At a certain point leftist activism tends to spill into the physical realm because it cannot continue to function within the framework of logical analysis. So it’s not terribly surprising that the Occupy Oakland protests have turned into a violent conflagration. Nor is it credible to divorce such violence from the ideology of its perpetrators. A prominent Occupier named Boots Riley cited “ideological principle” in defending Wednesday’s attempted seizure of an Oakland port in order to “stop the flow of capital.” For the left, violence often has a go at the weight rhetoric can’t lift.
It’s not hard to see why. Watch any showdown between an articulate capitalist and an OWS-er. It’s not a political debate, but an anthropological event: present-day man reaching back through time to make contact with his primitive and superstitious ancestor. The capitalist understands the benefits of the free market but the Occupier doesn’t have to. The shamans of socialism have told him that Wall Street is populated by evil spirits. He’s been warned of the capitalist’s use of incantation and alchemy. If the capitalist seems to be making sense, it’s a spell. (And if the Tea Party seems to be comprised of thousands of voices it’s the wizardry of the all-powerful Koch brothers.) The Occupier will not engage a legitimate opponent because the opponent’s legitimacy is some sort of devilish illusion. Occupy Wall Street, therefore, literally has no need for logical argument.
But you don’t need to make logical sense in order to vandalize and riot. Leftism turns violent not because its adherents are more passionate or brave than non-leftists. But because violence is the medium of the inarticulate. And if there’s one commonality among the otherwise heterogeneous Occupiers it’s their inability to articulate. Whether it’s Susan Sarandon or a Boots Riley, their analysis of corporatism and democracy is as coherent as a Qaddafi war speech. Whatever you thought of the Tea Party, its message could be conveyed through civilized means of communication. That’s how it came to field political candidates and impact governance.
But even articulate politicians and pundits who are eager to defend Occupy Wall Street can’t tell you what it is they’re defending. Watching primetime panel members grasp at the profound and serious ideas offered by drum-circle arsonists with pierced eyelids has been very entertaining, but not particularly educational. When Bill O’Reilly—not an OWS supporter—speculated that the Occupiers were “quasi-socialist,” his guest, Barbara Walters took offence. “I don’t think that’s true, Bill,” she said. “I don’t like that blanket indictment.”
Establishment liberals don’t like the indictment because they decided, months ago, to share the blanket. But the reason they can’t quite nail down what it is they support about OWS is because liberalism is long overdue for a reckoning. A central question has been elided for a long time: Where does modern liberal ideology part ways with socialism? OWS should force liberals to answer. Because as it stands now they are apologizing for anti-capitalists who attempted to shut down a U.S. port. And as OWS continues to morph, from a political wave to a crime wave, it remains to be seen if articulate liberals will find the words to distance themselves from the grotesque but unsurprising leftist fiasco.
Fantastic piece that hits the nail on the head. And an incoherent, fumbling reply from rcaruth that proves your point, to boot!
Denying that there are articulate capitalists is silly (just as denying that there are articulate anti-capitalists, though it appears that you are not one of them). n nSeems to me you are trying to steer the conversation away from what the article is getting at. The Occupy Wall Street protesters are incomprehensible (while there may be exceptions, from what I've seen on forums, YouTube, and the protest that I went to out of curiosity it seems to be a general rule). Many of its defenders either ignore the violence, vandalism, its obstruction of people's daily lives, and how it has been harming the small businesses located near where they have their protests or makes excuses for them. n nAre you denying all the negative things that protesters have done and the harm they have caused? Abe Greenwald has some very legitimate points. n nFiat money can work in theory… however when governments just arbitrarily print money either to avoid taking responsibility for their own mistakes it just harms the economy. And printing money to pump into the economy IS NOT CAPITALISM. Your point about fiat money isn't an indictment of capitalism at all. The facts make it clear that the government should not just print more money (though there may be exceptions, but I don't know of any). Even if our government didn't pull money out of thin air, foreign governments doing so would still harm our economy. n nYou want to hear about the major achievements of capitalism? n nCapitalism has raised more people out of poverty than any other system. n nCapitalism – through competition – keeps prices low. While you can point out that there are monopolies and cartels. When a monopoly or cartel maintain prices that produce higher than normal prices, other businesses are attracted to the industry. This additional competition tends to force prices and profits down. Thus in order for a monopoly to maintain profits above the competitive level they must find ways to prevent others from entering the industry. As a general rule, monopolies stay monopolies and are able to keep prices and profits above the competitive level because of government intervention. The main way that this happens is through restricting the issuance of licenses for various industries and occupations. Cartels are best eliminated in the free market without government 'help'. See Sears, Montgomery Ward, and A & P which were able to compete against a number of cartels simultaneously (for more information on the free market's natural answer to cartels see page 143 in Thomas Sowell's "Basic Economics"). n nCapitalism has enabled technology to continue to advance at an exponential rate… enabled through competition. A prime example being microchips. n nThere are many more great things about capitalism but I will stop here. While it is legitimate to say that capitalism isn't perfect and it can't always fix every problem out there (sometimes government interference may even be necessary), it is undeniable that it works better than any other system. There is no perfect system and it is safe to say that there never will be but capitalism is above and beyond good enough.
Great piece Max! Having finally grown out of my Leftist inclinations, I now realize that what we thought was spiritial growth was really a slide down the path of least resistance. We asked "Why can't we just do what we want?" rather than "Why are things done the way they are?" This latter question leads to an improved understanding of human nature with its strengths and weaknesses. The ideal fanatasy world imagined by the typical Leftist reveals a simplistic child-like world view that is more the venue of elementaly religious teacing than meaningful political insight. n nHey rcaruth … anyplace, anytime! Let's start with fiat money: It's certainly not ideal, it's just the best system. Do you even know why we had to switch to fiat money?
The question you note as central is the question the Left and its apologists have always had to elide. Sorel’s Reflections on Violence is really an interesting read. I know where he drew his faith in the common man from, but his model, while probably not widespread then, is easily mocked now. n nI do think definitions are important. n nReading The Education of David Stockman alone, will show that US capitalism has been relying on State Aid for a while now. n nHayek argues for a safety net. He argues for protection against exploitation of consumer ignorance. He argues against military adventurism. n nHow long ago was Laissez Faire mugged to the displeasure of so few? n nThe free market can no more make health care affordable -that would be about 20% of average mortgage/rent- then Obamacare can. n nLet’s be honest, it’s not just liberal dogma that needs rethinking. n nOh, and as to the OWS crowd, the only thing they’re likely to produce, or should I say reintroduce, is the Plague.
Great post.. Capitalism is not perfect, but it is, like democracy, better than all the alternatives. Even if it presently isn't to RCaruth's liking.
Well, they must be articulating something right because the national news just reported that 1 million people have closed their accounts at the big banks. Does wanting accountability and a preference for local control of your own money have to necessarily translate into a desire for socialism? Quite the opposite I think.
Bravo, Abe! Thanks for putting the whole sorry scenario in such telling words.