Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Chris Hedges writes: "The Occupy Wall Street movement, like all radical movements, has obliterated the narrow political parameters. It proposes something new. It will not make concessions with corrupt systems of corporate power. It holds fast to moral imperatives regardless of the cost. It confronts authority out of a sense of responsibility. It is not interested in formal positions of power. It is not seeking office. It is not trying to get people to vote. It has no resources. It can't carry suitcases of money to congressional offices or run millions of dollars of advertisements. All it can do is ask us to use our bodies and voices, often at personal risk, to fight back. It has no other way of defying the corporate state. This rebellion creates a real community instead of a managed or virtual one. It affirms our dignity. It permits us to become free and independent human beings."

Julian Assange, the editor in chief of Wikileaks, addresses protesters at the 'Occupy London' Stock Exchange demonstration, 10/15/11. ( photo: Elizabeth Dalziel / AP)
Julian Assange, the editor in chief of Wikileaks, addresses protesters at the 'Occupy London' Stock Exchange demonstration, 10/15/11. ( photo: Elizabeth Dalziel / AP)



A Movement Too Big to Fail

By Chris Hedges, Truthdig

17 October 11



 

Occupy Wall Street: Take the Bull by the Horns


here is no danger that the protesters who have occupied squares, parks and plazas across the nation in defiance of the corporate state will be co-opted by the Democratic Party or groups like MoveOn. The faux liberal reformers, whose abject failure to stand up for the rights of the poor and the working class, have signed on to this movement because they fear becoming irrelevant. Union leaders, who pull down salaries five times that of the rank and file as they bargain away rights and benefits, know the foundations are shaking. So do Democratic politicians from Barack Obama to Nancy Pelosi. So do the array of “liberal” groups and institutions, including the press, that have worked to funnel discontented voters back into the swamp of electoral politics and mocked those who called for profound structural reform.

Resistance, real resistance, to the corporate state was displayed when a couple of thousand protesters, clutching mops and brooms, early Friday morning forced the owners of Zuccotti Park and the New York City police to back down from a proposed attempt to expel them in order to “clean” the premises. These protesters in that one glorious moment did what the traditional “liberal” establishment has steadily refused to do-fight back. And it was deeply moving to watch the corporate rats scamper back to their holes on Wall Street. It lent a whole new meaning to the phrase “too big to fail.”

Tinkering with the corporate state will not work. We will either be plunged into neo-feudalism and environmental catastrophe or we will wrest power from corporate hands. This radical message, one that demands a reversal of the corporate coup, is one the power elite, including the liberal class, is desperately trying to thwart. But the liberal class has no credibility left. It collaborated with corporate lobbyists to neglect the rights of tens of millions of Americans, as well as the innocents in our imperial wars. The best that liberals can do is sheepishly pretend this is what they wanted all along. Groups such as MoveOn and organized labor will find themselves without a constituency unless they at least pay lip service to the protests. The Teamsters’ arrival Friday morning to help defend the park signaled an infusion of this new radicalism into moribund unions rather than a co-opting of the protest movement by the traditional liberal establishment. The union bosses, in short, had no choice.

The Occupy Wall Street movement, like all radical movements, has obliterated the narrow political parameters. It proposes something new. It will not make concessions with corrupt systems of corporate power. It holds fast to moral imperatives regardless of the cost. It confronts authority out of a sense of responsibility. It is not interested in formal positions of power. It is not seeking office. It is not trying to get people to vote. It has no resources. It can’t carry suitcases of money to congressional offices or run millions of dollars of advertisements. All it can do is ask us to use our bodies and voices, often at personal risk, to fight back. It has no other way of defying the corporate state. This rebellion creates a real community instead of a managed or virtual one. It affirms our dignity. It permits us to become free and independent human beings.

Martin Luther King was repeatedly betrayed by liberal supporters, especially when he began to challenge economic forms of discrimination, which demanded that liberals, rather than simply white Southern racists, begin to make sacrifices. King too was a radical. He would not compromise on nonviolence, racism or justice. He understood that movements-such as the Liberty Party, which fought slavery, the suffragists, who fought for women’s rights, the labor movement and the civil rights movement-have always been the true correctives in American democracy. None of those movements achieved formal political power. But by holding fast to moral imperatives they made the powerful fear them. King knew that racial equality was impossible without economic justice and an end to militarism. And he had no intention of ceding to the demands of the liberal establishment that called on him to be calm and patience. “For years, I labored with the idea of reforming the existing institutions in the South, a little change here, a little change there,” King said shortly before he was assassinated. “Now I feel quite differently. I think you’ve got to have a reconstruction of the entire system, a revolution of values.”

King was killed in 1968 when he was in Memphis to support a strike by sanitation workers. By then he had begun to say that his dream, the one that the corporate state has frozen into a few safe clichés from his 1963 speech in Washington, had turned into a nightmare. King called at the end of his life for massive federal funds to rebuild inner cities, what he called “a radical redistribution of economic and political power,” a complete restructuring of “the architecture of American society.” He grasped that the inequities of capitalism had become the instrument by which the poor would always remain poor. “Call it democracy, or call it democratic socialism,” King said, “but there must be a better distribution of wealth within this country for all of God’s children.” On the eve of King’s murder he was preparing to organize a poor people’s march on Washington, D.C., designed to cause “major, massive dislocations,” a nonviolent demand by the poor, including the white underclass, for a system of economic equality. It would be 43 years before his vision was realized by an eclectic group of protesters who gathered before the gates of Wall Street.

