This is all repost folks. The article from alter.net is long, but clearly written and provides a great deal of context as to what OWS is and what it needs to do to continue its success. Do you want to actually understand some of what OWS? is about? Make the time and read this article. Take it away Dr.Chomsky.
|
It’s a little hard to give a Howard Zinn Memorial Lecture at an Occupy meeting. There are mixed feelings that go along with it. First of all, regret that Howard is not here to take part and invigorate it in his particular way, something that would have been the dream of his life, and secondly, excitement that the dream is actually being fulfilled. It’s a dream for which he laid a lot of the groundwork. It would have been the fulfillment of a dream for him to be here with you.
The Occupy movement really is an exciting development. In fact, it’s spectacular. It’s unprecedented; there’s never been anything like it that I can think of. If the bonds and associations that are being established at these remarkable events can be sustained through a long, hard period ahead — because victories don’t come quickly– this could turn out to be a very significant moment in American history.
The fact that the demonstrations are unprecedented is quite appropriate. It is an unprecedented era — not just this moment — but actually since the 1970s. The 1970s began a major turning point in American history. For centuries, since the country began, it had been a developing society with ups and downs. But the general progress was toward wealth and industrialization and development — even in dark and hope — there was a pretty constant expectation that it’s going to go on like this. That was true even in very dark times.
I’m just old enough to remember the Great Depression. After the first few years, by the mid-1930s, although the situation was objectively much harsher than it is today, the spirit was quite different. There was a sense that we’re going to get out of it, even among unemployed people. It’ll get better. There was a militant labor movement organizing, CIO was organizing. It was getting to the point of sit-down strikes, which are very frightening to the business world. You could see it in the business press at the time. A sit-down strike was just a step before taking over the factory and running it yourself. Also, the New Deal legislations were beginning to come under popular pressure. There was just a sense that somehow we’re going to get out of it.
It’s quite different now. Now there’s kind of a pervasive sense of hopeless, or, I think, despair. I think it’s quite new in American history and it has an objective basis. In the 1930s unemployed “working people” could anticipate realistically that the jobs are going to come back. If you’re a worker in manufacturing today — and the unemployment level in manufacturing today is approximately like the Depression — if current tendencies persist, then those jobs aren’t going to come back. The change took place in the ’70s. There are a lot of reasons for it. One of the underlying reasons, discussed mainly by economic historian Robert Bernard, who has done a lot of work on it, is a falling rate of profit. That, with other factors, led to major changes in the economy — a reversal of the 700 years of progress towards industrialization and development. We turned to a process of deindustrialization and de-development. Of course, manufacturing production continued, but overseas (it’s very profitable, but no good for the workforce). Along with that came a significant shift of the economy from productive enterprise, producing things people need, to financial manipulation. Financialization of the economy really took off at that time.
Before the ’70s, banks were banks. They did what banks are supposed to do in a capitalist economy: take unused funds, like, say, your bank account, and transfer them to some potentially useful purpose, like buying a home or sending your kid to college. There were no financial crises. It was a period of enormous growth; the largest period of growth in American history, or maybe in economic history. It was sustained growth in the ’50s and ’60s and it was egalitarian. So the lowest percentile did as well as the highest percentile. A lot of people moved into reasonable lifestyles — what’s called here “middle class” (working class is what it’s called in other countries).
It was real. The ’60s accelerated it. The activism of the ’60s, after a pretty dismal decade, really civilized the country in lots of ways that are permanent. They’re not changing. The ’70s came along and suddenly there’s sharp change to industrialization and the offshoring of production. The shifting to financial institutions, which grew enormously. Also in the ’50s and ’60s there was the development of what became several decades later the high-tech economy. Computers, Internet, the IT revolution was mostly developed in the ’50 and the ’60s, and substantially in the state sector. It took a couple of decades before it took off, but it was developed then.
The 1970s set off a kind of a vicious cycle that led to a concentration of wealth increasingly in the hands of the financial sector, which doesn’t benefit the economy. Concentration of wealth yields concentration of political power, which, in turn, arrives to legislation that increases and accelerates the cycle. The physical policies such as tax changes, rules of corporate governance, deregulation were essentially bipartisan. Alongside of this began a very sharp rise in the costs of elections, which drives the political parties even deeper than before into the pockets of the corporate sector.
A couple years later started a different process. The parties dissolved, essentially. It used to be if you were a person in Congress and hoped for a position of committee chair or a position of responsibility, you got it mainly through seniority and service. Within a couple of years, you started to have to put money into the party coffers in order to get ahead. That just drove the whole system even deeper into the pockets of the corporate sector and increasingly the financial sector–a tremendous concentration of wealth, mainly in the literally top 1/10th of 1 percent of the population.
Meanwhile, for the general population it began an open period of pretty much stagnation, or decline for the majority. People got by through pretty artificial means — like borrowing, so a lot of debt. Longer working hours for many. There was a period of stagnation and a higher concentration of wealth. The political system began to dissolve. There’s always been a gap between public policy and the public will, but it just grew kind of astronomically. You can see it right now, in fact.
Take a look at what’s happening right now. The big topic in Washington that everyone concentrates on is the deficit. For the public, correctly, the deficit is not much of an issue. The issue is joblessness, not a deficit. Now there’s a deficit commission but no joblessness commission. As far as the deficit is concerned, if you want to pay attention to it, the public has opinions. Take a look at the polls and the public overwhelmingly supports higher taxes on the wealthy, which have declined sharply during this stagnation period, this period of decline. The public wants higher taxes on the wealthy and to preserve the limited social benefits. The outcome of the deficit commission is probably going to be the opposite. Either they’ll reach an agreement, which will be the opposite of what the public wants, or else it will go into kind of an automatic procedure which is going to have those effects. Actually that’s something that’s going to happen very quickly. The deficit commission is going to come up with its decision in a couple of weeks. The Occupy movements could provide a mass base for trying to avert what amounts to a dagger in the heart of the country, and having negative effects.
Without going on with details, what’s being played out for the last 30 years is actually a kind of a nightmare that was anticipated by the classical economists. If you take an Adam Smith, and bother to read Wealth of Nations, you see that he considered the possibility that the merchants and manufacturers in England might decide to do their business abroad, invest abroad and import from abroad. He said they would profit but England would be harmed. He went on to say that the merchants and manufacturers would prefer to operate in their own country, what’s sometimes called a “home bias.” So, as if by an invisible hand, England would be saved the ravage of what’s called “neoliberal globalization.”
