London, UK - Almost every time I’m interviewed by a mainstream journalist about Occupy Wall Street I get some variation of the same lecture:
“How are you going to get anywhere if you refuse to create a leadership structure or make a practical list of demands? And what’s with all this anarchist nonsense - the consensus, the sparkly fingers? Don’t you realise all this radical language is going to alienate people? You’re never going to be able to reach regular, mainstream Americans with this sort of thing!”
If one were compiling a scrapbook of worst advice ever given, this sort of thing might well merit an honourable place. After all, since the financial crash of 2007, there have been dozens of attempts to kick-off a national movement against the depredations of the United States’ financial elites taking the approach such journalists recommended. All failed. It was only on August 2, when a small group of anarchists and other anti-authoritarians showed up at a meeting called by one such group and effectively wooed everyone away from the planned march and rally to create a genuine democratic assembly, on basically anarchist principles, that the stage was set for a movement that Americans from Portland to Tuscaloosa were willing to embrace.
I should be clear here what I mean by “anarchist principles”. The easiest way to explain anarchism is to say that it is a political movement that aims to bring about a genuinely free society - that is, one where humans only enter those kinds of relations with one another that would not have to be enforced by the constant threat of violence. History has shown that vast inequalities of wealth, institutions like slavery, debt peonage or wage labour, can only exist if backed up by armies, prisons, and police. Anarchists wish to see human relations that would not have to be backed up by armies, prisons and police. Anarchism envisions a society based on equality and solidarity, which could exist solely on the free consent of participants.
Anarchism versus Marxism
Traditional Marxism, of course, aspired to the same ultimate goal but there was a key difference. Most Marxists insisted that it was necessary first to seize state power, and all the mechanisms of bureaucratic violence that come with it, and use them to transform society - to the point where, they argued such mechanisms would, ultimately, become redundant and fade away. Even back in the 19th century, anarchists argued that this was a pipe dream. One cannot, they argued, create peace by training for war, equality by creating top-down chains of command, or, for that matter, human happiness by becoming grim joyless revolutionaries who sacrifice all personal self-realisation or self-fulfillment to the cause.
It’s not just that the ends do not justify the means (though they don’t), you will never achieve the ends at all unless the means are themselves a model for the world you wish to create. Hence the famous anarchist call to begin “building the new society in the shell of the old” with egalitarian experiments ranging from free schools to radical labour unions to rural communes.
Anarchism was also a revolutionary ideology, and its emphasis on individual conscience and individual initiative meant that during the first heyday of revolutionary anarchism between roughly 1875 and 1914, many took the fight directly to heads of state and capitalists, with bombings and assassinations. Hence the popular image of the anarchist bomb-thrower. It’s worthy of note that anarchists were perhaps the first political movement to realise that terrorism, even if not directed at innocents, doesn’t work. For nearly a century now, in fact, anarchism has been one of the very few political philosophies whose exponents never blow anyone up (indeed, the 20th-century political leader who drew most from the anarchist tradition was Mohandas K Gandhi.)
Yet for the period of roughly 1914 to 1989, a period during which the world was continually either fighting or preparing for world wars, anarchism went into something of an eclipse for precisely that reason: To seem “realistic”, in such violent times, a political movement had to be capable of organising armies, navies and ballistic missile systems, and that was one thing at which Marxists could often excel. But everyone recognised that anarchists - rather to their credit - would never be able to pull it off. It was only after 1989, when the age of great war mobilisations seemed to have ended, that a global revolutionary movement based on anarchist principles - the global justice movement - promptly reappeared.
How, then, did OWS embody anarchist principles? It might be helpful to go over this point by point:
1) The refusal to recognise the legitimacy of existing political institutions.
One reason for the much-discussed refusal to issue demands is because issuing demands means recognising the legitimacy - or at least, the power - of those of whom the demands are made. Anarchists often note that this is the difference between protest and direct action: Protest, however militant, is an appeal to the authorities to behave differently; direct action, whether it’s a matter of a community building a well or making salt in defiance of the law (Gandhi’s example again), trying to shut down a meeting or occupy a factory, is a matter of acting as if the existing structure of power does not even exist. Direct action is, ultimately, the defiant insistence on acting as if one is already free.
