John Steinbeck and the Occupy Wall Street Movement

In my days as a high school English teacher, one of my favourite books to teach was John Steinbeck's Grapes of Wrath, the story of dispossessed farmers who, due to drought and economic factors, are forced to leave their land behind and travel to California in the hope of starting a new life. That new life ultimately turns out to be one of terrible privation and exploitation as they seek work as migrant pickers, desperate to earn what little money they can to stave off complete starvation.

But beyond being a stinging indictment of an economic system that has stopped working for the people, the novel is ultimately a tale of strength and hope, informed as it is by the author's deep humanity and social conscience.

As I follow the Occupy Wall Street Movement, I find myself thinking of the things against which the movement is protesting, things that have, in fact, been part of the North American economic system for a very long time. But I also think of something else as well, a notion or concept that saves Steinbeck's novel from being a document in despair, a notion that I see very much alive in the people fuelling the Wall Street Movement.

First to the concept: Steinbeck believed in something called Manself which, while difficult to precisely define, is based on the notion that there is something within the human spirit, something we all share and are united by that propels us forward toward something beyond the status quo.

A quote from Chapter 14 (one of the intercalary chapters that breaks from the main narrative of the Joad family's struggles) of The Grapes of Wrath offers a useful demonstration:

For man, unlike any other thing organic or inorganic in the universe, grows beyond his work, walks up the stairs of his concepts, emerges ahead of his accomplishments. This you may say of man – when theories change and crash, when schools, philosophies, when narrow dark alleys of thought, national, religious, economic, grow and disintegrate, man reaches, stumbles forward, painfully, mistakenly sometimes. Having stepped forward, he may slip back, but only half a step, never the full step back.

This you may know when the bombs plummet out of the black planes on the market place, when prisoners are stuck like pigs, when the crushed bodies drain filthily in the dust. You may know it in this way. If the step were not being taken, if the stumbling-forward ache were not alive, the bombs would not fall, the throats would not be cut. Fear the time when the bombs stop falling while the bombers live- for every bomb is proof that the spirit has not died. And fear the time when the strikes stop while the great owners live – for every little beaten strike is proof that the step is being taken.

And this you can know- fear the time when Manself will not suffer and die for a concept, for this one quality is the foundation of Manself, and this one quality is man, distinctive in the universe.

The above have always been powerful words for me, as Steinbeck articulates the strength of humanity, the willingness to live and die by principles and beliefs that are a threat to the powers-that-be. He tells us to fear the time the bombers stop dropping the bombs not because he is extolling warfare, but because he sees the use of armed repression as a powerful example of how threatened by the innate strength of humanity are those those who would control us, dictate the terms of our existence, and consign us to lives of misery if they can benefit from that misery.

Essentially he is telling us that whether or not our fight against injustice, evil, and inequity is successful in the short-term isn't the ultimate consideration. Rather, it is the fact that there are those among us who will fight, even if the odds are against them, who will suffer, even die, because their cause is just, that is the reminder of what we are and what we can be. It is, in fact, a strong repudiation of those who would have us believe that we are simply consumers of their goods, voters for their party, fodder for their economic empires.

It is this spirit of Manself, this defiance, this resilience, this refusal to any longer passively submit to a fate determined by the corporate agenda, to in fact confront it and work to defeat it, that I see in the Occupy Wall Street Movement.

It is that thing the power elite, responsible for so much inequity, so much environmental destruction, so much suffering and despair, should be afraid of.

Occupy Toronto

Well, I had the opportunity to attend the Occupy Toronto march to St. James Park, and I was impressed by the age range of those in attendance, as well as the calm orderliness that prevailed. I really hope the movement, as it spreads throughout the world, will give people the voice, the knowledge and the strength needed to fight the gross imbalances that exist today, whether the issue be taxation, corporate dominance of government policy, environmental degradation, etc.

BTW, the media report that there were over three thousand in attendance.