The truth of America is understood only when you listen to voices in our impoverished rural enclaves, prisons and the urban slums, when you hear the words of our unemployed, those who have lost their homes or cannot pay their medical bills, our elderly and our children, especially the quarter of the nation’s children who depend on food stamps to eat, and all who are marginalized. There is more reality expressed about the American experience by the debt-burdened young men and women protesting in the parks than by all the chatter of the well-paid pundits and experts that pollutes the airwaves.

What kind of nation is it that spends far more to kill enemy combatants and Afghan and Iraqi civilians than it does to help its own citizens who live below the poverty line? What kind of nation is it that permits corporations to hold sick children hostage while their parents frantically bankrupt themselves to save their sons and daughters? What kind of nation is it that tosses its mentally ill onto urban heating grates? What kind of nation is it that abandons its unemployed while it loots its treasury on behalf of speculators? What kind of nation is it that ignores due process to torture and assassinate its own citizens? What kind of nation is it that refuses to halt the destruction of the ecosystem by the fossil fuel industry, dooming our children and our children’s children?

“America,” Langston Hughes wrote, “never was America to me.”

“The black vote mean [nothing],” the rapper Nas intones. “Who you gunna elect/ Satan or Satan? In the hood nothing is changing,/ We aint got no choices.”

Or listen to hip-hop artist Talib Kweli: “Back in the ’60s, there was a big push for black … politicians, and now we have more than we ever had before, but our communities are so much worse. A lot of people died for us to vote, I’m aware of that history, but these politicians are not in touch with people at all. Politics is not the truth to me, it’s an illusion.”

The liberal class functions in a traditional, capitalist democracy as a safety valve. It lets off enough steam to keep the system intact. It makes piecemeal and incremental reform possible. This is what happened during the Great Depression and the New Deal. Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s greatest achievement was that he saved capitalism. Liberals in a functioning capitalist democracy are at the same time tasked with discrediting radicals, whether it is King, especially after he denounced the war in Vietnam, or later Noam Chomsky or Ralph Nader.

The stupidity of the corporate state is that it thought it could dispense with the liberal class. It thought it could shut off that safety valve in order to loot and pillage with no impediments. Corporate power forgot that the liberal class, when it functions, gives legitimacy to the power elite. And the reduction of the liberal class to silly courtiers, who have nothing to offer but empty rhetoric, meant that the growing discontent found other mechanisms and outlets. Liberals were reduced to stick figures, part of an elaborate pantomime, as they acted in preordained roles to give legitimacy to meaningless and useless political theater. But that game is over.

Human history has amply demonstrated that once those in positions of power become redundant and impotent, yet retain the trappings and privileges of power, they are brutally discarded. The liberal class, which insists on clinging to its positions of privilege while at the same time refusing to play its traditional role within the democratic state, has become a useless and despised appendage of corporate power. And as the engines of corporate power pollute and poison the ecosystem and propel us into a world where there will be only masters and serfs, the liberal class, which serves no purpose in the new configuration, is being abandoned and discarded by both the corporate state and radical dissidents. The best it can do is attach itself meekly to the new political configuration rising up to replace it.

An ineffectual liberal class means there is no hope of a correction or a reversal through the formal mechanisms of power. It ensures that the frustration and anger among the working and the middle class will find expression now in these protests that lie outside the confines of democratic institutions and the civilities of a liberal democracy. By emasculating the liberal class, which once ensured that restive citizens could institute moderate reforms, the corporate state has created a closed system defined by polarization, gridlock and political charades. It has removed the veneer of virtue and goodness that the liberal class offered to the power elite.

Liberal institutions, including the church, the press, the university, the Democratic Party, the arts and labor unions, set the parameters for limited self-criticism in a functioning democracy as well as small, incremental reforms. The liberal class is permitted to decry the worst excesses of power and champion basic human rights while at the same time endowing systems of power with a morality and virtue it does not possess. Liberals posit themselves as the conscience of the nation. They permit us, through their appeal to public virtues and the public good, to see ourselves and our state as fundamentally good.

But the liberal class, by having refused to question the utopian promises of unfettered capitalism and globalization and by condemning those who did, severed itself from the roots of creative and bold thought, the only forces that could have prevented the liberal class from merging completely with the power elite. The liberal class, which at once was betrayed and betrayed itself, has no role left to play in the battle between us and corporate dominance. All hope lies now with those in the street.

Liberals lack the vision and fortitude to challenge dominant free market ideologies. They have no ideological alternatives even as the Democratic Party openly betrays every principle the liberal class claims to espouse, from universal health care to an end to our permanent war economy to a demand for quality and affordable public education to a return of civil liberties to a demand for jobs and welfare of the working class. The corporate state forced the liberal class to join in the nation’s death march that began with the presidency of Ronald Reagan. Liberals such as Bill Clinton, for corporate money, accelerated the dismantling of our manufacturing base, the gutting of our regulatory agencies, the destruction of our social service programs and the empowerment of speculators who have trashed our economy. The liberal class, stripped of power, could only retreat into its atrophied institutions, where it busied itself with the boutique activism of political correctness and embraced positions it had previously condemned.

