlike the coalition that quickly fell apart so that Klaus took over, or the Czech-Slovak coalition that fell apart a year later to split the country in 2.

    Is it really so hard to fathom that a country that had already risen up in protest in 1968 would easily figure out how to unify against Communism in 1989? While convenient to have ex-Charter77 alumni to form a kernel of action, the students already marching would have had no problem voicing demands, and as Wikipedia notes, they'd already spoken to the Prime Minister before Havel & others created the Citizen's Forum. 

    Now likely the Charter77 guys were a bit older and wiser than the students, but they still botched a number of things - not just Havel, but the whole group. But then they walked in without any experience.

    In general, however - Prague is a rather smallish city, a few hundred thousand in city center, and dominated Czechoslovakia. For the "in crowd" in 1989, there were likely fewer than 10 serious gathering spots for the protesters, so all of the needed networking could easily have happened without any foreplanning.

     


    Latest Comments