I'll have more to say in future posts, but for now, a few photos:

CBC Apologizes Privately for O'Leary

The following has been reported in The Globe with regard to Kevin O'Leary's boorish and abusive recent interview with Chris Hedges:

CBC’s ombudsman says Kevin O’Leary’s heated remarks during an interview with author Chris Hedges violated the public broadcaster’s journalistic standards.

The watchdog says hundreds of complaints were filed after Mr. O’Leary called the Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist “a nutbar” during CBC News Network’s The Lang & O’Leary Exchange on Oct. 6. The remark came during a seven-minute segment about the Occupy Wall Street protests unfolding in the United States.

Unfortunately, like an embarrassed parent covering for an errant child, CBC News correctly issued a private apology to Mr. Hedges after the interview but should also have apologized on air.

A CBC spokesman was not immediately available Friday to say whether that recommendation would be implemented.

Unlike a responsible parent, however, in its on-going quivering deference to the right-wing forces it is constantly seeking to appease, there is no indication in the report that CBC will demand an apology from O'Leary, just as it gave him a free pass earlier when he used the racist term 'Indian giver'.

Until O'Leary is brought to his knees in a genuine apologize, anything the CBC does on this matter is, to me, a mere charade of integrity.

Pop Quiz: Can You Detect The Bias In This News Report?

Hint: it's from a Fox affiliate.

Funny, But True

Enjoy this satire that really isn't a satire about the 1%:

A Victory For The Occupy Wall Street Movement

With the world watching, and over 300,000 names on a petition to stop it, the planned 'cleanup' of Zuccotti Park, formerly called Liberty Plaza Park, has been halted. The cleanup, which had been ordered by Mayor Bloomberg and was to have involved the 'muscle' of the NYPD, was to have taken place at 7 this morning; In a a pretty transparent attempt to end the occupation, the protestors had been told that after the cleanup, they would not be allowed to bring back sleeping bags, tents, etc.

As reported by occupywallstreet.org, more than 3,000 people gathered at Liberty Plaza in the pre-dawn hours this morning to defend the peaceful Occupation near Wall Street. The crowd cheered at the news that multinational real estate firm Brookfield Properties will postpone its so-called “cleanup” of the park and that Mayor Bloomberg has told the NYPD to stand down on orders to remove protesters. On the eve of the October 15 global day of action against Wall Street greed, this development has emboldened the movement and sent a clear message that the power of the people has prevailed against Wall Street.

The world continues to watch.

What the Occupy Movement Means for Canada

There is a surprisingly good article (but only online, I think) in the Globe and Mail by an economist with the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, Armine Yalnizyan, who offers an interesting assessment of the Occupation Movement.

These are a few of the facts the article brings forth:

Raise the top tax rate by 3 per cent on those making over $250,000 -- a round number which marks the entry gate for the fabled 1 per cent - - and, at 32 per cent, you’d still pay less than the 33 per cent rate in the U.S. at that income level. It would raise about $2-billion, the federal share of, say, a national child-care program.

A 35 per cent tax bracket for Canadians whose income is higher than $750,000 -- the U.S. top rate, except there it’s applied on incomes above $373,650 -- would yield $1.2-billion. Over a decade, that could pay for the federal share of fixing drinking-water and waste-water infrastructure across Canada.

Realistically, however, such is not going to happen in the near future. As Yalnizan points out:

But governments are increasingly tangled up in elite interests. The latest example is Finance Minister Jim Flaherty‘s drive to marshall support to scuttle a proposed financial transactions tax, a mechanism that could help slow down the wild gyrations of the stock market we’ve witnessed of late. Flaherty and other G20 finance ministers will be meeting in Paris just as thousands of Canadians gather to Occupy Toronto on Bay Street. He will be protecting certain interests, just not those of the majority of Canadians.

And that will likely remain the status quo, unless and until enough of us join the movement to make both our voices, and our outrage, heard.