Russell Jacoby writes: “The left once dismissed the market as exploitative; it now honors the market as rational and humane. The left once disdained mass culture as exploitative; now it celebrates it as rebellious. The left once honored independent intellectuals as courageous; now it sneers at them as elitist. The left once rejected pluralism as superficial; now it worships it as profound. We are witnessing not simply a defeat of the left, but its conversion and perhaps inversion.”

Hope in this age of bankrupt capitalism comes with the return of the language of class conflict and rebellion, language that has been purged from the lexicon of the liberal class, language that defines this new movement. This does not mean we have to agree with Karl Marx, who advocated violence and whose worship of the state as a utopian mechanism led to another form of enslavement of the working class, but we have to learn again to speak in the vocabulary Marx employed. We have to grasp, as Marx and Adam Smith did, that corporations are not concerned with the common good. They exploit, pollute, impoverish, repress, kill and lie to make money. They throw poor families out of homes, let the uninsured die, wage useless wars to make profits, poison and pollute the ecosystem, slash social assistance programs, gut public education, trash the global economy, plunder the U.S. Treasury and crush all popular movements that seek justice for working men and women. They worship money and power. And, as Marx knew, unfettered capitalism is a revolutionary force that consumes greater and greater numbers of human lives until it finally consumes itself. The dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico is the perfect metaphor for the corporate state. It is part of the same nightmare experienced in postindustrial mill towns of New England and the abandoned steel mills of Ohio. It is a nightmare that Iraqis, Pakistanis and Afghans, living in terror and mourning their dead, endure daily.

What took place early Friday morning in Zuccotti Park was the first salvo in a long struggle for justice. It signaled a step backward by the corporate state in the face of popular pressure. And it was carried out by ordinary men and women who sleep at night on concrete, get soaked in rainstorms, eat donated food and have nothing as weapons but their dignity, resilience and courage. It is they, and they alone, who hold out the possibility of salvation. And if we join them we might have a chance.

 

Comments  

We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.

General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.

Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.

- The RSN Team

 
+70 # Barbara K 2011-10-17 08:31
I'm with you, America's future is fighting for us too. Thanks for all you are doing. Wishing we all had the health and means to join you, but you are in my heart and doing a great job. Keep up the good work.

NEVER VOTE REPUBLICAN
 
 
+9 # wantrealdemocracy 2011-10-17 19:11
Come on Barbara!! Never vote Republican? Like the Democrats are better? Wrong! they are the same. I suggest we NEVER VOTE FOR AN INCUMBENT. Kongress is Korrupt!! We need to Kick out the Korrupt. They may be D or R but they are corrupt! They vote for war after war. They vote to lower taxes on the rich. They vote to send our jobs overseas. They won't vote for Single Payer, Medicare for all. Scum!! Austerity they say? Pink slips I say. Get rid of the entire House and the Senate. Corrupt bastards in the pay of the corporations. Get rid of them!
 
 
-76 # Martintfre 2011-10-17 08:53
Because it stands for nothing, it will fall for anything.
 
 
+35 # J.Lindsley 2011-10-17 09:26
Quoting
Because it stands for nothing, it will fall for anything.


Reinform yourself, Sir!
FoxNews won't.
 
 
+21 # reiverpacific 2011-10-17 09:50
Quoting
Because it stands for nothing, it will fall for anything.

Again, please explain; I don't understand y'r post in any sense. We're not mind-readers y'know! Literacy is a good thing; please use it.
Ta' verra much.
 
 
+31 # LiberalLibertarian 2011-10-17 10:20
Martin,

It stands for more than you can comprehend. Sorry to be so blunt, I know it is rude; but that is really the clearest way I can describe the Occupy movement.

These are not people that are asking for a list of demands that once met they will disperse and go home. These people are the placeholders as America and the entire world reinvents itself. Over the next few weeks or months or years these groups will break camp and bring back to every city and town a different way to build our society, our civilization.

It is way bigger than you dare to think, but watch out because it does stand for a lot.
 
 
-24 # Martintfre 2011-10-17 12:41
So you can think for me can ya... no ya can't.

But if we are to re-engineer our society - what fundamental premise shall we do it on?

greed and envy - They have tooo much we hate them because of that.

shal our premise be of equal results?
No matter how hard some one works, at the end of the week they get paid the same as a total slacker.

Shal we hate corporations and demand that government (a corporation) and the political parties (yes corporations as well) do something about it?

Will we create a system opposed to (what we do not understand so we stupidly will throw away) real individual rights and replace them with phony collective rights that are purely political constructs?

what does this movement really stand for?

I am reminded of Al Caps Little Abner character the students with their SWINE signs Students Wildly Indigent about Nearly Everything.
 
 
+20 # Mtngrl 2011-10-17 15:59
Dear Martintfre,

Your either/or argument does not apply to what's going on, in the Occupy gatherings or in countless other experiments with real democracy.

I don't really think it's about hate. Most of the things I've seen have taken a "we're all in this together" approach. And we are.

