tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24176345555863317072024-03-14T02:53:06.003-07:00Occupy Philosophy99% Philosopherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02125608880524538869noreply@blogger.comBlogger36125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2417634555586331707.post-53700435143759491212011-11-06T00:09:00.001-07:002011-11-06T00:09:37.910-07:00New Website....We've moved to the new Word Press site at http://occupyphil.org ...you should be redirected in a moment.99% Philosopherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02125608880524538869noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2417634555586331707.post-54459208070320173412011-11-02T11:40:00.000-07:002011-11-02T21:58:26.259-07:00No news is good news...for the 1%Right now on the streets of Oakland, CA thousands of people have gone on strike, joining with Occupy Oakland, and marching to protest the crimes of the Plutofascist Corporatocracy that is largely responsible for the dystopian nightmare that is the day to day life of the 99%.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgE4EE6PA7wym6i2zNzIW2SGDQD4M-lOTFQ-npEfzvNL677nJDNGC_mfmOO8dCd84z68rJ8sqreNdv8A8gmcQQpdN7rxD4dz2w_kSvsSDTV5Yr_8fabVIEiKVM7URTruZz1SjwZb8vnyKU/s1600/311066_268206476549289_100000798165569_697749_1512800417_n.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgE4EE6PA7wym6i2zNzIW2SGDQD4M-lOTFQ-npEfzvNL677nJDNGC_mfmOO8dCd84z68rJ8sqreNdv8A8gmcQQpdN7rxD4dz2w_kSvsSDTV5Yr_8fabVIEiKVM7URTruZz1SjwZb8vnyKU/s320/311066_268206476549289_100000798165569_697749_1512800417_n.jpg" width="207" /></a></div>I checked the homepages of our major news providers. It seems that our corporate paymasters have ordered a blackout in reply to the strike. None of them so much as mentions what is happening in Oakland at the moment. Most are leading with Stories about Lindsay Lohan's alcoholism, and Justin Bieber's being a typical teenage boy with a lot of money. At least Fox News's top story is something important...namely our paymasters most recent push for a nuclear war in the Middle East....<br />
<br />
Blackout Roll-Call<br />
1. Fox News<br />
2. ABC<br />
3. NBC<br />
4. CBS<br />
5. MSNBC<br />
6. NPR<br />
<br />
Shame on them all.<br />
<br />
<i>Update: By 8:30 pm all news sources were carrying the story except for Fox News. </i><br />
<i>Update: 12:00 am Nov 3: FNC finally posted their (fairly unbalanced) story.</i><br />
<br />99% Philosopherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02125608880524538869noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2417634555586331707.post-87225816967939378142011-11-01T15:50:00.000-07:002011-11-01T18:17:59.343-07:00Why the 100% Should Support the Occupy MovementI'm curious what readers will make of the following argument for the claim that not just the 99% but indeed everyone should support the Occupy Movement.<br />
<br />
<ol><li>Either you are part of the 99% or you are a part of the 1%.</li>
<li>Assume you are part of the 99%.</li>
<li>If you are part of the 99%, then it is in your interest to support movements that promote a more equitable distribution of power (wealth) in society.</li>
<li>The Occupy Movement promotes a more equitable distribution of power (wealth) in society.</li>
<li>Therefore it is in your interest to support the Occupy Movement.</li>
<li>Now assume you are a part of the 1%.</li>
<li>If you are a part of the 1%, then it is in your interest to support movements that promote a more equitable distribution of power (wealth) in society.</li>
<li>The Occupy Movement promotes a more equitable distribution of power (wealth) in society.</li>
<li>Therefore, it is in your interest to support the Occupy Movement.</li>
</ol><br />
Now clearly (7) is the most contentious premise. What is there to say in its favor? It seems to me that history teaches us that precipitous inequities in power (wealth) distribution almost unfailingly lead to mass revolution against those few hands who hold all the power (wealth). The French Revolution, The American Revolution, The Bolshevik Revolution, and revolutions in countries throughout the world always seem to occur when the balance of power (wealth) skews to far toward any minority.<br />
<br />