2)The refusal to accept the legitimacy of the existing legal order.
The second principle, obviously, follows from the first. From the very beginning, when we first started holding planning meetings in Tompkins Square Park in New York, organisers knowingly ignored local ordinances that insisted that any gathering of more than 12 people in a public park is illegal without police permission - simply on the grounds that such laws should not exist. On the same grounds, of course, we chose to occupy a park, inspired by examples from the Middle East and southern Europe, on the grounds that, as the public, we should not need permission to occupy public space. This might have been a very minor form of civil disobedience but it was crucial that we began with a commitment to answer only to a moral order, not a legal one.
3)The refusal to create an internal hierarchy, but instead to create a form of consensus-based direct democracy.
From the very beginning, too, organisers made the audacious decision to operate not only by direct democracy, without leaders, but by consensus. The first decision ensured that there would be no formal leadership structure that could be co-opted or coerced; the second, that no majority could bend a minority to its will, but that all crucial decisions had to be made by general consent. American anarchists have long considered consensus process (a tradition that has emerged from a confluence of feminism, anarchism and spiritual traditions like the Quakers) crucial for the reason that it is the only form of decision-making that could operate without coercive enforcement - since if a majority does not have the means to compel a minority to obey its dictates, all decisions will, of necessity, have to be made by general consent.
4) The embrace of prefigurative politics.
As a result, Zuccotti Park, and all subsequent encampments, became spaces of experiment with creating the institutions of a new society - not only democratic General Assemblies but kitchens, libraries, clinics, media centres and a host of other institutions, all operating on anarchist principles of mutual aid and self-organisation - a genuine attempt to create the institutions of a new society in the shell of the old.
Why did it work? Why did it catch on? One reason is, clearly, because most Americans are far more willing to embrace radical ideas than anyone in the established media is willing to admit. The basic message - that the American political order is absolutely and irredeemably corrupt, that both parties have been bought and sold by the wealthiest 1 per cent of the population, and that if we are to live in any sort of genuinely democratic society, we’re going to have to start from scratch - clearly struck a profound chord in the American psyche.
Perhaps this is not surprising: We are facing conditions that rival those of the 1930s, the main difference being that the media seems stubbornly willing to acknowledge it. It raises intriguing questions about the role of the media itself in American society. Radical critics usually assume the “corporate media”, as they call it, mainly exists to convince the public that existing institutions are healthy, legitimate and just. It is becoming increasingly apparent that they do not really see this is possible; rather, their role is simply to convince members of an increasingly angry public that no one else has come to the same conclusions they have. The result is an ideology that no one really believes, but most people at least suspect that everybody else does.
Nowhere is this disjunction between what ordinary Americans really think, and what the media and political establishment tells them they think, more clear than when we talk about democracy.
Democracy in America?
According to the official version, of course, “democracy” is a system created by the Founding Fathers, based on checks and balances between president, congress and judiciary. In fact, nowhere in the Declaration of Independence or Constitution does it say anything about the US being a “democracy”. The authors of those documents, almost to a man, defined “democracy” as a matter of collective self-governance by popular assemblies, and as such they were dead-set against it.
Democracy meant the madness of crowds: bloody, tumultuous and untenable. “There was never a democracy that didn’t commit suicide,” wrote Adams; Hamilton justified the system of checks and balances by insisting that it was necessary to create a permanent body of the “rich and well-born” to check the “imprudence” of democracy, or even that limited form that would be allowed in the lower house of representatives.
The result was a republic - modelled not on Athens, but on Rome. It only came to be redefined as a “democracy” in the early 19th century because ordinary Americans had very different views, and persistently tended to vote - those who were allowed to vote - for candidates who called themselves “democrats”. But what did - and what do - ordinary Americans mean by the word? Did they really just mean a system where they get to weigh in on which politicians will run the government? It seems implausible. After all, most Americans loathe politicians, and tend to be skeptical about the very idea of government. If they universally hold out “democracy” as their political ideal, it can only be because they still see it, however vaguely, as self-governance - as what the Founding Fathers tended to denounce as either “democracy” or, as they sometimes also put it, “anarchy”.
