Saturday, December 10, 2011

Occupy gets reflective


Socrates: "A life not reflected upon is not worth living." — in Plato, Apology 38a. (Also translated, "The unexamined life is not worth living.")
...The machinations of the 1 percent are what have largely brought us to the brink of social and ecological demise, so the primary thinking goes. The ruling class has consolidated their power, skewed the benefits toward themselves, passed the burdens onto the rest of us, and continually demonstrated the illegitimacy and inherent tyranny of their reign every time force has been used on peaceful demonstrators. They have done this and are still doing it, and we must confront their wanton ways with diligence and imagination.
There are key truths and critical insights to be found in this narrative, and its teachings have served to galvanize interest and mobilize people around the world. Still, there is a piece of the puzzle missing, one that is harder to own up to and that blurs the lines of culpability in a manner that is inconvenient for the impetus to organize against entrenched power. When we begin to peel back the layers, however, it becomes apparent that they did not take power so much as we gave it to them — and it has largely been our complicity with the forces of our own oppression that has led us here....
Read the rest at New Clear Vision
Occupy Ourselves
by Randall Amster
Instead of protesting against abominable wars, let us also stop paying for them. Rather than complaining about corporations, usurious banks, and the indentured servitude of the student loan system, we can desist from paying into their coffers. Beyond pointing the finger at bought-off politicos, there is the option of refraining from participation in their sham elections. If we do not like business as usual, let us skip the charade of fighting city hall and occupy it as shelter instead. This is the essential core of the embedded symbolism in the protest encampments, and it follows in a long line of nonviolent civil disobedience from Jesus Christ and Henry David Thoreau to Dorothy Day and Mohandas Gandhi. It is an active principle, and the locus of its engagement is everywhere.
The key is not to bear this weight of noncompliance alone, but to do so in concert and in numbers sufficient to undermine the system’s capacity to continue in its present form. We recognize that the boundaries of the law do not map directly to the dictates of morality, and that much of the legal architecture in our midst is specifically designed to protect wealth and preserve inequality. Still, we also see that laws and norms in some instances can reflect the societal wisdom of the ages, and thus we do not transgress them out of self-indulgence but rather as our solemn duty as agents of promoting a just, equitable, and sustainable world.
Indeed, as Gandhi urged, noncooperation is merely a first step. The ensuing (and more challenging) phase of sustained resistance is the cultivation of constructive alternatives with which we can wholeheartedly cooperate and lend support. For too long we have had our survival pitted against our values, being coerced to participate in oppression and degradation as a condition of mere existence. We have been carefully cultivated to embrace the consensus reality plied by plutocrats, at best maintaining a schizophrenic false consciousness and at worst being consumed by the beast’s ravages. Lacking genuine meaning in our lives, we opt for artificial replacements on sale literally everywhere. We have looked into the void, recoiled in horror, and drowned our sorrows in commercial palliatives.
Now is the time to commit ourselves to finding other methods of coping, ones that challenge authority and reclaim autonomy.
BTW, in case you weren't there, this was also the underlying message back in the Sixties and Seventies protests, building on the Civil Rights Movement.

The closing words of the article echo the sentiment of the generation that brought about the countercultural revolution that changed the US and world socially, politically, and economically. Amstger concludes with, "This is our generational task, our shared responsibility, and our best hope for salvation. Let us meet it willingly, together." [emphasis added]

They get it. This is about generational change.

See also After the Encampments
by Micah White at Adbusters

6 comments:

Matt Franko said...

"Now is the time to commit ourselves to finding other methods of coping, ones that challenge authority and reclaim autonomy."

Tom, this looks like it was written by someone with Anarchist leanings (Adbusters)

I might write this (if I could write):

Now is the time to commit ourselves to finding other methods of coping, ones that challenge corrupt and unjust authority and reclaim authority for righteousness."

I worry a bit that they use the word autonomy to mean anarchy or something... again I dont come to this from the libertarian side, this concerns me.

Providing some feedback from the authoritarian perspective.

Resp,

Anonymous said...

In looking back to the ancient Athenians like Socrates, the Occupy movement might also want to consider the wisdom of Aristophanes - especially as shown in his play Ornithes - The Birds.

There is no escape in human life from the need for government and the obligation to govern. The anarchist drop-out from a particular form of government ends up creating a new order with its own government. The occupiers need to recognize this, so they can get on to the task of building the new order they want, with the means of government that will make it work.

Tom Hickey said...

The occupiers are pretty clear about government. They want government by consensus rather than control. "Government of the people, by the people and for the people" is one of the great lines in American history. Too bad we never tried it.

As Gerald Celente observes and was down in Zuccotti Park promoting, we have the technology for direct democracy now, so why not give democracy a chance. Direct Democracy Now

Gerald can be a bit crazy, but I think he is right on this one. As Americans we should walk our talk or shut up about democracy and all that if we don't really want to have it.

Tom Hickey said...

@ Matt

On the political compass test, as you know since you have taken it, authoritarianism is opposed to libertarianism and there are left and right versions of both.

"Anarchism" in this sense is libertarianism of the left. Libertarianism is generally consider to be right wing, since it emphases individual liberty above social constraint and also a fundamental right to property. Anarchism in the above sense is what I call "libertarianism of the left, and it emphasizes personal liberty integrated with solidarity and human rights, with no absolute right to property.

There are variations in both schools of thought, but those are the key fundamentals.

Anonymous said...

Government by consensus and direct democracy are not the same thing. Government by consensus is the same thing as no government at all. 300 million people will never achieve a consensus on anything. Generally, not even 300 can achieve a consensus.

Direct democracy, on the other hand, is a way of implementing a system of majority rule, not consensus. That's definitely much more workable. You just replace the representative legislature for some polity by a much bigger legislature of all of the people in that polity. But people still vote, the votes still produce winners and losers and the winners' vote carries the decisions on the social direction.

Tom Hickey said...

@ Dan K.

That is true. As I said, there are different factions. This is not a new debate on the left. It's been going on for some time with different proposals and experiments. I have participated in some of them. The challenge is to maintain governance "of the people, by the people, and for the people," and also get things done.

There are different ways to configure it. For example, actual consensus (impractical), direct democracy with simple majority ("majority rule"), some different proportionality, .e.g, 60%, 75%, etc.

It's a debate that is waiting to happen as more and more people come to see the present system as not only antiquated but also favoring an elite that is in the position to capture power in representative government.