Thus it behooves the 1% to occasionally relinquish their hold on their ill gotten stores of power (wealth) so as to avoid mass uprising. To do anything else is contrary to their own interests. Sure, they'll have less power (wealth), perhaps much less, but they will survive and even flourish. If this argument is sound, then regardless of one's position, whether among the 99% or the 1% one should support the Occupy Movement. The alternative is too ugly to fathom.99% Philosopherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02125608880524538869noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2417634555586331707.post-56948611150896659022011-10-31T19:59:00.000-07:002011-11-01T18:24:06.459-07:00“Security” & “Safety” at OWS<center><img border="0" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgkLLGEFK_SKYJHrYuB4yfrF8ubxsZgE5h7RPUA0FMzBoQ0ZI3lTrfZsfTabQy9PdTJ9xpPDsqLgV9RILUfXBEtsecLY05reVqI3Z3iaYjVbBCINNaINo0Is4oATnL-JrZq6MH78Vcyu6Ds/s320/IMG_2493.JPG" width="320" /></center><br />
<br />
The Oakland occupation was shut down last week, albeit temporarily, on the grounds of concerns about safety and security. Rather than assume we know what ‘safety’ and ‘security’ mean, this invites some inquiry. Can ‘safety’ be secured in the midst of an activist movement?<br />
<br />
Sexual assaults of various sorts had been rumored in Oakland, as well as thefts, drug use, and transgressions on public property. Marijuana use is hardly a major concern in Oakland California, where it has been effectively decriminalized through medical permissions, and the smell pervades the city's parks, but the possibility of a lawless space inviting violence of one sort or another is an image that could certainly garner public support for a crackdown. Images of Waco might come to the surface, the religious cult in Texas where a culture of child rape instigated a heavy state response that cleaned out the compound with resultant deaths. In Oakland, the state actions on October 25 were similarly extreme, seriously injuring Iraq veteran Scott Olsen.<br />
<br />
Clearly, today’s political occupations, whether in Oakland or in New York, where I live, are not in any way analogous to Waco. They are not closed cults, vulnerable to abuse by charismatic leaders who are accountable to no one, but open communities with totally open borders. That openness is precisely the challenge to safety and security. As a survivor of child sexual assault myself, I want the problem of sexual violence taken seriously in its own right, not as a pretext for some other agenda. And I want a realistic approach to security.<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<br />
It's difficult to get clarity on the nature of the problems that have occurred, or to find any exact numbers or precise descriptions. Rumors abound, Facebook tales are shared and re-shared, stories with unknown origins are passed around. In a way, this is as it should be. The attempt to limit and control women’s talk is usually an attempt to limit and control women. The effort to reduce rape and sexual violence is not enhanced by sequestering all speech to the highly proscribed legal arena, or attempting to shut down the flow of information. Women, the usual targets, share information with each other as a safety tactic, have always done so, and will continue to do so. Watch out for that guy, let me tell you what I heard, or saw, or had happen to me. Such sharing of information among trusted friends or coworkers has often been the best and most reliable way we have to protect ourselves, and has enacted a shift in testimony credibility and the enunciative modalities of speech that Foucault and Lyotard could only dream of. Women know not to rely on official channels of regulated speech for ensuring our security. The so-called authorities, whether cops or sexual harassment ombudspersons, are not reliably reliable, as we all know. This varies by communities, but it's still difficult in a lot of places to get credible concerns taken seriously.<br />
<br />
The sharing of information, stories, rumors, and secondhand reports about the various occupation sites will no doubt continue. They cannot realistically be shut down, nor should they be patrolled or criticized, unless there are good grounds to believe that a false accusation is being made. Survivors ourselves should go after those who make false claims. We need truth on our side, not bullshit.<br />
<br />
Yet there is also the possibility of hysteria mongering by critics of the occupied movement, and even orchestrated rumors from the right wing. So after the Oakland crackdown, I made an effort to find out the real state of things at least in New York, the epicenter that still operates as something of a model for other occupations. I listened in on a working group addressing issues of safety where one of the leaders of the OWS security detail was facilitating a discussion. I was interested to find out that the problems are being taken up in serious, and inventive, ways. There was much discussion of new protocols that honor survivors, that acknowledge the limitations of the police, and that try to work with, rather than ignore, the differences of power and privilege among