I think the movement is about correcting the corporatist coup that has taken over government. It's realizing that we do not currently have a good and just society but believing that we can have that (liberty and justice for all, not just a few). People who don't have at least a modicum of economic security are not free. People who don't have time for civic engagement are not free. People who are constantly afraid are not free. People who are choking on carbon emissions or being poisoned by industrial waste or who can't afford medical care are not free.

Now I didn't say centrally-controlled command economy and I didn't say don't reward hard work and innovation and I didn't say abolish private property so you don't need to counter those things.
 
 
+5 # LiberalLibertarian 2011-10-18 03:56
Mtngrl,

Very well put. Hooray!
 
 
+12 # LiberalLibertarian 2011-10-17 10:21
Quoting
NEVER VOTE REPUBLICAN


Good advice
 
 
-18 # Martintfre 2011-10-17 13:00
If you are opposed to wars foreign and domestic then voting for Obama is wasted because you will reward him for lying to you about ending the foreign wars - he has gotten us into more, and rewarding him for upping the stakes on domestic wars - medical marijuana distributes in California are now under federal attack.

Register Republican for the primaries and vote for Ron Paul - the only way to teach the neoCons a lesson is to have their hand picked candidates defeated in their own primaries.
 
 
+4 # NanFan 2011-10-18 00:48
Quoting
Quoting
NEVER VOTE REPUBLICAN


Good advice


GREAT ADVICE!
 
 
+37 # raporeal 2011-10-17 09:05
Thank you Chris Hedges. You are profoundly accurate and sadly on target. Well said.
 
 
+6 # BillStrehlow 2011-10-17 09:26
Well, a lot is said here and it is a very good diagnosis...Some how a 'treatment plan'short and long term has to be stated and acted out that is beyond demonstration...and I do not know what that isl
 
 
+17 # Fair Elections Now 2011-10-17 10:19
It starts with getting the money out of politics as Dylan Ratigan's Get Money Out and Move to Amend are doing via a constitutional amendment. Until we do that, trying to do anything else is fruitless and temporary. Once we pass a constitutional amendment that makes clear that money is not speech and corporations are not persons, then and only then, will energy to arrive at the solutions everyone knows, but that are being blocked, can happen.
 
 
-2 # Martintfre 2011-10-17 12:09
It is not the money - it is the entrenched parties manipulating the government to protect their positions of power.

2006 Now US Senator Bob Casey (D-Pa) used tax payed staffers 5 weeks to scrub the green party candidate down to only 29 times as many signatures he needed before they Kicked the Green off the ballot and then fined him 0ver $80,000 for daring to run against him.

Casey (then state treasurer) swore an oath to uphold the state constitution that included article 1 section 5 that all elections shal be free and equal..
Yet 58,000 validated signatures was over ruled when Casey only needed 2,000.
Apparently some pigs are more equal then others.
 
 
+10 # Mtngrl 2011-10-17 16:00
And that is exactly the kind of thing the movement is objecting to. Hey, guess what? You are the 99%.
 
 
+8 # Fair Elections Now 2011-10-17 17:35
It's the money that enables the entrenched parties to pull this kind of thing.

I wonder if we need parties anymore with the Internet. In my state as many people have left both parties as are in either of them.

Government is us. If political parties no longer serve the common good, let's get rid of them.
 
 
+8 # ruttaro 2011-10-17 12:45
The Constitutional Amendment that makes all elections to public office publicly funded will change the entire paradigm. Imagine the kinds of people who would then run for office? It's not just a dream, either. I think many of the OWS activists would be front and center. And we should ponder this: it would be the second American Revolution overthrowing a tyrannical class, inventing a new America, a rejuvenated America, an American community. Those brave people in Zucotti Park are giving us a glimpse of what we can become, once again.
Let's demand without equivocation from every candidate who asks for our vote that the price is not cheap: they must support and work for this Constitutional Amendment or they can go shop elsewhere.
Hedges points to Reagan as the beginning of the American Corporatist takeover. Not a revolution but a coup. But as he also points out, the blame is equally shared by the liberals and the Democratic Party, once the Party of the People. It was they who could not, would not defend liberalism. Reagan made liberalism a bad word and the mouthpieces of the right on radio and elsewhere continue that tradition in an even more vicious, hateful method. Liberals ran from the word, saying "not me! not me! I'm a centrist". What does that mean except maybe soulless. OWS refuses to be labeled; they don't need to be. They are us. Let's make a new America.
 
 
+1 # PiscesCurveUS 2011-10-19 07:46
How do you think Washington handled this same objective (building legislation to keep big money out of politics) in the 1970s? Why do you believe they would do so much better at it (a sort of Stalin-esque objective) this time? I'm not saying that they wouldn't or that they are somehow incapable of building the perfect legislative-regulatory regime around themselves...
But why toss the O-word ("only") around so much? Surely there must be some other possible solution, apart from climate catastrophe or alien invasion.
On the topic of Const. Amendments- not an easy thing to do, as the ERA'ers found out- why not just simply make it expressly illegal, UNCONSTITUTIONA L, for our federal gov't to BORROW ANY funds, whatsoever? Would all cash, computer blips, and civilization as we know it all vanish overnight? No. The gov't would simply have to issue its own stash, in its own name, which it should have been doing all along. Nothing big would change except for NO MORE MIDDLEMEN, no more private leveraged LEINS on Politicians/ Political Parties, and thus a lot *less bullsh*t* in our society from that point onward.
It IS going to be that simple, as soon as we get past other distractions and realize what the primary source of the problem really is, and has been for a *very* long time.
If we are giants it is because we stand on the shoulders of great men who went before us
 
 
+4 # NOMINAE 2011-10-17 21:07
@ BillStrehlow

Fully agree, Bill, but as Hedges points out in his article, this movement, which has now gone world wide, is about forcing all of us to try to figure out what the "new world" must look like.