If nothing else, this would help explain the enthusiasm with which they have embraced a movement based on directly democratic principles, despite the uniformly contemptuous dismissal of the United States’ media and political class.
In fact, this is not the first time a movement based on fundamentally anarchist principles - direct action, direct democracy, a rejection of existing political institutions and attempt to create alternative ones - has cropped up in the US. The civil rights movement (at least its more radical branches), the anti-nuclear movement, and the global justice movement all took similar directions. Never, however, has one grown so startlingly quickly. But in part, this is because this time around, the organisers went straight for the central contradiction. They directly challenged the pretenses of the ruling elite that they are presiding over a democracy.
When it comes to their most basic political sensibilities, most Americans are deeply conflicted. Most combine a deep reverence for individual freedom with a near-worshipful identification with institutions like the army and police. Most combine an enthusiasm for markets with a hatred of capitalists. Most are simultaneously profoundly egalitarian, and deeply racist. Few are actual anarchists; few even know what “anarchism” means; it’s not clear how many, if they did learn, would ultimately wish to discard the state and capitalism entirely. Anarchism is much more than simply grassroots democracy: It ultimately aims to eliminate all social relations, from wage labour to patriarchy, that can only be maintained by the systematic threat of force.
But one thing overwhelming numbers of Americans do feel is that something is terribly wrong with their country, that its key institutions are controlled by an arrogant elite, that radical change of some kind is long since overdue. They’re right. It’s hard to imagine a political system so systematically corrupt - one where bribery, on every level, has not only been made legal, but soliciting and dispensing bribes has become the full-time occupation of every American politician. The outrage is appropriate. The problem is that up until September 17, the only side of the spectrum willing to propose radical solutions of any sort was the Right.
As the history of the past movements all make clear, nothing terrifies those running the US more than the danger of democracy breaking out. The immediate response to even a modest spark of democratically organised civil disobedience is a panicked combination of concessions and brutality. How else can one explain the recent national mobilisation of thousands of riot cops, the beatings, chemical attacks, and mass arrests, of citizens engaged in precisely the kind of democratic assemblies the Bill of Rights was designed to protect, and whose only crime - if any - was the violation of local camping regulations?
Our media pundits might insist that if average Americans ever realised the anarchist role in Occupy Wall Street, they would turn away in shock and horror; but our rulers seem, rather, to labour under a lingering fear that if any significant number of Americans do find out what anarchism really is, they might well decide that rulers of any sort are unnecessary.
November 2011
42 posts
Should monetary policy respond to asset prices and asset bubbles? This is a highly controversial issue, both from an academic research point of view and, more importantly, from a policy perspective. There is broad evidence that asset bubbles do occur from time to time, and that such bubbles may lead to economic distortions as well as financial and real economy instability. Thus, many authors argue that optimal monetary policy requires monetary policy authorities to react to such bubbles over and above the effects that such
bubbles have on current output growth, aggregate spending and expected inflation. Others are of the view that monetary policy should not react to asset prices or bubbles beyond the effect that such asset price movements directly have on inflation, aggregate spending and economic growth. In this paper, I will present the arguments in favor of the view that monetary policy should react to asset prices and asset bubbles; In the process, I will also discuss and refute the arguments against the use of monetary policy to address bubbles.
Developments in the financial sector have led to an expansion in its ability to spread risks. The increase in the risk bearing capacity of economies, as well as in actual risk taking, has led to a range of financial transactions that hitherto were not possible, and has created much greater access to finance for firms and households. On net, this has made the world much better off. Concurrently, however, we have also seen the emergence of a whole range of intermediaries, whose size and appetite for risk may expand over the cycle. Not only can these intermediaries accentuate real fluctuations, they can also leave themselves exposed to certain small probability risks that their own collective behavior makes more likely. As a result, under some conditions, economies may be more exposed to financial-sector-induced turmoil than in the past. The paper discusses the implications for monetary policy and prudential supervision. In particular, it suggests market-friendly policies that would reduce the incentive of intermediary managers to take excessive risk.
A nice 101 guide to a successful occupation.
“This is a vigil for the students whose human dignity was violated as targets of police violence on November 9th, and for the police officers whose human dignity was degraded in the execution of their duty to obey orders.”