That’s a pretty hard passage to miss. In his classic Wealth of Nations, that’s the only occurrence of the phrase “invisible hand.” Maybe England would be saved from neoliberal globalization by an invisible hand. The other great classical economist David Ricardo recognized the same thing and hoped it wouldn’t happen. Kind of a sentimental hope. It didn’t happen for a long time, but it’s happening now. Over the last 30 years that’s exactly what’s underway. For the general population — the 99 percent in the imagery of the Occupy movement –it’s really harsh and it could get worse. This could be a period of irreversible decline. For the 1 percent, or furthermore 1/10th of 1 percent, it’s just fine. They’re at the top, richer and more powerful than ever in controlling the political system and disregarding the public, and if it can continue, then sure why not? This is just what Smith and Ricardo warned about.
So pick Citigroup, for decades one of the most corrupt of the major investment banking corporations. It was repeatedly bailed out by the taxpayer over and over again starting in the early Reagan years and now once again. I won’t run through all the corruption. You probably know it, and it’s astonishing. A couple of years ago they came out with a brochure for investors. They urged investors to put their money in what they call the “plutonomy index.” The world is dividing into a plutonomy, the rich and so on. That’s where the action is. They said their plutonomy index is way outperforming the stock market, so put your money into it. And as for the rest? We set them adrift. We don’t really care about them and we don’t need them. They have to be around to provide a powerful state to protect us and bail us out when we get into trouble, but they essentially have no function. It’s sometimes called these days the “precariat,” people who live a precarious existence at the periphery of society. It’s not the periphery anymore; it’s becoming a very substantial part of the society in the United States and indeed elsewhere.
This is considered a good thing. For example, when Alan Greenspan was still “St. Alan,” hailed by the economics profession as one of the greatest economists of all time (this is before the crash for which he is substantially responsible for), he was testifying to Congress in the Clinton years explaining the wonders of the great economy. He said much of this economy was based on what he called “growing worker insecurity.” If working people are insecure, if they’re “precariat” and living precarious existences, then they’re not going to make demands, they won’t make wages, they won’t get benefits and we can kick them out if we don’t like them, and that’s good for the health of the economy. That’s what’s called a healthy economy technically and he was highly praised for this.
Well, now the world is indeed splitting into a plutonomy and a precariat, again in the imagery of the Occupy movement, the 1 percent and the 99 percent. The plutonomy is where the action is. It could continue like this, and if it does, then this historic reversal that began in the 1970s could become irreversible. That’s where we’re heading. The Occupy movements are the first major popular reaction which could avert this. It’s going to be necessary to face the fact that it’s a long hard struggle. You don’t win victories tomorrow. You have to go on and form structures that will be sustained through hard times and can win major victories. There are a lot of things that can be done.
I mentioned before that in the 1930s one of the most effective actions was a sit-down strike. The reason was very simple: it’s just a step below a takeover of the industry. Through the ’70s, as the decline was setting in, there were some very important events that took place. One was in the late ’70s. In 1977, US Steel decided to close one of its major facilities, Youngstown, Ohio, and instead of just walking away, the workforce and the community decided to get together and buy it from US Steel and hand it over to the workforce to run and turn it into a worker-owned, worker-managed facility. They didn’t win, but with enough popular support they could have won. It was a partial victory because even though they lost it set off other efforts now throughout Ohio and other places.
There’s a scattering of hundreds, maybe thousands, of not-so-small worker owned or partially worker-owned industries which could become worker-managed. That’s the basis for a real revolution. That’s how it takes place. It’s happening here, too. In one of the suburbs of Boston something similar happened. A multi-national decided to shut down a productive, functioning and profitable manufacturing company because it was not profitable enough for them. The workforce and union offered to buy it and take it over and run it themselves, but the multi-national decided to close it down instead probably for reasons of class consciousness. I think they want things like this to happen. If there had been enough popular support, if there had been something like this movement that could have gotten involved, they might have succeeded.
There are other things going on like that. In fact, some of them were major. Not long ago, Obama took over the auto industry. It’s basically owned by the public. There were a number of things that could have been done. One was what was done. It could be reconstituted so it could be handed back to the ownership, or very similar ownership and continue on its traditional path. The other possibility was they could have handed it over to the workforce and turned it into worker-owned, worker-managed major industrial system that’s a major part of the economy and have it produce things that people need. And there’s a lot that we need. We all know or should know that the US is extremely backward globally in high-speed transportation. That’s very serious. It affects people’s lives and it affects the economy. It’s a very serious business.
I have a personal story. I happened to be giving talks in France a couple months ago and ended up in southern France and had to take a train from Avignon in southern France to the airport in Paris and it took two hours. That’s the same distance as Washington to Boston. It’s a scandal. It could be done; we have the capacity to do it, like a skilled workforce. It would have taken a little popular support. That could have been a major change in the economy. Just to make it more surreal, while this option was being avoided, the Obama administration was sending its transportation secretary to Spain to get contracts for developing high-speed rails for the United States. This could have been done right in the Rust Belt, which is being closed down. There’s no economic reason this can’t happen. These are class reasons and the lack of political mobilization.
There are very dangerous developments in the international arena, including two of them which are kind of a shadow that hangs over almost everything we discuss. There are, for the first time to human history, real threats to peace and survival of the species. One has been hanging around since 1945 and it’s kind of a miracle we’ve escaped it and that’s the threat of nuclear weapons. That’s a threat that’s being escalated by the administration and its allies. Something has to be done about that or we’re in real trouble. The other, of course, is environmental catastrophe. Every country in the world is taking at least halting steps toward trying to do something about it. The US is also taking steps, namely to accelerate the threat. The US is now the only country that’s not only not doing something constructive…it’s not climbing on the train. It’s pulling it backwards.
Congress is right now reversing legislation instituted by the Nixon administration. (Nixon was really the last liberal president of the United States, and literally, this shows you what’s been going on!) They’re dismantling the limited measures the Nixon administration took to try to do something about what’s a growing and emerging catastrophe. This is connected with a huge propaganda system, perfectly openly declared by the business world, that it’s all just a liberal hoax. Why pay attention to these scientists? We’re really regressing back to the Medieval period. It’s not a joke. If that’s happening to the most powerful and richest country in history then this crisis is not going to be averted and all of this we’re talking about won’t matter in a generation or two. All of that’s going on right now and something has to be done about it very soon and in a dedicated and sustained way. It’s not going to be easy to succeed. There are going to be barriers, hardships and failures along the way. Unless the process that’s taking place here and around the world, unless that continues to grow and kind of becomes a major social force in the world, the chances for a decent future are not very high.
Q&A
Q: What about corporate personhood and getting the money out of that stream of politics?