The people protesting have had their futures literally looted. Their backs are against the wall. They are *impelled* by a lack of any other viable choices to actually *invent* the new planetary systems themselves, with all the help they can get from the rest of us who are not fully invested in the status quo.

Thus, the world over, it is time to figure out the NEW economics. The NEW way of interacting with our fellow human beings. The NEW way of sharing the world we all own, including the clowns on Wall Street and their children.

It IS happening people, and we *will* get it RIGHT. If not, we are all doomed to be the last hominids left to "turn out the lights" on this human experiment on Planet Earth.

Our ecosystems - from the oceans to the land to the atmosphere - are being systematically destroyed for piles of filthy paper called money.

There will not be that many more chances to "get this RIGHT", before there is absolutely nothing LEFT.
 
 
+13 # JudyMichigan 2011-10-17 09:27
Liberal movement? I don't recognize my beliefs in your definition of liberal yet consider myself to be liberal. I don't think of Clinton or Obama as liberals but as right-of-center democrats. I can't go along with vilifying a whole movement by confounding it with a political party.
 
 
+6 # PGreen 2011-10-17 12:00
I believe that Hedges defines Liberals as the Establishment Left, those who are more concerned with maintaining the economic system than addressing its fundamental inequities. (Simply his terminology, I guess.) This view is practically epitomized by a recent piece written by Will Marshall, president of the Progressive Policy Institute, in The New Republic. ("Why occupy Wall Street Will Hurt Liberals") Such viewpoints attack activists fighting for real economic change (greater equality of wealth based on more equitable distribution) under the pretense of realistic reform, seeming to value political expediency over the problem itself. In actuality such viewpoints endorse distorted solutions for economic issues that fail to be effective in addressing the real nature of the problem, and sometimes make it worse. This is often deliberate. For this reason "Establishment Liberal" proposals should be viewed cautiously and only accepted conditionally, to the extent that they really address the problem-- not because they are liberal, but because they still support the establishment first and foremost.
 
 
+9 # Mtngrl 2011-10-17 16:08
I think you're right. In his book _Death of the Liberal Class_ Hedges outlines how true radicals in the U.S. were systematically marginalized and silenced, beginning in 1915. We don't have a viable left, though most other democracies do. As he says in this article, "liberal" institutions progressively sold out too. By the way, it's also possible to have distributive justice by inventing new ways of creating and controlling wealth (and by NOT privatizing things We the People paid to develop.) See Gar Alperovitz, _America Beyond Capitalism_. One great example is publicly-owned banks. North Dakota has one. More are coming online.
 
 
+15 # ritaague 2011-10-17 09:29
It was 2008, and as I listened to the language being used by the 1% in the UK (i.e. banks engaged to the quashing of the masses in 'risk management', etc.) it struck home how correct my dear, now departed Brit friend was re. international co-operation among the world's villainaires.

Sorry, Martinfre, wrong you are. Common sense driven folks internationally are standing up against the greed and power addiction that's overtaken us, internationally . Word of mouth works.
 
 
+6 # Capn Canard 2011-10-17 09:34
Hedges has it... but I would suggest that we need to recognize that it is ANARCHY in it's purest form. To make all administration of authority local and localized in order to maintain control over those who seek power. The simple things are needed to make sure all food is grown locally. To redistribute control, and create the means of production of necessities to local communities as well as to eradicate any dependence on foreign sources of resources and production. Ultimately, authority is the enemy.
 
 
+22 # cracker 2011-10-17 09:39
Powerful words that cause me to reflect on my own liberal values.

Power to the people!
 
 
+23 # DrAnne 2011-10-17 09:48
Bravo- Mr. Hedges - so poetically writtgrows
How does a "fellow traveler, with a job, a family, and a mortgage (at a small, local bank BTW), living in the rural West, support this movement?
Let's guarantee that it stays "too big to fail", and grows!
 
 
+9 # tedcloak 2011-10-17 10:03
Marx did not advocate violence. He thought it would be *necessary*. The Occupiers are doing a great job of testing that prediction. I hope they (and Hedges) are right and Marx was wrong.
 
 
-12 # Martintfre 2011-10-17 12:19
Marx did not advocate violence? Really..

Exactly how will the "Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels."

be achieved with out advocating violence?
 
 
0 # PiscesCurveUS 2011-10-19 08:37
Why don't ya'll give Martintfre a break? He has a clear, scholarly point here. At some point, any movement that catches the bus needs to realize that that the game has changed.
 
 
+4 # Anarchist 23 2011-10-19 17:12
Quoting
Marx did not advocate violence? Really..

Exactly how will the "Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels."

be achieved with out advocating violence?