- Kevin Quirolo
November 15, 2011 - University of California, San…
Police State Tactics On Display Nationwide
In the last couple of days, police at Occupy protests:
- Bludgeoned peaceful protesters at Berkeley … and then said that the protesters’ locking of arms was “violent”
- Beat and reportedly broke the ribs of a peaceful protesting, 70-year old, Pulitzer prize winning literature professor at Berkeley (and see this).
- Hit in the head and arrested New York City Councilman Ydanis Rodriguez
- Punched a woman in the face for showing a court order to the police stating that the protesters can be in the park
The Guardian’s Laura Pennie notes:
Law enforcement is there to protect a wealthy elite from the rest of the population
***
A teenage girl holds a hastily written sign saying: “NYPD, we trusted you – you were supposed to protect us!”
***
The sentiment is a familiar one. Across Europe, over a year of demonstrations, occupations and civil disobedience, anti-austerity protesters have largely shifted from declaring solidarity with the police – as fellow workers whose jobs and pensions are also under threat – to outrage and anger at state violence against unarmed protesters. Following last month’s police brutality in Oakland, and today’s summary eviction of the Occupy Wall Street camp, American activists too are reaching the conclusion that “police protect the 1%”.
“Who do you guys work for?” Shouts one Manhattan protester, as police load arrestees into a van. “You work for JP Morgan Bank!”
And the Washington Post’s James Downie writes:
As hard as the NYPD and New York City’s government might try to obscure the truth though, one truth remains: At 1 a.m. this morning, in the heart of New York City, protesters exercising their constitutional rights to free speech and assembly were swept away by the state, while that state also did all it could to prevent media coverage. No matter what one may think of the occupiers or their cause, nothing they’ve done justifies blockading the press or ignoring court orders. Mayor Bloomberg, Police Commissioner Ray Kelly and other New York leaders who ordered the eviction should take a long, hard look at their handling of the occupation. This morning’s action may not be what a police state looks like, but it’s certainly how one begins.
Tonight at 6pm from the Civic Center to the SDPD HQ.
SAN DIEGO — The San Diego County Sheriff’s Department will conduct an internal review into the treatment of Occupy San Diego protesters who were arrested during the early morning hours of Oct. 28 and held in custody by the agency, spokeswoman Jan Caldwell said Thursday.
After 34 men and 17 women were detained, they were loaded onto a bus and two vans to be transported to Vista jail and the Las Colinas Detention Facility. The trip took so long that some were forced to “relieve themselves as they sat on the bus or van,” according to a Sheriff’s Department statement.
In the statement, sheriff’s officials conceded that there were no restroom facilities available for the arrestees and said the matter is being “treated seriously.”
One protester, 18-year-old City College student Kevin Rambo, has said that demonstrators were held on a bus for between nine and 12 hours.
“When this was brought to our attention, we acted on it immediately,” Caldwell said. “We decided this Critical Incident Review would be the best way to go over what might not have worked out well. We do appreciate feedback. This is how we can do a better job the next time.”
Eugene Davidovich, an activist who said he was at Civic Center Plaza the night of the arrests but was not arrested, welcomed news of the review. However, he said he would like it to be expanded to include the actions of authorities as the arrests were taking place.
“I think it’s absolutely necessary that a review of the actions of the Sheriff’s (Department) is conducted from that night,” he said. “It’s a good sign, (but) I don’t think it’s enough.”
Ambulances responded to the scene.By Lori Preuitt | Thursday, Nov 10, 2011 | Updated 5:17 PM PST
Just moments before NBC Bay Area’s Jodi Hernandez was to go on the air with a live report, she reported hearing shots fired at Occupy Oakland.
Hernandez said she heard 6 to 8 gunshots on the south side of Frank Ogawa Plaza followed by screaming from people in the area.
Police were not in the area at the time.
An ambulance arrived at the scene within a few minutes so treat a man who appeared to be the victim of the shooting.
@scott_c_johnson tweeted” “Bystanders weeping, chaos, police everywhere, sirens,”Hernandez said the mood prior to the gunshots was festive, adding people on the campground were getting ready to have a birthday cake to mark the one month anniversary of the encampment.
NBC Bay Area launched its helicopter and should have pictures from the scene soon.
Check back for updates.