us. Don't shout at someone like you're military, talk about shared community space, use “I” sentences rather than “you” sentences, think about how white and male and heterosexual privilege can affect our interactions, and our judgments. A discussion the NYPD could have benefited from. And an innovative approach to security that recognizes the informal operations of power that always function alongside the formal ones. But also, I was relieved to hear, people are not being liberal, i.e. permissive, about this issue. A groper who harassed several women was called out and pushed out of the park, even though he was homeless. Two assailants were turned over to the police. New protocols have been developed for sharing tents or space under tarps. There is a survivor group, and they speak out. OWS takes the building of a community space seriously. It knows it has to be a safe space for all, and knows that for some safety is all too precarious. The security squad, mostly folks of color, has members experienced in conflicts and negotiations. I witnessed one effectively pushing a hustler out of the park with the threat of publicizing his activities through the people’s mike.<br />
<br />
The point is that the occupation in NY is dealing with this problem proactively and as far as I can tell, pretty effectively. There have been three incidents of safety concerns at OWS: two gropers, one person who threw a punch. All were dealt with aggressively. Sexual assault is a rampant social epidemic, and it is not to be expected that any park—any public or private space or community—can become 100% free of it.<br />
<br />
This cannot be used as an alibi for state violence to shut down the occupations. Sexual violence is never the priority of the state until it serves some other agenda, to create a scare about daycare, or fan the flames of white racism, or increase surveillance opportunities that might be useful for other purposes. I write this as a survivor who lives with PTSD and continues to feel lifelong effects. I take sexual assault very seriously. But this is a totally bogus reason to go after the occupations.<br />
<br />
We need to reflect carefully on how 'safety' and 'security' concerns are defined and approached in the discourses surrounding the occupations. There should be zero tolerance for groping or other violations of bodily integrity, yet the best resources for our security may be the decentralized and bottom up mechanisms of free flows of information united with the democratic and proactive efforts of the occupiers.<br />
<br />
<i>Linda Martín Alcoff<br />
Professor of Philosophy<br />
Hunter College and CUNY Graduate Center</i>Linda Martín Alcoffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08294518299071412377noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2417634555586331707.post-82546552222898712942011-10-30T15:13:00.000-07:002011-11-01T18:14:10.430-07:00God & the 1%: The Corporatizing of Religion<img src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-q5sNd5-7m-U/Tq3m4AYjHXI/AAAAAAAAADE/DNnvhRvPVOU/s1600/lakewood-church.jpg" /> <br />
<br />
An element of the oppression of the 99% that has as far as I can tell gone unremarked upon (at least in the context of the new discourse being raised by the Occupy movement) is the increasing Corporatization of religion in the United States in the last 50 years or so. Televangelists like Joyce Meyer,* Binny Hinn, Paula White, T.D. Jakes, Rod Parsley and Joel Osteen (the posh-looking stadium pictured above is Pastor Osteen’s megachurch and corporate headquarters) prey on the fear and despair of the 99% in the most repugnant way, offering them worldly comfort and security and even eternal salvation in exchange for a small donation to their “ministry.” And business is booming. Joel Osteen’s ministry took in a staggering <i>$75 million</i> (US) last year. That’s a lot of books, videos, television rights, trinkets, speaking fees, and Church “offerings.” Osteen lives in a multimillion dollar estate and his ministry owns a private jet.<br />
<br />
Regardless of one’s commitments to theism or atheism, surely all rational people who are capable even moderate reflection can see that there is something seriously morally wrong about filling a stadium full of mostly middle class and poor people and using the technical wizardy and audio/visual razzle-dazzle typically associated with rock-concerts and major sporting events to soften up these unsuspecting “marks” and coerce them into a scheme of wealth redistribution which robs them of money they need to live in return for vague promises of divine favor and a better hereafter.<br />
<br />
But you don’t have to be a televangelist to cash in...<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
