Skip to content or view screen version

OCCUPY Protesters Unfocused? My Ass!

Roy Batty | 10.10.2011 15:19 | Occupy Everywhere | Anti-militarism | Globalisation | Workers' Movements

The OCCUPY protesters are expressing an emotional response, an appropriate emotional response. Their detractors who would paint them as bongo playing, naked hippies don't have much political memory.

I can't afford a shirt!
I can't afford a shirt!


See video.

Well the hell is unfocused about I can't afford a shirt? What are these young women supposed to be chanting? "The system works for the most part and I believe I'm only temporarily shirtless because I have faith that President Obama might get me a job at the post office?"

The OCCUPY protesters around the nation express genuine frustration and anger at a political system that does not work for the 99 percent--that has never worked for the 99 percent without huge government intervention. Think Abolition. Think homesteading. Think anti-trust laws. Think public works projects. Think GI Bill. Think Civil Rights legislation. None of those interventions could have come to pass without anger, protest and violent repression.

So it is disconcerting that even liberals like Rachel Maddow and Chris Hayes (Note that I did not call them progressives, as nauseating a label as conservative, with about as much meaning. If Hillary Clinton can call herself a progressive than I can tell everyone that I'm the Secretary of State.), while tepidly supportive of the protests, still express mild dismay, "In this big picture, in this environment, frankly, some sort of inchoate, bottom-up, indefinite expression of anger at Wall Street, anger at their control over our lives and our country now, is probably a little overdue." A little overdue?! A little overdue like a Chicago Cubs World Series win.

Note that Ms. Maddow still seems to think that the protesters somehow need to connect back to the political system that stole the shirts off their backs. "Is the message itself important that they are even trying or do they need to be offering something very concrete that will make a difference in people's lives in order to connect people back to the political system?"

See video of Rachel and Chris pondering the effectiveness and future of Occupy Wall Street.

Really Chris? "Barack Obama raises tons of money from Wall Street. And Nancy Pelosi, God bless her, who love, I think he`s a great politician and has great politics, also raises a lot of money from Wall Street. They all do. They all have to. That's the way the system works." Really? And you think that somehow the system can changed from the inside?

The answer is clear. For now, the message--the frustration, the anger--is important in and of itself. It is important because it will eventually lead to the conclusion that the system cannot be fixed and that a new one must take its place. Rachel Maddow and Chris Hayes are the good guys. Yet their cynicism is palpable. Yes they question it. Yes they're uncomfortable with it. But they still can't see a United States without Republicans and Democrats.

Read more.

Roy Batty
- e-mail: roy@wheresmyfuckingmoney.com
- Homepage: http://wheresmyfuckingmoney.com

Comments

Hide the following 4 comments

what are they saying?

10.10.2011 18:10

The right to work ie. to live up on the earth and have fair access to the earths natural resources, and to engage in an activity which dose no harm to any other, and to trade ones labour free of hinderance and taxation?

What is the focus?

Anarchist


"A Job is a right!"

10.10.2011 22:26

Is it?

A job is an agreement between two people.

One has something that needs doing and is willing to pay money for it.
The other is willing to do it for money.
Between them an agreement is formed and a mutual exchange is done.

"rights" have nothing to do with it.

Say "a job is a right", is like listening to an employer say "an employee is a right!" when there is a skill shortage. Ergo, utter tosh.

lemons


rights

11.10.2011 10:34

Your rights are things that come naturally to you, not things that are provided by other people; like the right to walk across the land, not the right to be provided with a paved road; like the right to camp in the wood, not the right to be provided with a house, or the right to work, not the right to be provided with a job. And we have to live together on the earth, so one mans rights end where the next mans rights begin.

So, this protest still appears to lack focus, to me anyway. It seems to be an internal disagreement between people who belong to a specific social corporation: a "class struggle" within a "state", not a claim of rights as such. Still, if it ruffles the feathers of those who are trashing the earth, and enslaving it's inhabitants, it's got to be a good thing;) But let's hope it doesn't result it the protesters conseding even more of their rights to their masters in return for their jobs!

anarchist


naked facts

11.10.2011 17:00

Climate change is a real world threat not just some bogeyman narrative - got it now?

access denied