Thursday November 10
* * 2:00 PM to 2:30 PM: Teach in by Lt. Col. Dave Gapp: “Cost of War”* Lt. Col. Gapp, a USAF fighter pilot and combat veteran with 31 years of military service, will give a short 30 minute talk. After this talk, he will take those interested to the Central Library for a showing of Heather Courtney’s Where Soldiers Come From. More information about the film: http://www.sandiego.gov/public-library/pdf/111007soldierspr.pdf
Friday November 11, 2011
* * 3:00 PM to 4:00 PM: Teach in by Maurice Martin, Veterans For Peace: “Veteran’s Homelessness, Challenges and Solutions”* Maurice is an Army combat veteran and is on the board of Amikas, a local organization that works to transition homeless men and women to permament housing.
* * 4:00 PM to 5:30 PM: Teach in by E Raymond (E Ray) Brown, Ghetto Physics: “Ghetto Physics and the Occupy Movement”* We the people realize it’s time to Stand Up, and events are spring up across the country in solidarity with Occupy Wall Street. Ghetto Physics was written and directed to discuss these very topics that are changing our world today. To engage in this vital movement — Ghetto Physics would like to assist. For more information on Ghetto Physics see our website at http://www.ghettophysics.com [time extended from 5:00 PM to 5:30 PM]
Saturday November 12, 2011
* * 11:30 AM to 12:45 PM Workshop by Michael Mufson, Palomar College Performing Arts Department: ”Street Theatre on the March”* Using the consensus based theatre technique of ‘The Theatre of The Oppressed’ we will create a theatrical image to be presented during the1:00 march when it arrives at the Wells Fargo Bank at the corner of Market and 1st Ave. The image will portray the relationship of banks and corporations to the actual suffering of our people and the political structures that have enable them. No theatrical experience is necessary. Participants should feel free to bring any costumes or props that might be useful for demonstrating such an image. For more information see Pedagogy and Theatre of the Oppressed http://www.ptoweb.org
* * 4:00 PM: Workshop: “Brainstorming and Documentation: San Diego Municipal Code 54.0110”*
* * 11:00 AM to 12:00 PM: Teach in by Mark Smith: “Why Occupy Wall Street Doesn’t Make Demands”* A discussion of Prof. Robert Jensen’s article, Occupy Demands: Let’s Radicalize Our Analysis of Empire, Economics, Ecology. See http://fubarandgrill.org/node/1218 for the article.
* * 12:00 PM to 1:00 PM: Workshop by Aimee, James, and Jeff: “OWS List of Grievences called ‘Declaration of the Occupation of New York City”*
* * 1:00 PM to 2:00 PM: Teach in by Prof. Jonathan Graubart, SDSU: “Anarchism: It’s Philosophy, It’s Historical Evolution, and Its Continued Relevance for Social Justice”*
* * 2:00 PM to 3:00 PM: Workshop by the San Diego Solidarity Network.* Come learn how to fight back against daily abuses by employers and landlords using direct action and self organization
* * 3:00 PM to 4:00 PM: Teach in by Jeoffry B. Gordon, MD, MPH Physicians for a National Health Care Program: “Health Care in America: Sucking Blood Money from the Ill for Profit”*
* *4:30 PM to 5:30 PM Felicity Bradley, Cecile Veillard, Michael Anderson, San Diego Alliance for Marriage Equality (SAME): “LGBT & Labor History”* SAME members will be discussing lessons from and LGBT’s key roles in the historic 70s Coors boycott, the local Manchester Hyatt boycott (2008 to 2010) (http://www.boycottmanchesterhotels.com/), & Channel 10 boycott (ongoing) (10NewsUnfair.com) [Tentative Time]
Making Progress Every Day
One of the tactics the 99 Percenters are using to take back the country from the 1 percent is to move their money from big banks to credit unions, community banks, and other smaller financial unions that aren’t gambling with our nation’s future….
Many major corporations have managed to pay taxes at just over half of the corporate income tax rate, according to a new report.
Nearly 300 of the nation’s most profitable companies paid an average tax rate of 18.5 percent from 2008 to 2010, less than half of the 35 percent corporate tax rate, according to a study by the Citizens for Tax Justice released Thursday. Of the 280 companies, 78 studied paid a tax rate of zero or less during at least one year of the three year period.