The fact of the matter is that Churches of all sizes, from the megachurches of Osteen and Meyer, to small town Baptist Churches, to Catholic Dioceses, have become all about “church growth” a thinly disguised term for religious marketing designed to drive paying parishioners into the pews, and to streamline incomes. According to Salary.com the average income for a pastor <a href="http://www1.salary.com/Pastor-Salary.html">is now between $71,000 and $97,000 annually</a>—that’s 2 to 3 times the income of the average American.<br />
<br />
Perhaps a case can be made that pastors—who serve as educators, administrators, <i>de facto</i> (often unqualified) psychological counselors, marriage counselors, and hospice caregivers, and who often have heavy stresses placed upon them by their own flocks (in the form of unreasonable moral standards)—offer at least some value for the churchgoers’ dollar.<br />
<br />
But as with everything else in Plutofascist Corporate America these local providers are in competition with regional, even national, megachurches, whose slick design and deep pockets make for a potent mix of spectacle and salvation. And the local providers are losing as the megachurches continue to grow. And the pastors of these megachurches, like Osteen, tend to be pastors in name only. They don’t counsel their flocks—how could they with flocks that number in the hundreds of thousands? They give nice speeches to adoring throngs and collect obscene amounts of money, and they pay underlings to do the actual ministerial work. In essence they function as CEOs of large corporations.<br />
<br />
They even justify their extreme greed with same tactics as corporations. When asked about their exorbitant incomes, they talk about their charitable giving, as though throwing millions to the hoi polloi could excuse their backward wealth redistribution scheme. They’re criminals and robbers and they deserve to be punished. Osteen is particularly egregious for his preaching of the “prosperity Gospel,” according to which God’s plan for your life is that you should be wealthy, and the only reason you're not is that you're morally or epistemologically lacking. The cure? attend more conferences, buy more books, give more to the ministry to “sow your seed of faith” as they put it.<br />
So the poor are told that by handing over their money they can get wealth from God. If they ever realize they’ve been had there is no way for them to seek restitution or redress. There is no law against a Church soliciting contributions. So megachurch pastors get off scot-free and the poor are left holding the bag.<br />
<br />
Regardless of one’s views on religion, we as philosophers should be vocal in calling out these Plutofascist fat cats. They’re absolute moral reprobates. Theists have as much reason to despise them as the most ardent atheist. Christ (if we can speak of him in a historic fashion) reserved his only act of violent aggression for those who profited from religion. He called them <i>vipers</i>. Dirty things that crawl on their bloated bellies across the Earth. These modern vipers are no different. We need a mass awakening of the rank and file religious.<br />
<br />
These megachurch pastors are the 1% and it is high time the 99% took a good long look at what they are doing.<br />
<br />
<center>◊ ◊ ◊</center> <br />
<small>*A congressional committee discovered in 2007 that Joyce Meyer Ministries purchased a $23,000 toilet for Mrs. Meyer's use at the office. (Source: <a href="http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=16860611">NPR</a>)</small>99% Philosopherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02125608880524538869noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2417634555586331707.post-75548423622557903232011-10-30T13:29:00.000-07:002011-11-06T14:28:56.924-08:00’Tis the season for Justice!<p>That is, a Rawls virtual reading group. In light of all the Rawlsian interest (or, okay, I was planning this anyway), I’ll be facilitating a Rawls reading group on the <a href="sfsuphil.blogspot.com">SFSU philosophy blog</a>.<br /><br />We will have Tuesday and Thursday reading “deadlines,” and I will be posting on Wednesdays and Fridays in the dreamy hope that others will be similarly inspired.<br /><a name='more'></a><br />The supplementary texts are:<br /></p><ul><li><i>Justice as Fairness</i></li><li><i>The Cambridge Companion to Rawls</i></li><li><i>Rawls</i> (Routledge Philosophers series), Freeman</li><li><i>Reading Rawls</i>, Ed. Daniels</li></ul>Two optional critiques:<br /><br /><ul><li><i>Understanding Rawls</i>, Wolff</li><li><i>Justice, Gender and the Family</i>, Okin</li></ul><br />The first reading for Tuesday is posted on the blog: TJ (2nd ed.), Sections 1-4. See also the supplementary readings for this week. A finalized schedule will be posted soon.