A: These are very good things to do, but you can’t do any of these things or anything else unless there’s a very large and active base. If the Occupy movement was the leading force in the country then you could move it forward. Most people don’t know that this is happening or they may know about it and not know what it is. Among those who do know, the polls show there’s a lot of support. But that assigns a task. It’s necessary to get out into the country and get people to understand what this is about and what they can do about and what the consequences are of not doing anything about it.
Corporate personhood is a good point, but pay attention to what it is. We’re supposed to worship the Constitution these days, but the 5th Amendment of the Constitution says no person shall be deprived of rights without due process of law. The founding fathers didn’t mean “person” when they said “person.” For example there were a lot of creatures of flesh and blood who were not persons. The entire indigenous population was not considered persons. They didn’t have any rights. There was a category of creatures called 3/5 human — they weren’t persons and didn’t have rights. Women were not entirely persons, so they didn’t have full rights. A lot of this was somewhat rectified over the years. During the Civil War, the 14th amendment raised the 3/5 to full humans at least in principle, but that was only in principle.
Now over the following years the concept of person was changed by the courts in two ways. One way was to broaden it to include corporations, legal fictions established by the courts and the state. These “persons” later became the management of corporations; the management of corporations became “persons.” Of course, that’s not what the 14th amendment says. It’s also narrowed to undocumented workers. They had to be excluded from the category of persons. That’s happening right now. So legislation like this goes two ways. They defined persons to include corporate persons, which by now have rights beyond human beings, given by the trade agreements and others. They exclude people who flee from Central America where the US devastated their homelands, flee from Mexico because they can’t compete with the US’s highly subsidized agro-business. When NAFTA was passed in 1994, the Clinton administration understood pretty well that it was going to devastate the Mexican economy, so they started militarizing the border. So we’re seeing the consequences. So these people have to be excluded from the category of persons.
So when you talk about personhood, that’s right, but there’s more than one aspect to it. It ought to be pushed forward and it ought to be understood, but that requires a mass base. It requires that the population understands this and is committed to it. It’s easy to think of a lot of things that should be done, but they all have a prerequisite – namely a mass popular base that’s there that’s committed to implementing them.
Q: What about the ruling class in America? How likely is it that they’ll have an open fascist system here?
A: I think it’s very unlikely frankly. They don’t have the force. About a century ago, in the freest countries in the world, Britain and the United Sates at the time, the dominant classes came to understand that they can’t control the population by force any longer. Too much freedom had been won by struggles like these, and they realized it. It’s discussed in their literature. They recognize that they’re going to have to shift their tactics to control of attitudes and beliefs instead of just the cudgel. It can’t do what it used to do. You have to control attitudes and beliefs. In fact that’s when the public relations industry began. It began in the United States and England. The free countries where you had to control beliefs and attitudes, to induce consumerism, to induce passivity, apathy and distraction. It’s a barrier, but it’s a lot easier to overcome than torture and the Gestapo. I don’t think the circumstances are any longer there to institute anything like what we call fascism.
Q: You mentioned earlier that sit-down protests are just a precursor to a takeover of industry. Would you advocate a general strike as a tactic moving forward? Would you ever if asked allow for your voice to relay the democratically chosen will of our nation?
A: You don’t want leaders; you want to do it yourself. We need representation and you should pick it yourselves. It should be recallable representation.
The question of a general strike is like the others. You can think of it as a possible idea at a time when the population is ready for it. We can’t sit here and declare a general strike, obviously. There has to be approval and a willingness to take the risks on the part of a large mass of the population. That takes organization, education and activism. Education doesn’t just mean telling people what to believe. It means learning yourself. There’s a Karl Marx quote: “The task is not just to understand the world but to change it.” There’s a variant of that which should be kept in mind, “If you want to change the world in a certain direction you better try to understand it first.”
Understanding it doesn’t mean listening to a talk or reading a book, though that is helpful. It comes through learning. Learning comes from participation. You learn from others. You learn from the people you’re trying to organize. You have to gain the experience and understanding which will make it possible to maybe implement ideas as a tactic. There’s a long way to go. This doesn’t happen by the flick of a wrist. It happens from a long, dedicated work. I think in many ways the most exciting aspect of the Occupy movements is just the construction of these associations and bonds that are taking place all over. Out of that if they can be sustained can come expansion to a large part of the population that doesn’t know what’s going on. If that can happen, then you can raise questions about tactics like this, which could very well at some point be appropriate.
22 comments
November 9, 2011 at 8:21 am
Vern R. Kaine
A little better than “Well, you see it’s the corporations in their corporation buildings being all corporationey…” isn’t it? I think this more gives reasons to the Occupiers rather than echoing them, and that the Tim Robbins South Park caricature is still more accurate to the movement’s true thinking, but OK, let’s assume that people who need “Rape Free Zones” think the same as an MIT Linguistics Professor for the moment.
Chomsky should stick to what he knows. I think he’s very intelligent in some ways, but way out of touch in others. For instance, I like what he points out about the “invisible Hand”, and I think from a philosophical perspective what he says about employee ownership is fine, His beliefs, however, about Clinton and the US-Mexican Border are downright leftie-loonie. Sure, Noam, it had everything to do with NAFTA and nothing to do with the drug crimes that were occurring then and have intensified substantially along the border cities since then. One can argue for (http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=2489) or against (http://carnegieendowment.org/2003/11/09/nafta-s-promise-and-reality-lessons-from-mexico-for-hemishphere/3ge) the net economic effects of NAFTA, but to say that Clinton militarized the border out of “fear” of it is ridiculous.
He later goes on to say “If you want to change the world in a certain direction you better try to understand it first.”, and that “Understanding it doesn’t mean listening to a talk or reading a book…It comes through learning. Learning comes from participation.”
The irony of an academic telling us to go out and “do” aside, I’ll simply ask here what Chomsky has actually “participated” in? And what a soft word to use, too – “Participation” rather than doing.. Participation is dabbling, like two years in the private sector before 30 years in the public sector. How much time of Chomsky’s has been actually spent owning a business, dealing with the economics or finances of one, or how about even working in one? By his comments, I’m guessing slim to none.
Let’s see how serious people are about this participation, learning, and understanding. A gentleman on my blog is an Occupier and has encouraged me to come down and see things for myself. Will do. By the same token, I encourage Occupy glorifiers to do the same in the spirit of understanding. Go to a small business conference, or a Chamber of Commerce event, or a tax rally. OWS is not the only place people associate where constructive bonds and understanding takes place.