And thirty companies, the report says, had a negative income tax rate from 2008 to 2010, even though they took home a combined $160 billion in pre-tax profits.
The financial services industry netted the largest share — at 16.8 percent — of the $222.7 billion in total tax subsidies that the companies received, the study found. Wells Fargo took home the most tax subsidies of them all, raking in nearly $18 billion in tax breaks over the last three years.
Officials at some major corporations lashed out at the study’s findings following its release. In a statement, GE called the report “inaccurate and and distorted,” according to the Washington Post. Verizon spokesman Robert Varettoni, told WaPo that “findings in this and other recent reports have been more politically motivated than truthful.”
Even without lowering the corporate tax rate, large companies are still able to take advantage of a variety of loopholes available to them to avoid paying taxes. One, called the “active financing exception” allows corporations to sidestep paying taxes on overseas profits if the company derived those profits by “actively financing” a deal, according to the NYT.
Corporations also commonly take advantage of a rule called “accelerated depreciation,” which allows them to write off investments faster than they wear out, according to WaPo. The companies then subtract the falling value of the investments from their taxable income.
The findings come as politicians wrangle over the best way to cut the nation’s budget deficit. Republicans recently proposed lowering the corporate tax rate to 25 percent and paying for it by eliminating business tax breaks. A study by the Joint Committee on Taxation, requested by congressional Democrats, found that eliminating the business tax breaks alone wouldn’t bring in enough revenue to make up for the lowered rate.
Republican presidential candidate Rick Perry said last month that if elected president he would cut the corporate tax rate to 20 percent. Perry told The New York Times that he didn’t care that his tax plan could possibly increase income inequality. Another Republican presidential candidate, Herman Cain, vowed to slash the corporate tax rate as part of his 9-9-9 plan, which if enacted would cap sales tax, corporate income tax and personal income tax at 9 percent each.
Companies such as Apple and Google are lobbying Congress to pass an additional tax loophole known as a repatriation tax holiday that would allow corporations to avoid taxes on more than $1 trillion in offshore profits, Bloomberg reports. In exchange, the companies argue, companies would invest those dollars in the U.S.
U.S. corporations with foreign profits that amounted to 10 percent or more of their worldwide profits paid tax rates to foreign countries that were nearly one-third higher than the tax rates they paid to the U.S., the tax justice study found.
The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, reversed its position on the repatriation tax holiday last month, saying that it wouldn’t help to spur U.S. job growth or investment. The Treasury Department found that a similar tax holiday passed in 2004, did little to boost employment growth.
In fact, several companies that benefited from the 2004 law cut jobs in its wake. Dow Chemical, Verizon and Bank of America are just some of the 10 companies that slashed jobs after benefiting from a repatriation tax holiday, according to the Institute for Policy Studies.
August 27, 2009
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Long omitted from the history books, the Seattle General Strike of 1919 offers an inspiring view of what it would look like if workers took power in the U.S. In Revolution in Seattle [1], newly republished by Haymarket Books, radical journalist and labor historian Harvey O’Connor chronicles the general strike, along with the history of radicalism in the Pacific Northwest that came before it.
O’Connor based this memoir on the accounts of workers and revolutionaries he organized with throughout his life—in addition to radical and union newspapers of the day. As O’Connor, a lifelong radical who was sentenced for contempt for defying the McCarthyite witch-hunt of the 1950s, writes in the foreword, “For many years, I have been increasingly concerned lest one of the most dramatic chapters in the labor history of the United States go unrecorded.”
Here, we reprint an excerpt from this classic book.
- 3:00 PM: Teach-In by Mark E. Smith: “Electoral Systems: Voices and Votes” This presentation is okay to film.
- 5:30 pm: Media Committee meeting.
- 3:30 PM: Teach in by IBEW 569 ; “Connecting democracy at work and democracy in society” Food will be provided This teach-in is okay to record
- National “Bank Withdrawal Day” — If you still have an account with any for-profit bank (Bank of America, Wells Fargo, Union Bank, Chase Bank, etc.) withdraw all your funds and move them to a credit union.