<br /><br />It will also extend into next semester (and beyond?) as we move from TJ into PL and some critiques. I definitely want to eventually cover at least Nozick, Sandel, Kymlicka, Taylor, Cohen, Murphy, Beitz, and Pogge. Other suggestions welcome. I was going to structure the reading load roughly equivalent to a class, but am open to reducing it down. I will not “assign” reading over winter break, so those of you that can't commit now will have the opportunity to “catch up” quickly.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2417634555586331707.post-13514956198038121772011-10-30T12:11:00.000-07:002011-10-30T13:57:11.029-07:00Let Them Eat Cake, Or, the Spectacle of Suffering<p>First there was this:</p>
<embed width="570" height="366" src="http://www.youtube.com/v/2PiXDTK_CBY&fs=1&source=uds" type="application/x-shockwave-flash"></embed>
<p>And then there was<a href="http://chicagoist.com/2011/10/05/board_of_trade_has_a_message_for_oc.php"> this</a>:</p>
<p><img src="http://chicagoist.com/attachments/chicagoist_chuck/2011_10_5_one_percent.jpg" width="400" height="171" /></p>
<a name='more'></a>
<p>And now there’s <a href="http://occupyamerica.crooksandliars.com/diane-sweet/colder">this</a>:</p>
<p><img src="http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6214/6290733751_90dc74b1bc.jpg" /></p>
<p>All of the talk emanating from the right about “class warfare” rings somewhat hollow in the face of such ostentatious displays of cruelty and indifference. This is sadism in its purest form; it is the One's deriving pleasure not just from the abject suffering of the Other, but from the One's ability to inflict suffering on the Other coupled with the Other’s inability to defend itself. To be the Master, it is not enough for the One to make the Other into a Slave; the One must glory in its power to enslave the Other, to push the face of the Other into the dirt with its jackbooted (gilt?) heel and force the Other to recognize that the One is Master and the Other is Slave.</p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2417634555586331707.post-11861893023047334982011-10-30T10:18:00.000-07:002011-10-30T10:18:31.999-07:00Practical StuffSo, talking about OWS is fun and all, but is anyone watching this on the ground with any of the protests? Everyone who can should, of course, respond to the call for hard-weather gear, but are there ways that philosophers can be better contributors to the movement, <i>qua</i> philosophers? Teach-ins, reciting Platonic dialogues for entertainment, that sort of thing.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13289262678766206439noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2417634555586331707.post-85805669362514143692011-10-30T07:42:00.000-07:002011-10-30T13:45:46.742-07:00SPEP Supports OWS!<p>A reader associated with the <i>Society for Phenomenology and Existential Philosophy</i>, the second largest body of professional philosophers in the country, sent us a copy of the following statement of solidarity with OWS.</p> <a name='more'></a>
SPEP Statement in Support of the Occupy Wall Street Movement:
<blockquote>
<p>A massive protest movement has emerged in response to an economic crisis, rapidly increasing wealth inequity, and diminishing employment and educational opportunities for an entire generation. The recent financial crisis, facilitated by Wall Street malfeasance, has only exacerbated a devastating decades-long trend that continues to socialize risk and privatize profit. This trend toward increasing economic injustice has disproportionately affected communities of color and left tens of millions homeless, jobless, and overburdened with student loans and underwater mortgages.</p>
<p>As educators and students, we have witnessed decreases in state funding for education, coupled with increases in tuition costs, the privatization of research, the commodification of campus spaces, the use of precarious and part-time positions, and attacks on collective bargaining. This has had a disciplinary effect on educators and students alike, hindering the pursuit of higher education, open and critical inquiry, as well as democratic participation.</p>