Note, too, Chomsky’s reluctance to support a general strike. He’s far more in favor of “sit in’s” which are by definition PEACEFUL, and he also states that “tactics like this” are not appropriate right now until the movement reaches certain milestones.
Instead of us 53%ers learning a few things from Chomsky about OWS, perhaps OWS should learn a few things from Chomsky himself.
LikeLike
November 9, 2011 at 8:58 am
Vern R. Kaine
HAHAHAHA!!!!
http://www.mrctv.org/videos/south-park-mocks-occupiers
So much truth in comedy. ;)
LikeLike
November 9, 2011 at 10:22 am
renetascian
Chomsky may appear fatalistic in his perspective to a degree, but considering the time in our history he has seen that should be a cause for more concern, not less or a dissertation on how it is just over-exaggerated. For a person who has watched the deterioration and the contrast between two extremes I’d say that means his opinion had more weight than the arm chair economist by far. There are “arm chair” economists that have big names, but the reputable long time economist who have more experience on this issue are all saying the same thing. By the way, I consider the 53% thing a bucket of nonsense, because the issue isn’t about the rights of the tax payers but the fleecing of all Americans through tax which the wealthy have the power to dodge. It is true that OWS isn’t the only Union of the Minds out there in our culture.
But if you want to talk about small business, you’d also realize the model of high society big business as things are now is harmful to small businesses. Newer, smaller businesses can’t compete because the system has been hedged this way. Big Business has the power to bully the government and the economy into providing that which gives it its record profits while everyone else is in squalor. Clinton played a big role in this, though it was his intention to do the opposite, as well as Reagan, Bush X 2 because they are all responsible. I feel Chomsky has a reason to speak fatalistically about the state of our economy and of the fact that some of those in the upper 1% feel a “plutocracy” of those worthy enough to be wealthy is fair, mostly because they are so corrupted by the exorbitant cash flows that their mentality depends on them feeling that way. Giving any one group that much power is dangerous regardless of who holds that power. No man is incorruptible.
I feel making humor out of OWS while it can be humorous, can be an attempt to dodge the larger issue it represents. People aren’t their because they just wanted on the band wagon, they are there because they are all losing their livelihoods to the power of the ultra-wealthy, who unfortunately have had their way for far to long. The power of Wall Street has the power to corrupt legislation, and their greed will cost us all the shirts on our backs if we turn a blind eye. Competition is an illusion with a market like ours and the power of big business, and so long as they are given a free ride we’ll all suffer. I am not a conspiracy theorist so I generally look for evidence for such claims, but I can discern opinion from genuine cause for concern in what he is saying. Minimizing the OWS like movements displays an ignorance for how change occurs in society and the hows, whys, and natures of such movements that spring from such inequities. Every movement has it’s opinions, but most often organize only over immense, undeniable bodies of facts and evidence. When inequity infects peoples lives, they often have no choice but to act against it.
LikeLike
November 9, 2011 at 10:37 am
The Arbourist
Chomsky should stick to what he knows.
He knows about US politics and policies, most of what he says is backed by meticulous research.
The irony of an academic telling us to go out and “do” aside, I’ll simply ask here what Chomsky has actually “participated” in?
From a biographical article about NC. – “In the meantime Chomsky’s youthful political education had not stopped. When he started out at MIT, the Vietnam War was developing into its most ugly phases. Chomsky made a decision to become a political activist by engaging in dissent, and by organising opposition to the war. In 1967, together with a group of like-minded people, he founded RESIST, an organisation that called upon “all humankind of good will to join us in this confrontation with immoral authority”. RESIST and others organised various anti-war demonstrations, and in the same year Chomsky was arrested and thrown into jail, where he ended up with Norman Mailer as a cellmate. Undaunted by his time in jail, Chomsky continued to organise rallies and give talks. His notes for such speeches were published in 1969 as American Power and the New Mandarins, which remains a classic of political dissent. Chomsky also ended up on President Nixon’s infamous hit list of political enemies, but again it did not deter him from his path of speaking the truth. He visited Hanoi in 1970, but unlike Jane Fonda he never regretted his support for the North Vietnamese.”
In Turkey – A Turkish publisher accused of disseminating separatist propaganda was acquitted yesterday after one of his authors -the celebrated American linguist and philosopher Noam Chomsky – appeared in an Istanbul court and asked to be tried alongside him.
In a case highlighting the limited freedom of expression permitted in discussions about Turkey’s treatment of its Kurdish minority, the director of Aram Publishing, Fatih Tas, escaped the one-year jail sentence he had been anticipating.
“The prosecutor clearly made the right decision,” said Professor Chomsky, who had petitioned to be named as a co-defendant. “I hope it will be a step toward establishing the freedom of speech in Turkey that we all want to see. I am here to express support for the writers, journalists and human rights activists who are willing to take serious risks.”
How much time of Chomsky’s has been actually spent owning a business, dealing with the economics or finances of one, or how about even working in one? By his comments, I’m guessing slim to none.
How much time have you spent studying foreign affairs, or the political system of the US, or how mass media? How much time have you spent carefully researching your thoughts and backing up with fact? Apparently not very much, and therefore you and your opinion don’t matter.
How much time of Chomsky’s has been actually spent owning a business…
Is irrelevant to what he says because factually, if it is correct, then it is correct. Just like everyone else. Slighting people because of “lack of business experience” is sophistry and smacks of the elitism (you can throw arguments from authority in here too) that you accuse ‘lefties’ of and rally so hard against in many of your comments.
LikeLike
November 9, 2011 at 5:36 pm
Occupy Wall Street
[…] Occupy Wall Street is quickly becoming a world-wide movement to bring down the current system. The list of demands is evolving into something that hopefully will be for the better good of the majority of us humans. Here you will find images that are representative of the Occupy Wall Street (OWS) global movement. In addition you can check out this related post: http://orgtheory.wordpress.com/2011/10/02/occupy-wall-street/ Also you can check out this related blog post: http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2011/10/11/occupy-wall-street-as-a-fight-for-real-democracy/ Further you can see this related post: http://rartee.wordpress.com/2011/10/11/2-young-tea-partiers-infiltrate-the-ows-squatters/ Additionally you can look at this related post: http://skydancingblog.com/2011/10/13/an-open-letter-to-occupywallstreet/ Additionally you can check out this related post: http://ukiahcommunityblog.wordpress.com/2011/10/18/occupy-wall-street-spreads-worldwide-%E2%80%94-50-photos/ On the same topic: https://deadwildroses.wordpress.com/2011/11/09/noam-chomsky-on-ows/ […]
LikeLike
November 10, 2011 at 5:58 pm
Vern R. Kaine
“How much time have you spent studying foreign affairs, or the political system of the US, or how mass media? How much time have you spent carefully researching your thoughts and backing up with fact? Apparently not very much, and therefore you and your opinion don’t matter.