Aristotle advocated slavery too, and nobody thought women or those of 'inferior' races had any brains either-but the culture honors Aristotle for what he was right about-Marx was right about capitalism's destructive side. "Take what you need and leave the rest" Get rid of trans-nationals-keep Mom & Pop businesses
 
 
+19 # Goddessvoice 2011-10-17 10:05
Thank you for an awesome article where you hit the nail on the head. For years I have said to my husband that we need to take to the streets in order to bring about change in our country. I was guilty of sitting on my butt and only complaining about what I didn't like. Now I have happily joined Occupy Seattle to stand up for my rights, my friends' rights, my family and all our brothers and sisters - the 99% of We The People. We have always held the power. Now we are owning our power to bring about the changes that are necessary and long overdue. America was meant to be a beacon of light and hope, where true democracy of the people, by the people and for the people was alive and real- True FREEDOM!! We the people are about to finally fulfill our destiny. When I demonstrate at Occupy Seattle I literally dance with my sign in hand "Join Us" for I see, feel, taste the true FREEDOM of our people that we have taken to the streets all over the world to co-create NOW. There's no going back. It has already changed. This is truly the Aquarian Age. This is a revolution of humanity. And I am so honored to be a part of this movement toward FREEDOM for all of our brothers and sisters on planet earth. That includes the 1% who are shackled by their greed and the karma they have created. They can still turn it around and join in their family to balance the scales. To peace, freedom for all!!
 
 
+8 # MainStreetMentor 2011-10-17 10:09
The Democratic Party, of which I am registered voter, has compromised itself into a state of impotent irrelevance. The massive protestor movement will impose the same irrelevancy onto the RepubTeacan Party.

There will be – even in the face of the opposition from both the Democrat and RepubTeacan parties – a forming of a “new” movement, which might become a political party sometime in the future, and – at least at its’ onset – deliver ONLY the views of the American middle-class. No corporate money. No corporate influences. No lobbyists, just people that represent the very core of Democracy. Evidently members of the formerly “Silent Majority” have found their voice – and their collective words are being heard, and echoed, around the world, in every major metropolis.

The necessary rigidity of political spines has been injected by these protestors onto center stage America – nay, the WORLD – and the statuesque-ness of them incubate and nurture truth and will help rekindle fires of justice.

The face of these protestors has a name, and that name is: FREEDOM’s RECKONING!
 
 
-11 # Martintfre 2011-10-17 12:23
"deliver ONLY the views of the American middle-class."

which views of the American middle class?

I am middle class and I do not think that any one else either as individuals or as a gang or as a government has a right to enslave me or any one else.

I want my property rights respected.
My life, the things that I have earned the things I can trade with others - My life My choices -- I do not want to make those decision for you and I don't want you making them for me
 
 
+4 # Anarchist 23 2011-10-19 17:14
Martinfre-but they are making decisions for you-taking your job security, your savings, your children's futures and throwing them down the maw of militarism, ecological disaster and financial robbery!
 
 
+13 # LiberalLibertarian 2011-10-17 10:10
We all knew that real change was bigger than anything a first term Senator could bring about. I knew and always knew it was over his head. I knew because it was over my head. We knew because while we all tried over and over to name the conerstone that we could use to build real change, we never could agree.

Real change is starting to come about. Chris Hedges is right when he names the park cleaning as a pivotal moment. The people are banding together to change the world. Right now, they know what it won't be. Right now, they don't know what it will be.

I really doubt that this would have occurred as such a massive groundswell if Obama was not elected. When the people woke up and realized that the change they voted for could not come from the President. Not anymore. The world is too different and it is mutating right in front of us.

I embrace this new world and look forward to what will come of it all. I also fear the backlash, and the risk to real change that entails.
 
 
+1 # AlWight 2011-10-17 10:16
Excellent observations, up to a point. But who will lead them out of the wilderness? Who will help them understand what they stand for, define specifically what changes are required? Who will take, and be given, the leadership? Who has the power to make the changes? In spite of the fact that liberal groups and movements have become ineffectual, it would be a mistake to relegate them to the trash bin. For the most part they are in agreement with the protestors.
 
 
+3 # NOMINAE 2011-10-17 21:33
@ AlWight - "... who will lead them out of the wilderness? Who will help them understand what they stand for ..... Who will take, and be given, the leadership?"

Good point from the perspective of the Old Dynamic. But, what if the time for "top-down" military-style hierarchical structure is over? Can we even imagine a group being motivated by group consensus, rather than led by the Alpha Dog(s) ? Certainly OWS can imagine such a system, they are presently *using* one.

If nothing else, simply consider the benefit of having no leader. Leaving no way to "chop the head off of the snake". In an Aikido Style construct, it is very difficult to "destroy" a shifting target. There is no way to focus on and eliminate the leader(s)
and thus eliminate the entire phenomenon.

These people the world over are going to be teaching the rest of us concepts that none of us (including the inventors themselves) have ever previously considered.

It remains accurate that "Necessity is the mother of invention", and it has never been MORE necessary to invent a new "everything" than it is now! A totally NEW dynamic.
 
 
+14 # futhark 2011-10-17 10:22
The Revolutionaries of the Eighteenth Century produced a document that no only justified disregard for authority not based on the common good, but promoted it as the obligation of all citizens.

We live in a Revolutionary society and should honor that heritage by demanding that social institutions serve the common good, not the plutocratic elite.
 