- 10:30 rally, march at 11 am — March to Bank of America — Memorial / Protest for foreclosure
- Protest Vigil: Death of the American Dream — San Diego Gaslamp District
- Start: March from Civic Center Plaza to 455 Island Avenue
- Facebook event: http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=171898516233164 PLEASE RSVP!
- 11 am — Occupy Gardens Teach-In — Suzie’s Farm encourages all mobile gardeners to “March with their gardens” If you don’t have a mobile garden they’ll show how to build one at the Civic Center! Gardeners Unite! Visit Occupy SD Gardens at http://occupysdgardens.blogspot.com/ (I recommend that this be held after people return from the march!)
- 2 pm — Legislative Committee Meeting — Will read over proposed legislation for publicly financed elections. (This one is from memory, I need some better contact about this).
- 1 PM (changed from 11:00 AM) : Teach in by Eva David, “The FDA’s role in brain damage, obesity, and pacification of the masses”
ALL EVENTS AT CIVIC CENTER PLAZA UNLESS NOTED
Leia Petty reviews a republished classic that helps us reclaim the history of working-class radicalism in the U.S.
July 16, 2009 | Issue 702 [1]
THE REVOLUTIONARY atmosphere and activities that took hold in the U.S. in the early 20th century have been systematically written out of popular history textbooks, leaving generations of workers, students and activists without the stories and lessons of a rich history of working-class radicalism.
One of these stories is the Seattle general strike in 1919.
Revolution in Seattle, newly republished by Haymarket Books, is a firsthand account of the general strike and history of radicalism in the Pacific Northwest in the decades prior, written by Harvey O’Connor.
This is quite frightening (emphasis from the source):
This story from Bloomberg just hit the wires this morning. Bank of America is shifting derivatives in its Merrill investment banking unit to its depository arm, which has access to the Fed discount window and is protected by the FDIC.
This means that the investment bank’s European derivatives exposure is now backstopped by U.S. taxpayers. Bank of America didn’t get regulatory approval to do this, they just did it at the request of frightened counterparties. Now the Fed and the FDIC are fighting as to whether this was sound. The Fed wants to “give relief” to the bank holding company, which is under heavy pressure.
This is a direct transfer of risk to the taxpayer done by the bank without approval by regulators and without public input. You will also read below that JP Morgan is apparently doing the same thing with $79 trillion of notional derivatives guaranteed by the FDIC and Federal Reserve.
What this means for you is that when Europe finally implodes and banks fail, U.S. taxpayers will hold the bag for trillions in CDS insurance contracts sold by Bank of America and JP Morgan. Even worse, the total exposure is unknown because Wall Street successfully lobbied during Dodd-Frank passage so that no central exchange would exist keeping track of net derivative exposure.
This is a recipe for Armageddon. Bernanke is absolutely insane. No wonder Geithner has been hopping all over Europe begging and cajoling leaders to put together a massive bailout of troubled banks. His worst nightmare is Eurozone bank defaults leading to the collapse of the large U.S. banks who have been happily selling default insurance on European banks since the crisis began.
It’s interesting we never hear anything about this in the US media. Why Occupy Wall Street? Here’s a good reason. hope Europe does not implode, but the latest news isn’t positive.
NOT. AGAIN.
They’re fighting a “corporatocracy” that has bought governments, created armed enforcers, engaged in systemic economic fraud, and plundered treasuries and ecosystems.
From the San Francisco Chronicle:
Thousands of workers and students have taken to Oakland’s downtown streets today as part of a daylong general strike called by Occupy Oakland organizers to protest economic inequity and corporate greed.
The crowd, which has forced the closure of some downtown streets, has been peaceful and almost celebratory - a band played and walked with the group and a “flash mob” broke out in dance at one point. Traffic, including AC Transit buses, is being diverted from the area around Frank Ogawa Plaza.
Protesters plastered signs and blocked customers from using ATMs at downtown banks. Many downtown businesses closed for the day.
By noon, the crowd had swelled to 3,500 for a lunchtime rally at 14th and Broadway. Police reported no damage and no arrests but were girding for the possibility of unrest later in the day.
Here’s more of the day’s developments:
- The Port of Oakland was severely delayed after many longshoremen walked off the job in support of the General Strike.