Nice, Arb. How does that global belief work with your beloved poor people? A poor person with no education somehow has no real knowledge or understanding of their situation until you’ve had a chance to read someone’s else’s opinion and offer it to them? You don’t have to get into the trenches to FULLY understand someone’s situation because their life can be summed up in a few pages? Like in the movie Good Will Hunting, do you sit there and act like you know all about orphans because you’ve read Oliver Twist?
Here’s the irony of all this: you can criticize me for criticizing Occupy and in the meantime read all the papers and blogs you want on income disparity, racism, defense, or poverty – all the things Occupy is protesting – and yet at the end of the day I’m the one that actually does more for them than you do.
What can elite leftists offer these guys beyond some signatures on a page or a few words of support? What you guys offer has next to zero practical application in the real world. A generation away, perhaps a bit more, but now? Practically zero.
The work that we do, on the other hand, is almost entirely about practical application as our goal is to achieve immediate, tangible results in their job, income, and life situation right away. Unlike academia, our goal isn’t just to produce good feelings. My job immediately raises incomes and improves working conditions therefore I’d say that I do more to actually support the 99% than you do, or perhaps have ever done. ;)
Back to your question, though: how many topics have I researched, books have I read, or blogs have I reviewed to qualify me to talk on the Occupy issue? Enough to have a perspective which not only drives action, but produces immediate results in the financial and social conditions of the individuals I work with. From that experience and perspective, I see many of the Occupiers seeking to achieve an end through means that I consider to be not only futile, but ultimately counterproductive both in the physical damage caused and the entitlement mindset being perpetuated.
How about you? How many individuals’ financial situations have you improved with all those Chomsky papers you’ve read? One doesn’t need a MIT doctorate to know the answer to that is ZERO, You relate to Occupy’s “feelings”, sure, but beyond that where do you actually share in their predicament? Did your job go overseas? Is your mortgage upside down? Did a Canadian bank or the TSX wipe out your savings? More to the point, do you have a solution that you’ve personally seen implemented that could improve the situation of people in Occupy’s circumstances, or does “solution” here simply end after you’ve regurgitated someone else’s left-wing opinion that makes you feel like you’re actually productive?
You have zero experience in either suggesting or creating solutions for their predicament that would improve their situations on the ground and yet this somehow makes you more qualified to offer an opinion on what the solution should be. OK. Needless to say I think it will be that same attitude that turns the real 99% against you now, and even without that support, will cause Occupy to collapse under the weight of its own arrogance anyways. (Pick a charity and let’s bet?. :))
So in my opinion, what qualifies me? Experience and results, same as what in my opinion would qualify your opinion on education regardless of how few or how many papers you find that agree with your methods in the classroom.
Of course, I understand why you’re going to discount perspective (through experience) and results – you’re in a profession that is afraid of both. ;) The real world, however, places a pretty high value on it which is exactly why the academic profession is one of the worst paid. Maybe if you were more open to the two and not so hung up on the third, your paycheck would improve. ;) I’m sure at least your degree of happiness would.
LikeLike
November 10, 2011 at 6:09 pm
Vern R. Kaine
I feel making humor out of OWS while it can be humorous, can be an attempt to dodge the larger issue it represents. People aren’t their because they just wanted on the band wagon, they are there because they are all losing their livelihoods to the power of the ultra-wealthy, who unfortunately have had their way for far to long.”
Couldn’t the same be said about the Tea Party and what they represented? Regardless, I know for me, I’m not dodging the issue Occupy represents. Personally, even as I see Occupy grow more and more organized my humor/ridicule remains fixated on the bad elements that doing bad in Occupy’s name, and the things these thugs are doing, I don’t think should be overlooked, even if it’s only coming from a small few within. They shouldn’t be allowed to hide behind the rest of OWS, so I’m “maintaining awareness” if you will. ;)
That said, you have my word that while I may continue to disagree with the movement’s proposed solution(s), the ridicule will end once Occupy’s shown us (the 53%) that they can actually lead the people to a better economy or, perhaps, a better way of life, starting with getting the thug mentality out of protesting. I reject the argument that thuggery is somehow a cost of doing business where protests are concerned. There were fights within Tea Party’s protests but nothing like we’re seeing, even when the press was egging them on. Regardless, though, I see the removal of this element as the true litmus test of leadership within an organization, and I have and will judge any organization (party, company, army, family, association, whatever) in the same way.
LikeLike
November 10, 2011 at 9:18 pm
Reneta Scian
Oh I definitely agree. But mob mentality is mob mentality. We already have a thorough amount of research about the shenanigans people in large groups get up to. It happens in every movement. I doubt you take for granted the 99% or that your humor about the movement is redirection, but it can be for some which I advise caution with. Humor can either point out truth, or belie the nature of what it belittles. Americans, though, seriously need a wake up call. It’s isn’t the responsibility of government to solve all our ails, nor would you want a government who felt it was.
But, fundamentally as a culture, there is more that needs to be done to make it the well oiled machine it could be. I’d never dismiss that, nor would I condone the deplorable behavior of anyone doing anything for the sake of anything else, especially being an atheist. As a culture we do a fine job of fucking ourselves in the faces with counter productive behavior, everything from consumerism, to sexualizing women in the media. Additionally, if we are going to get around a lot of these hurtles all of us need to rethink, and reevaluate what we invest in as Americans, mostly ideologically.
Our prison system is hosed, our legal standards are in need of revising, our consumerism is out of control, entitlement culture is wreaking havoc, and we discriminate against each other in the most pervasive ways as to cause disorder, chaos, and add further dissent to an already crumbling system. Our society needs to take responsibility and clean itself up, or it will surely fall. Fixing the economy will not magically fix the world, but it will go a long way towards stabilizing it. We need sound reasonable people in office, and big business out of politics or greatly reduced.
So I agree, there is more to the issue than just the 1% the taxation and OWS to include: cleaning up corruption, fixing social programs, adjusting taxation, reducing the deficit, paying debts, and change the cultural core of American thought to something more ‘sustainable ‘ in the long run. I also pay taxes and have a vested interest and seeing to it being done fairly. Helping people to their feet is one step, but they most be willing to walk on their own once standing.
LikeLike
November 10, 2011 at 10:28 pm
The Arbourist
“How much time have you spent studying foreign affairs, or the political system of the US, or how mass media? How much time have you spent carefully researching your thoughts and backing up with fact? Apparently not very much, and therefore you and your opinion don’t matter.
