For those who have not yet read Chris Hedges' Death of the Liberal Class, his latest essay on truthdig, entitled A Movement Too Big to Fail, is must-reading.
Using the thesis from his book, namely that the members and institutions of the traditional liberal class: unions, political parties, academia, etc. long ago abandoned their function of opposing the rise of imbalance through the dominance of the power elite, Hedges asserts that the Occupy Movement will not be co-opted by those failed counter-balances.
Says Hedges:
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.
I especially like his reference to creating a real community and affirming our dignity, permitting us to become free and independent human beings. It is through the spreading realization of this strength as individuals opposing a system rigged in favour of the few that the many will grow and have a voice.
So despite Bob Rae stopping by at the St James encampment the other day, no doubt for political advantage, and despite unions beginning to show solidarity with the movement, they are not the important elements in this fight, having long ago sold out principle to become part of the power structure. It is the people themselves, you and I and all others who want to see change, that are the ones who matter in this movement.
Monday, October 17, 2011
Sunday, October 16, 2011
The Latest Threat To Financial Stability? Canadian Obstructionism
While we reflect on the concepts brought forth by the Occupy movement, namely that the many are ill-served by the control exerted by the few, we should also consider the role that our own government is playing in the world.
I have written extensively on the shame our government has brought to our name internationally by its unrepentant support of the export of asbestos to developing countries, going so far as to prevent it even being listed as a toxic substance under the Rotterdam Convention's Annex 111 classification.
Equally shameful is the obstructionist role Canada is playing at this weekend's pre-G20 meeting, when it tries to thwart a European proposal to add a minuscule tax on financial transactions that would yields billions in revenue to cash-strapped nations in Europe. In Canada, such a tax could generate more than $3.7 billion annually.
The proposal that our Finance Minister Jim Flaherty finds so threatening is as follows:
...a tiny tax of 0.1 per cent ($1 per $1,000) on transactions of stocks or bonds and only 0.001 per cent (1 cent per $1,000) on transactions of financial derivatives.
So a stock trade of $100,000 would cost an additional $100. Who is threatened by this?
And this isn't the first time the Harper government has worked against the interests of the majority. Prior to the 2010 Toronto G20 summit, he and his cabinet minister colleagues embarked on an international campaign to scuttle an IMF proposal for a levy on banks. As a result, the agreement by G20 leaders at the 2009 Pittsburgh summit to have the financial industry make a “fair and substantial contribution” for the costs of the crisis remains
unfulfilled.
Now what is it again that the Occupation movement has been saying about the 1%?
I have written extensively on the shame our government has brought to our name internationally by its unrepentant support of the export of asbestos to developing countries, going so far as to prevent it even being listed as a toxic substance under the Rotterdam Convention's Annex 111 classification.
Equally shameful is the obstructionist role Canada is playing at this weekend's pre-G20 meeting, when it tries to thwart a European proposal to add a minuscule tax on financial transactions that would yields billions in revenue to cash-strapped nations in Europe. In Canada, such a tax could generate more than $3.7 billion annually.
The proposal that our Finance Minister Jim Flaherty finds so threatening is as follows:
...a tiny tax of 0.1 per cent ($1 per $1,000) on transactions of stocks or bonds and only 0.001 per cent (1 cent per $1,000) on transactions of financial derivatives.
So a stock trade of $100,000 would cost an additional $100. Who is threatened by this?
And this isn't the first time the Harper government has worked against the interests of the majority. Prior to the 2010 Toronto G20 summit, he and his cabinet minister colleagues embarked on an international campaign to scuttle an IMF proposal for a levy on banks. As a result, the agreement by G20 leaders at the 2009 Pittsburgh summit to have the financial industry make a “fair and substantial contribution” for the costs of the crisis remains
unfulfilled.
Now what is it again that the Occupation movement has been saying about the 1%?
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.
Saturday, October 15, 2011
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:
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.
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.
Friday, October 14, 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)