 
-15 # Martintfre 2011-10-17 12:27
Does this document respect the rights of the individual even in the face of the majority or is this document a slaves credo where some hope to force others to carry them to the promised land ...

to wit:
From each slave according to their ability,
To each master according to their need.
 
 
+9 # tedrey 2011-10-17 10:43
I am also strongly moved by the power of this statement, but I am bothered by one aspect of it. There are a huge number of people in this nation that consider themselves liberals. They call themselves liberals because of their goal, which are basically ours. If you tell them "We have the same goals as you, but think we not only have a better way of achieving them, but can achieve them altogether, rather than piecemeal," then many of them, (those who don't have establishment positions anyway,) will listen. But if, as Mr. Hedges does repeatedly, you call liberals stupid and naive, say that liberalism is blind and useless, say they can only creep into our movement as defeated and apologetic losers, you will risk turning away a huge portion of the very 99% you claim to represent. I am supporting OWS because it seems to me the best way of reaching those very liberal goals which, by the way, are those that the 99% share. I pushed within the system until it became clear that was useless, but have not ceased to work for those very same liberal goals.

To win, we need to convince not just radicals, but liberals, and yes, at last conservatives and even tea partiers that this is the just and successful path for us all.

Other than that, this is a powerful and convincing essay. Go for it.
 
 
+5 # xmascarol 2011-10-17 11:00
Mr. Hedges, you speak so eloquently for many of us who do not have the gift of words you have, but support your statements. Keep helping us with your pen! Thank you
 
 
+9 # brucezell 2011-10-17 11:07
The occupy movement should address the most significant thing that would change society for the better. That is ending america's longest war-the forty year war on american citizens-the Drug War. The benefits would be amazing! The Drug war has destroyed america's institutions, cities, families and our civil rights.
 
 
-9 # Martintfre 2011-10-17 12:43
If you want to end wars foreign and domestic then stop blindly supporting Obama, Re-register republican and vote for Ron Paul.

That will send a message to Obama to end the wars and it may send the NeoCOns packing like they deserve.
 
 
+8 # lcarrier 2011-10-17 19:33
Ron Paul would get us out of foreign wars and make war on our own citizenry in the name of "property rights" (and in the process, he would crush you like a bug.)
 
 
+8 # seeuingoa 2011-10-17 11:31
What about overloading the system by
having thousands and thousands arrested
and when they are free after a couple of hours/days repeat again and again.
Where will they put all these people?
Concentrationsc amps? Guantanamo?
 
 
+17 # DurangoKid 2011-10-17 11:34
Don't ever assume that the message coming from the corporate elites is devoid of political content or politically neutral. Their hidden message is always "don't oppose us." Now tell me that message isn't political! Part of the OWS strategy should be to always point out that what is taken for neutral or apolitical is always a pretense. WE HAVE A RIGHT TO BE POLITICAL! When we abandon that right, our message is lost and we fail. Telling the truth is political. Thinking clearly is political. Building community is political. Go out there and be POLITICAL!
 
 
+7 # cadan 2011-10-17 12:09
Well, i do hope the OWS is too big to fail, as it is almost certain to produce good output if it continues.

And Chris is right on about the failure and increasingly visible irrelevance of our liberal institutions.

But i would caution that the neocon warmongers are subtle, sophisticated, and creative, and highly treasure their crusade against Arabs and Muslims. They do not want their war machine unplugged.

They are not just typical short-sighted dictators or foolish plutocrats. For every move against the war there will be counter moves for it, and probably optimal in each case. They will use the media as cleverly as they can.

But i hope i'm just pessimistic, and that their grip can be loosened.
 
 
+8 # futhark 2011-10-17 15:54
I'm all for stopping the demonization of Muslims and bringing the military home from around the planet. However, once they have stopped killing people, they will need jobs, so just dismantling the war machine will not create instant Utopia. I'm still looking for a least a little fragment of the "peace dividend" that seemed to be in the offing 20 years ago when the Soviet Union collapsed. Remember, that was just about the time the Muslims stopped being the good guys and started being the boogie men. I think it likely that the war mongering plutocrats already have another group lined up waiting in the wings to menace our "freedom".

There is no lack of constructive work to be done in the USA, starting with rail transport infrastructure and truly sustainable energy. So let's stop flushing billions of $ down the Middle Eastern toilet and start getting something done for our own country.
 
 
+4 # NOMINAE 2011-10-17 21:38
"Know your enemy" is always sage advice.
 
 
+8 # pernsey 2011-10-17 12:41
OWS and we the people are to big to fail!!
 
 
-15 # Martintfre 2011-10-17 12:56
//We have to grasp, as Marx and Adam Smith did, that corporations are not concerned with the common good. They exploit, pollute, impoverish, repress, kill and lie to make money. They throw poor families out of homes,//

Why is it that those who love big brother government keep pointing their finger of blame falsely at some one other then government the only organization that has the legal power to kill, exploit, Mame, pollute, repress, evict ...

next I expect to see some stupidity like Corporations do bail outs when only collectivist government do bail outs.

- Larry the liquidator is the capitalist solution to stupid companies.
 