Nice, Arb. How does that global belief work with your beloved poor people? A poor person with no education somehow has no real knowledge or understanding of their situation until you’ve had a chance to read someone’s else’s opinion and offer it to them? You don’t have to get into the trenches to FULLY understand someone’s situation because their life can be summed up in a few pages? Like in the movie Good Will Hunting, do you sit there and act like you know all about orphans because you’ve read Oliver Twist?‘
That sentence was directed at the idea that somehow Noam Chomsky and his works are not serious and do not really matter since he lacks business experience. But just hold on, I’ll get the quotes so we can keep the context.
VRK: Chomsky should stick to what he knows.
VRK: The irony of an academic telling us to go out and “do” aside, I’ll simply ask here what Chomsky has actually “participated” in?
VRK:How much time of Chomsky’s has been actually spent owning a business, dealing with the economics or finances of one, or how about even working in one? By his comments, I’m guessing slim to none.
So what you’re saying here that the litmus test of being able to be taken seriously is running a business. That standard is not the only valid methodology of determining what is a good/bad point of view. It cannot be. Chomsky, as pointed out by the references, has put his freedom on the line for his principles several times, for the betterment of human the human condition. His writings and opinion is at least worth as much as *any* business source you can name, and really if you cannot see that or possibly relate to that, then well, this is going to be one of those cases where we agree to disagree.
What can elite leftists offer these guys beyond some signatures on a page or a few words of support?
Indeed, what are a few words on a page worth anyways?
My job immediately raises incomes and improves working conditions therefore I’d say that I do more to actually support the 99% than you do, or perhaps have ever done. ;)
I guess the worth of educating children to become relatively well-adjusted members of society has gone down recently, I wasn’t told. More importantly why are we comparing jobs? Shall we compare the cars we drive and the company we keep next?
I consider to be not only futile, but ultimately counterproductive
Considering that you benefit from and ultimately get ahead in the current system I find it unsurprising that you find the OWS counterproductive. Just like the newspapers of record were trashing Martin Luther King when he was fomenting dissent in the 60’s. How could defenders of the established order not rail against his political views? When radical idea’s present themselves mainstream opinion is going to be dead set against it, change is always opposed by conservative and reactionary forces withing society, it is how the paradigm works.
How about you? How many individuals’ financial situations have you improved with all those Chomsky papers you’ve read? One doesn’t need a MIT doctorate to know the answer to that is ZERO,
Your knowledge of my discourse is impressive. What’s my favorite colour? How about my favorite food? How the heck could you know with the certainty you project the effect my ideological views have on those around me? Consider the above statement filed under baseless assumption.
“solution” here simply end after you’ve regurgitated someone else’s left-wing opinion that makes you feel like you’re actually productive?
I’m starting to get the theme behind what you’re saying here Vern. Your view is better, no matter what fact and reasonable opinion says and people that disagree with that base assumption are just wrong. I’ll just check the next quote to see if I’m onto something here….
The real world, however, places a pretty high value on it which is exactly why the academic profession is one of the worst paid.
Ah yes…you are saying that. Fantastic. Because only highly paid positions help society and therefore are ‘worthy’ and thus by extension what I do is unworthy of societies recognition/reward. A touch on the insulting side no?
Business and the economy are but one part of a society, they are not the most important part yet have been treated as such for way too long. The system needs to be rebalanced and rejigged, if OWS is the first wobbly step, or even if it is just s Sisyphusian task that is doomed to fail, so be it, hopefully the next wave of protest will be able to start a little farther ahead and in a better position to push society in the correct direction.
LikeLike
November 11, 2011 at 8:58 am
The Arbourist
More perspective on my claim of “How could defenders of the established order not rail against his political views? When radical idea’s present themselves mainstream opinion is going to be dead set against it, change is always opposed by conservative and reactionary forces withing society, it is how the paradigm works”
17:30 and
45:00 for relevant highlights.
LikeLike
November 13, 2011 at 8:31 am
Vern R. Kaine
Arb,
If I misread your comment and “you and your opinions don’t matter” wasn’t directed at me personally, then I apologize for the misinterpretation. My volleys back at you were in that context, and my point was that regardless of what any research papers anyone has read, I believe their observations and opinions “on the ground” have relevance to any discussion and therefore matter.
I do believe that if the world were run by the same people who run our educational institutions it would be run into the ground because often lives can’t wait until a position paper is written – we need to act. On the other hand, we’re also supposed to “look before we leap” and academia provides us with the best opportunity to do so. I believe without that check and balance, we’d perish as well.
Re: professions and results, yes, education of children is important however your institution or profession is not the only way it occurs. I’ll say as well, though, that I’m just as critical of people in my profession who reject academia as I am of academics who reject anything but.
To elaborate, I work at length with 3 universities to provide education (+ training) that is balanced between theory and the practical in my field. It’s something which works very well and leads not only to results, but results which can be duplicated and improved upon. For that benefit, I believe academia has to be involved but to make the statement that no opinion but academia’s matters? I can give you dozens of situations where people have done just fine without it and with that I pose the question: how do academics’ views ever get changed? By the people that “do”, challenging those views on the ground with actions and results that offer academia a different perspective on reality.
As this economy shows, academic knowledge may be a criteria for enlightenment, but it is hardly a condition of success so suffice it to say that academia doesn’t have all the answers and they’re not always the smartest people in the room. My personal preference is for a balance of both, but when challenged I’ll take those that do over those that talk any day.
“The system needs to be rebalanced and rejigged, if OWS is the first wobbly step, or even if it is just s Sisyphusian task that is doomed to fail, so be it”
You might find this surprising, but I actually don’t think OWS can fail. This is a characteristic of us 53%ers that I’ll talk more about on my blog at length.
Yes, I’m critical of OWS’s choice of damage control vs damage prevention and its subjective as to whether or not one considers its achievements significant or not, but I actually don’t have an issue at all with the movement existing. In fact, I’ve often hoped aloud that it would become stronger (in non-violent ways).
As for the system being rebalanced, here’s where my criticism is directed: the overarching reason I believe OWS to be counterproductive at this point is not because they say they have little to no control over the future and that the system has to be “rejigged” to change that. Instead it is because I believe what the people of OWS are doing sets themselves up to have little to no control over their lives in the future, either. I know there’s more to their message (such as people like Matt Taibbi’s describe), but in terms of change, this is why I challenge it’s effectiveness.
“Considering that you benefit from and ultimately get ahead in the current system I find it unsurprising that you find the OWS counterproductive.”