- More than 360 Oakland Unified School District teachers did not show up for work today, along with 5% of city workers.
- Banks were closed across the city, as Oakland officials recommended that the ones who were still open ‘only let customers in one at a time.’
- Large marches were held around several bank branches including Bank of America, Chase, Citibank and Wells Fargo.
- Many (if not most) businesses downtown were closed.
- There were a few reports of broken windows at the Lakeside Drive branch of Bank of America, and at a Chase branch. Others reported “anarchists” attempting to cause damage to a Whole Foods, but dozens of marchers surrounded them and forced them to stand down. The Whole Foods was targeted over rumours that their employees were not allowed to participate in today’s work stoppage.
We will have more as things continue into the evening.
A group of labor leaders, including the head of the city police and fire unions, sent a letter to Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake today asking her not to remove Occupy Baltimore protesters but instead continue dialogue.
“Rather than create a confrontation, we believe it would be wise for the city of Baltimore to act with restraint and responsibility,” the letter says. “Rather than remove the protesters, we call upon the city to work with representatives of Occupy Baltimore to find a solution that can maintain the protest location and respect the rights of our citizens.”
The letter is signed by the heads of the city’s major unions - including various AFSCME chapters, the Baltimore Teachers Local 340, Fraternal Order of Police, Fire Fighters Local 734 and Fire Officers Local 964, and the City Union of Baltimore Local 800 - who say they support the purpose of the protest.
Here’s the full letter:
“Dear Mayor Rawlings-Blake:
We have been made aware of the city of Baltimore’s intention to close down the Occupy Baltimore site sometime in the next 24 hours. We write to express our firm opinion that nothing be done to close down the site and that instead, an agreement be arrived at which allows for the continuation of a peaceful, non-violent demonstration.
The Occupy Baltimore protests have given expression to a widely shared belief that our economy and our politics are controlled by corporate interests to the detriment of the overwhelming majority of working people, including our members, their families and communities. We share this opinion and applaud the courage and sacrifice of the Occupy protestors. We believe these protestors should be commended for standing up for the 99% of us, not threatened with removal.
Cities across the country - from San Diego to Little Rock, Philadelphia and Washington DC - have worked with their local Occupy movements to find reasonable accommodations that everyone can live with. Surely, the city of Baltimore can find a solution that meets the concerns of city officials and departments while allowing the protestors to continue their democratic right to peaceful, non-violent protest.
The Occupy Baltimore activists have made a broad call for followers to converge on McKeldin Square in order to defend the occupation tonight. Rather than create a confrontation, we believe it would be wise for the city of Baltimore to act with restraint and responsibility. Rather than remove the protestors, we call upon the city to work with representatives of Occupy Baltimore to find a solution that can maintain the protest location and respect the rights of our citizens.
We look forward to your quick response.
Sincerely,
Ernie Grecco, President, Metro Baltimore Council AFL-CIO
Glen Middleton, Executive Director, AFSCME 67
Anthony Coates, AFSCME Local 647-67
Peggy Peacock, AFSCME Local 2202-67
Ms. Johnnie Phipps, AFSCME Local 558-67
Lorretta Johnson, Secretary-Treasurer, AFT
Mariette English, President, Baltimore Teachers Local 340
Brenda Clayburn, President, City Union of Balto Local 800
Steve Fugate, President, Fire Officers Local 964
Rick Hoffman, President, Fire Fighters Local 734
Jimmy Gittings, President, Public School Administrations and Supervisors Association Local 25
Rod Easter, President, Balto Building Trades Council
Bob Cherry, President, Fraternal Order of Police Lodge #3
Last week, New York police defied governor Cuomo’s orders to arrest hundreds of “Occupy Albany” protesters.
Today, a Nashville judge refused the Tennessee governor’s orders to break up “Occupy Nashville”.
A Baltimore police union and two firefighters unions have written to Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake (who wants to shut down Occupy Baltimore) asking that the protests be allowed to continue.
And city employees from Irvine, California to Providence, Rhode Island have correctly said that – whether or not they agree with the protesters’ views – the protesters’ have the right of free speech and free assembly under the Constitution.
Perhaps this is the start of justice for 99% … instead of just the top 1%. See this, this, this, this, this, this and this.