<p><em>SPEP stands in solidarity with the Occupy Wall Street movement, which represents a direct challenge to these social and political inequities and economic injustices, as it reclaims social spaces for democratic deliberation and participation and pushes back against a growing suspicion of social solidarity and the public good. SPEP encourages its members to support these principles and practices in the Occupy movement through any and all of the unique resources available to them.</em></p></blockquote>99% Philosopherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02125608880524538869noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2417634555586331707.post-55355618134194289702011-10-30T07:28:00.000-07:002011-10-30T13:29:22.120-07:00URGENT: OWS Needs Winter Supplies!<p>See: <a href="http://occupywallst.org/article/urgent-winter-donation-needs/">OWS Urgent Winter Donation Needs</a></p>
<p>In light of the cold, snowy weather in New York and the sudden confiscation of its generators by the NYPD, Occupy Wall Street is in <em>dire</em> need of winter supplies. See the link above for details.<p>
<p>On a more general note, winter is coming and occupations around the country will soon be faced with their biggest challenge yet: mother nature! Whether you live near (or are involved in) an occupation or not, <em>please</em> consider donating money and/or supplies. Better yet, why not start a donation campaign or supply drive on your campus?</p>
<p><em>Let's help!</em></p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2417634555586331707.post-30511022398325599592011-10-29T17:52:00.000-07:002011-10-29T21:28:20.343-07:00Media Watch: Chris Hedges and Amy Goodman on OWS on Charlie Rose<p>In these two videos Charlie Rose talks OWS and the future of the growing global movement with Pulitzer prize winning author Chris Hedges and author Amy Goodman. The interview is in 2 parts.</p>
<embed width="570" height="400" src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ACVHfGdR1c8&fs=1&source=uds" type="application/x-shockwave-flash"></embed>
<p><center>(Part two after the jump.)</center></p>
<a name='more'></a>
<object width="320" height="266" class="BLOGGER-youtube-video" classid="clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=6,0,40,0" data-thumbnail-src="http://1.gvt0.com/vi/aXvijFSI_a0/0.jpg"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/aXvijFSI_a0&fs=1&source=uds" />
<param name="bgcolor" value="#FFFFFF" />
<embed width="570" height="400" src="http://www.youtube.com/v/aXvijFSI_a0&fs=1&source=uds" type="application/x-shockwave-flash"></embed></object>99% Philosopherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02125608880524538869noreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2417634555586331707.post-78268012461530316562011-10-29T17:15:00.000-07:002011-10-29T20:11:42.855-07:00We Are the 1% (Or at least I am, I'm not sure about you)<p>This is a sort of meta-post, but (a) it’s been bothering me and (b) after closing comments on my post below, I feel like there should be a venue for people telling me I'm an idiot that’s open.</p>
<p>I’m currently in Ghana, which is why I’m not finding ways to be at Occupy Baltimore at least part-time (I have a three year old who gets cranky if we’re out occupying public space past 7PM, though she <i>has</i> been asking about camping recently...). But, beyond that, I’m not sure what to make of being in another part of the world watching OWS from the outside in.</p>
<p>As far as I know, there are no sympathetic movements in Ghana (and the only OWS-related protest I know of was in South Africa). Which is not to say that there aren't various moments of resistance around the continent, many of which have grievances that would be familiar to OWS (I could have sworn that Tom Friedman said there was no Arab Spring in sub-Saharan Africa, but I can't find it now, so it may just be that it's the sort of thing I'd imagine Friedman saying). Just off the top of my head,</p>
<a name='more'></a>
<ul>
<li><a href="http://observers.france24.com/content/20111017-uganda-gunshots-tear-gas-walk-to-work-protest-police-kampala-fuel-food-prices-Kizza-Besigye">Ugandan "walk to work" protests sparked by high fuel prices</a></li>
<li><a href="http://af.reuters.com/article/topNews/idAFJOE79B00420111012">Sudanese food protests</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-15482182">South African protests over poverty and unemployment</a></li>
<li>All sorts of protests in Zimbabwe (<a href="http://wozazimbabwe.org/?p=976">this is one</a>)</li>
</ul>
<p>I'm sure there's more that I'm missing.</p>
<p>Here in Ghana, <a href="http://allafrica.com/view/group/main/main/id/00014427.html">doctors just ended their strike</a>. This was over the delay in moving publicly-funded doctors onto the new pay scale for public servants, which would raise their pay. Last week, on my walk to my office, there as a giant pile of burning tires on the median, which I’m told—variously—was either about raising tuition or increasing the number of students to a dorm room (word on the street was that the University was talking about raising it to 6).</p>