Fine, but you seem to settle on my answer without considering how in fact I get there. I’d invite you to perhaps forget the fact that I get ahead in this system and instead look at how and why it actually occurs. There are many like me (53%) who have started where many OWS people seem to be now (or further back), and they have still persevered in spite of the economic, financial, or social hardships put in front of them. That gets rejected by people as “luck”, “selfishness”, or by people like Maher as even “stupidity” – saying that it’s simply a case of us drinking the Republican kool-aid or some oversubscription to the Protestant Work Ethic.
This is where I think you and I have our disconnect on this issue. I get the impression that until someone writes a paper on the nuts and bolts of how the 53% get ahead, a valid or worthwhile explanation of it simply doesn’t exist to you. It seems like based upon your beliefs that there’s no possible way a solution to some of the OWS peoples’ plight can come from someone like me yet as I was trying to point out in my other comments, others have pulled themselves from the ashes successfully without a Chomsky paper or viewpoint (for instance), in hand.
“Indeed, what are a few words on a page worth anyways?”
Haha! Not really my point but “touche” nonetheless. :)
“Because only highly paid positions help society and therefore are ‘worthy’ and thus by extension what I do is unworthy of societies recognition/reward. A touch on the insulting side no?”
Sure, but done so simply to counterbalance the insult that was directed at me prior. With that, however, i confess to being a little disingenuous as well. For one, there are professions that I believe are extremely overpaid (such as my own, truthfully), and for another, if I really believed that academia had no value then I wouldn’t rely on it so much for my field or be in that profession working with or alongside academics myself.
Either way, the point my insult was wrapped around was simply that if people pay well for what seemed by you to be baseless, superficial, and therefore “irrelevant” solutions or opinions, perhaps there was actually value in them to achieve results that you failed to recognize or perhaps were too quick to dismiss as impossible to come from those of us that exist happily, successfully, and ethically in the 53% who don’t have academia’s stamp of approval.
LikeLike
November 13, 2011 at 8:45 am
Vern R. Kaine
I referred to it in a reply to Arb’s comments, but I read an article by Matt Taibbi where I think he did an excellent job of describing what the Occupy movement really is about – at least right now. I don’t have the link handy at the moment but I know you can find it on Ben Hoffman’s blog.
Taibbi touches on the things you mention about society and how people are really just saying, “F–k this!” I don’t disagree that we have our problems. Occupy not getting a handle on the violence being carried out in its name, however, risks the baby being thrown out with the bathwater, so to speak.
I like the fact that people are taking action, no matter how I may be critical of that action from my “this is how you take action properly to achieve efficient results in my profession” perch. When people’s “should’s” become “musts”, then change happens either personally, or as a society. Not just change, but perhaps more importantly growth as well.
You say, “Helping people to their feet is one step, but they must be willing to walk on their own once standing.” I agree. With OWS, however, I wonder if what they’re protesting for is really the ability to walk on their own, or instead to be carried a lot of the way by government. I guess the answer to that remains to be seen. If it were up to me, the Occupy protest would be first and foremost around health care (perhaps it’s the Canadian in me?) and then from there go after reforming all the other systems. With the financial crash, there was enough fair warning out there; most of us just weren’t listening. With our health, however, there basically is none and I think we (America) needs to revisit that topic first before any others.
LikeLike
November 13, 2011 at 10:56 am
The Arbourist
f it were up to me, the Occupy protest would be first and foremost around health care (perhaps it’s the Canadian in me?) and then from there go after reforming all the other systems. With the financial crash, there was enough fair warning out there; most of us just weren’t listening. With our health, however, there basically is none and I think we (America) needs to revisit that topic first before any others.
There you go again sounding all reasonable again. Do Sun Tzu’s observations guide your comments here? :)
LikeLike
November 13, 2011 at 11:05 am
The Arbourist
If I misread your comment and “you and your opinions don’t matter” wasn’t directed at me personally, then I apologize for the misinterpretation. My volleys back at you were in that context,
Ah, this is important, as I was making the comment with reference to the light treatment you sometimes offer toward academia and academics. Skepticism is always a good thing, but being overtly cynical toward source X because he’s Y can be very problematic. (The context of the example would be the dismissal of Chomsky’s views on the basis of ‘he has not owned a business = I agree that practical experience is very important, but it cannot be the only descriptor used to judge the value of argumentation.)
LikeLike
November 13, 2011 at 11:12 am
The Arbourist
s this economy shows, academic knowledge may be a criteria for enlightenment, but it is hardly a condition of success so suffice it to say that academia doesn’t have all the answers and they’re not always the smartest people in the room. My personal preference is for a balance of both, but when challenged I’ll take those that do over those that talk any day.
Agreed. Also, being smart/knowledgeable is not a good guarantor of success anyways consider – our predictably irrational behaviour. (overview from Wikipedia, I’m currently reading this, and its been fantastic so far.)
LikeLike
November 13, 2011 at 11:39 am
The Arbourist
You might find this surprising, but I actually don’t think OWS can fail. This is a characteristic of us 53%ers that I’ll talk more about on my blog at length.
Well, we do have a different view here.
I believe that the forces aligning against the OWS movement are very strong and inhabit the current system. Like patriarchy and racism, the implicit defenders of the current system have a huge advantage, the current economic state is considered to be the status quo. When OWS started, I do not think they realized that engaging the implicit assumptions of society is a herculean task. It requires revolutionary dedication to see it through.
The above is a tough statement to adhere to. Entrenched interests have investing much in the current system, change is not on their agenda.
Consider the Spanish Civil War, and the way a revolutionary government was run out power with the acquiescence of the major western powers of the time. Which was worse? – A fascist government allied to Germany or a government ran by the people for the benefit of the people… We chose the former, and that choice has been repeated throughout history, hence OWS has many dangerous parties allied against it.
I do not know if they understand the historical scope of what they are trying to do but it would be unwise of them to ignore history of peoples movements and the reaction of the entrenched elite.
LikeLike
November 13, 2011 at 11:46 am
The Arbourist
I’d invite you to perhaps forget the fact that I get ahead in this system and instead look at how and why it actually occurs. There are many like me (53%) who have started where many OWS people seem to be now (or further back), and they have still persevered in spite of the economic, financial, or social hardships put in front of them. That gets rejected by people as “luck”, “selfishness”, or by people like Maher as even “stupidity” – saying that it’s simply a case of us drinking the Republican kool-aid or some oversubscription to the Protestant Work Ethic.
The “why” of how people get ahead is a complex one, I suggest that the video posted on the blog and the comments plays a significant part as to why success is achieved for some, and not for others.