 
+14 # ruttaro 2011-10-17 15:47
Government is not an entity by itself. You might want to believe it is but anyone looking at government has to honestly ask "In whose name?" Governments are instruments of those who control it. When you say government has the legal power to kill, exploit, maim, pollute, etc. I think you need to rethink that statement. After all, the main polluters are corporations. Exploitation of labor, repression of the right to organize,--again, corporations and landed aristocracies. In other words, who has control of the government will use its legal authority to pursue their self-interests. The point that libertarians don't grasp is that the government we have is not an independent, self-interested agent institutionally constituted to exercise power in that pursuit. Government institutions can be occupied just as the OWS activists are sitting on real estate in Zucotti Park. Only our government institutions are occupied by plutocrats who use the revolving door to perpetuate their interests. In this case, Big Brother has siblings: the corporations and Wall Street Banks. Big Brother is the bully doing their bidding. His repression is theirs.
 
 
+6 # jon 2011-10-17 20:55
"Big Brother has siblings: the corporations and Wall Street Banks. Big Brother is the bully doing their bidding"

Exactly!
 
 
+5 # NOMINAE 2011-10-17 21:41
*POWERFULLY* stated ! Thank you so much !
 
 
+3 # PiscesCurveUS 2011-10-19 09:04
Governments, parties and politicians = de jure power
Paymasters, political mercenaries, and 'think tanks'= de facto power.

Its called "state capture" and it ain't pretty; though some folks have apparently been brought up to believe that such a state of affairs is natural and inevitable, apparently, they assume, in any society.

I think they are wrong- in both the normative and ontological sense- and that the USA was, truth be told, founded in order to prove such (typically unthinking) sentiments wrong.
 
 
+5 # lorenbliss 2011-10-17 14:07
With this paragraph and at long last, Mr. Hedges implicitly declares for democratic socialism:

“'Call it democracy, or call it democratic socialism,' King said, 'but there must be a better distribution of wealth within this country for all of God’s children.' On the eve of King’s murder he was preparing to organize a poor people’s march on Washington, D.C., designed to cause 'major, massive dislocations,' a nonviolent demand by the poor, including the white underclass, for a system of economic equality. It would be 43 years before his vision was realized by an eclectic group of protesters who gathered before the gates of Wall Street.”

But Mr. Hedges' notion the Occupation is “a movement too big to fail” makes me wonder if he is not part of the small but sometimes-influential readership of my blog, “Outside Agitator's Notebook.” As I wrote on 12 October, “...today's Occupation Movement may in truth be the rightful bearer of the title so arrogantly claimed by Wall Street: 'too big to fail,'” for which see http://lorenbliss-outsideagitatorsnotebook.blogspot.com/2011_10_09_archive.html .
 
 
+4 # gpwms 2011-10-17 15:16
Now THIS is speaking truth to power--the power of the people on the street!
 
 
+3 # Ken 2011-10-17 19:10
Occupy Wall Street is a great thing. It, or at least the unrest that animates it will not recede until the conditions that have created it change. We will not make meaningful progress on most of the most important issues of our time unless we can break corporate control of government. But this article is counterproducti ve and borders on the absurd. If we define as enemies everyone caught in the meshes of corporate power or deceived by the corporate ethic, and further alienate diverse groups who have tried to fight the corporate state in their own way, even if unsuccessfully thus far, we will only create enemies out of most potential allies. We will then become not the 99 percent, but perhaps the political two percent. We must work to change the system, not to experience the personal catharsis of trashing then relegating to the outer darkness everyone with whom we've ever disagreed or who fights less emotionally.
 
 
+6 # NOMINAE 2011-10-17 21:53
You make some very valid and well-thought-out points.

However, I do not read Hedges as "trashing" a group simply by pointing out how they are becoming increasingly irrelevant by "shooting themselves in the foot", and allowing the Corporations to "ride them out of town on a rail" . Hedges article is lengthy, but even in a re-read, I don't find "trashing" as much as I find clear-eyed, unflinching observation. A quite different thing.

I do fully agree, tho, with what I read in your comments indicating that *whatever* changes eventually transpire need to include *all* humans on the planet - not a "good guys v.s. bad guys" scenario. We are all riding the same balloon careening through space.
 
 
+6 # tweezergeezer 2011-10-17 19:23
Chris, yours is one of the most vital and inspiring voices of this movement. Every time I find myself starting to defer in some way to liberal appeals (which is a situation we have going on in occupy cleveland) I read something you've written, or watch one of your video interviews, and sanity returns. Thank you and please keep doing what you're doing.
 
 
+2 # Hardy 2011-10-18 07:39
If we get the money out of politics Walls Street can't buy our politicians.
 
 
+2 # Activista 2011-10-18 08:32
"We will either be plunged into neo-feudalism and environmental catastrophe or we will wrest power from corporate hands"
also think that two parties in power compete who will drop more bombs - do not care about people.
 
 
+6 # KwaiChang 2011-10-18 23:16
Thomas Jefferson said in 1802:
'I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around the banks will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.'
 
 
+1 # mainescorpio 2011-10-19 20:17
A brilliant piece from Chris. We got to get ready for a meaningful revolution working outside of our corrupt system. It is no any longer a right/left issue....it is an up and down issue...count me in...I have resigned from Move On and am a follower of Occupy Wall St. I see it as the only way....
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.