It is long, but I would highly recommend watching it. I think it will become a resource I use in the classroom because Wise’s message is so clear and concise (with funny bits too).
LikeLike
November 13, 2011 at 12:21 pm
The Arbourist
This is where I think you and I have our disconnect on this issue. I get the impression that until someone writes a paper on the nuts and bolts of how the 53% get ahead, a valid or worthwhile explanation of it simply doesn’t exist to you.
I have a healthy skepticism of expert opinion, precisely because experts within the system have a vested interest in keeping things happy and pleasant for themselves, that of course involves perpetuating the system.
It is the reason I endorse what Chomsky (Zinn, Ehrenreich, N.Klein, McQuaig etc.) says on many issues because the views he often puts forth seem so completely off the wall. The amount of cognitive dissonance I experienced while reading Manufacturing Consent often left me with a headache, as I tried to reconcile the notions I’d been raised on, with the narrative presented in the book.
How could Chomsky be right? I called BS on much of what he said, but then I followed his references and citations…poked around the internets and much to my displeasure found out that much of what Chomsky postulates is true and has a logical basis for being true. It sucks because knowing how things actually work and how shitty the system actually is puts you on the outside of most debates because when you critique the defenders of the system and the status quo, they already have a pre-made set of responses that adequately answer critiques, but only if you accept the system and their beliefs as valid. Often, criticism falls on deaf ears, as dissenting points of view are marginalized and ignored because from within the reality of the dominant system, said critiques appear to be nonsensical.
That all being said Vern, it is not that I don’t believe that worthwhile knowledge is available outside of academia, because certainly it is, it is just that verifying, judging and critiquing it is much more difficult to do independently if you work with the proviso that ‘expert opinion’ from any source should not be trusted.
It seems like based upon your beliefs that there’s no possible way a solution to some of the OWS peoples’ plight can come from someone like me yet as I was trying to point out in my other comments, others have pulled themselves from the ashes successfully without a Chomsky paper or viewpoint (for instance), in hand.
You are absolutely correct . Solutions do lie in many realms, the problem is that sometimes those solutions are hard to pin down and quantify as to be able to analyze this with the appropriate amount of rigour needed to insure that they are, in fact, true.
LikeLike
November 13, 2011 at 2:11 pm
Reneta Scian
I thought I would also add to this line of thinking to mention that it isn’t just white male privilege in question. It is a kyriarchy of discrimination giving around 1% of our culture more power than is befitting their merits and character. It’s the heterosexual, cisgender, white, wealthy, able bodied, healthy, prestigiously educated, with notable background, ties to other people with money and power, and of coarse lastly, they are almost all men. It’s an exclusive good ol’ buddy network that effectively cuts of competition from outsiders who want a piece of the pie, lest you be far more determined and voracious than they needed to be in seeking it. Elitist wealth in society is quite old school, and despite the era we live in it still exists.
Many of these people didn’t earn their wealthy but were given an unfair advantage in getting into a line of business that mass wealth existed in. Arb touched on many thoughts in his blogs that can help to highlight this issue, but Vern, you do sometimes display a surprising volume of objective blindness to the issues at hand. The “predictable irrationality” explains a lot of this phenomenon, and I recommend you read it. Here is a link to the TED conference video, assuming it works.
Basically what I am saying is that this “good ol’ buddy network” is corrupt as shit, because of money and power, but mostly because of “Everyone else is doing it”. Everyone else is cheating, everyone else is embezzling, everyone else is lobbying for it, everyone is (Point simply) GETTING AWAY WITH IT. The mentality of the entire wealthy culture, which is far disconnected with us, is to blame for the severe imbalance. The founding fathers of our nation were trying to escape from it, so they are likely rolling in their graves trying to understand the state of our union now. But remember this as well, the Chomsky’s of the world have one more thing going for them then the power of academia, they have the power of experience that only time and initiative can bring.
Skepticism is great, but obliviousness to the claims of others, data and evidence on the matter, as well as decades of experience of the claimant isn’t skeptical of you, only highly ignorant. In our society, the more you intersect with minority statuses the harder it is for you to get by. God forbid you be a lesbian, transwoman, who is poor, disabled, black, orphaned, unknown, with little more than a GED in your belt, because in our culture that is the worst place (the most underprivileged place) to be. This isn’t the land of opportunity, it is the land of the “opportunistically exploitative” quantity (usually the privileged, those with fortunes given to them on a silver platter).
This pattern goes for politics, finance, business, or any interest that is interested in keeping it’s position of influence, right down to the Bush’s (the most unamerican, totalitarian privilege of them all). It is possible to rise from nothing, but it is quite difficult to impossible to do because the system is set up that way. Their is an overprivileged group in America to which the majority is subject to. With the same degree of qualifications, myself and the son of a former CEO gun for a position in a big company, who gets the job? It’s not me, even if I had a list of better qualifications than he. This isn’t my speculation, but a fact. It’s not about how good you are, it’s about who you know and how much money you got. It’s a sad state of thing, eh?
LikeLike
November 13, 2011 at 2:12 pm
Reneta Scian
Here is a working link… Mmm, grr.
LikeLike
November 13, 2011 at 3:39 pm
Vern R. Kaine
“There you go sounding all reasonable again.”
Your turn! Just kidding. ;)
” Do Sun Tzu’s observations guide your comments here? :)”
Dunno – perhaps subconsciously, as I read it a long time back. Perhaps “48 Laws of Power” if I’m going all Gangsta. Haha. Truthfully, though, “Self Reliance” is more my bible. Besides, I’m not here to change anyone’s mind. The battling is fun enough, and I do actually read the links you share so it works the grey matter a little bit as well. On that note, have you read any Drucker yet? Would hate to have a filter bubble going on. :)
Here’s some:
“The proper social responsibility of business is to tame the dragon–that is, to turn a social problem into economic opportunity and economic benefit, into productive capacity, into human competence, into ell-paid jobs, and into wealth.” Source: Peter F. Drucker, Frontiers of Management. New York; Truman Talley Books, 1968., p 323
http://www.druckerinpractice.com/quotes.aspx
You can find some of his work in Google Books (ex: Managing In the Next Society). Interesting what he says about protesters 10 years ago: “They’re hitting out against yesterday’s targets, but they are hitting out because of today’s pain.” (pg. 41)
LikeLike
November 13, 2011 at 5:27 pm
Alan Scott
From ex Marxist Eugene D. Genovese on Noam Chomsky.
” I don’t understand him, because clearly God gave him a very good brain, and yet for decades he has written the most rigid and knee-jerk stuff. “
LikeLike