<p>None of this stuff is too remote from the goals of OWS, but lumping it together as if it’s a movement waiting to be born seems to level the serious differences between the situations.</p>
<p>And I hate being that guy, the one who’s always on about how much better we have it, and how we should worry about having <i>real</i> problems, but... if you’re even middle-class-ish in the US, you have it <em>really</em> good. I don’t know many people in the US in my circles who would be totally comfortable living the way that middle-class Ghanaians do, let alone poor Ghanaians. And Ghana’s not that poor.</p>
<p>This is why, in my earlier comments, I pointed out that the game many people seem to be frustrated had the rules changed, was rigged from the start. It’s rigged worse than ever now in favor of the 1%. But, I'm not in that 1% in the US, and the game was massively rigged in my favor—I would (likely) not be where I am, precarious as it may be, were I born in Mogadishu, or Lagos, or Accra.</p>
<p>So, on the one hand, I worry about appropriating the situation of folks around here, as if saying “global capitalism!” solves, like, chieftancy disputes and the argument over whether the NDC has been using thug tactics against Rawlings’ wife. On the other hand, it strikes me that OWS should have cosmopolitan reach.</p>
<p>I throw myself on the mercy of more perceptive minds to make sense of all this.</p>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13289262678766206439noreply@blogger.com13tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2417634555586331707.post-19135333119893752332011-10-29T16:41:00.000-07:002011-10-29T20:17:12.655-07:00Commenting Policy<p>Friends,</p>
<p>I was hoping I would not have to make an authoritarian announcement like this one, but comments made in Daniel Levine’s post below have forced my hand. We strive to be egalitarian, inclusive, and serious here, and we want everyone to participate (including conservatives), but we won’t tolerate certain kinds of behavior:</p>
<ol>
<li>Don’t be an asshole. Keep your comments as polite and inclusive as possible.</li>
<li>Don’t disparage philosophy. This is a blog for philosophers and people interested in philosophy.</li>
<li>Don’t derail, hijack, or otherwise subvert the comments away from the topic of the post you are commenting on.</li>
<li>No anti-semitic remarks will be tolerated.</li>
<li>No racist language will be tolerated.</li>
<li>No language oppressive to women will be tolerated.</li>
<li>No language oppressive to the LGBTQ community will be tolerated.</li>
<li>The comment section is not a place for you to endorse Social Darwinism.</li>
<li>The comment section is not a place for you to proselytize for your religion.</li>
<li>Don't be an asshole.</li>
</ol>
<p>Really, if you just follow 1 and 10 we’ll all get along fine. If you violate any of these rules at anytime your post will be removed by myself or one of the other admins. Two violations, and you won’t be allowed to post again.</p>99% Philosopherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02125608880524538869noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2417634555586331707.post-76177012582367621242011-10-29T02:25:00.000-07:002011-10-29T20:39:05.230-07:00What are Demands Good For?<p>When the idea that OWS does not need or should not have demands has made not only <a href="http://occupyphilosophy.blogspot.com/2011/10/phronesis-and-political-conversation-of.html">this blog</a> but a <a href="http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2011/10/07/141158199/the-friday-podcast-what-is-occupy-wall-street">Planet Money podcast</a>, we may be moving beyond the assumption that it’s alleged incoherence is, in some sense, a failing. Though I have heard some vague rumors that the NYC group is planning to have a “platform” by the end of the month—anyone on the ground know anything about that?</p>
<p>But I’m a policy guy (and a boring analytic philosopher, who can’t discuss Deleuze), so I think it might be worth asking: why might you think a group like OWS needs demands?</p>
<p>There are two obvious pitfalls to having demands, which seem to be pretty well understood now.</p>
<a name='more'></a>
<p>First, the elements of the 99% that have been coming out to various Occupy protests are pretty diverse in terms of substantive politics. They may be united by a sense that something is wrong, and even a general idea that what’s wrong is that 1% have too much stuff and 99% too little, but not necessarily by much else. Keeping them all together may be in some degree dependent on keeping the plan vague. Any demands made would alienate lots of people—<em>e.g.,</em> I imagine that the Tea Party might have a broader base had it stuck to the “we're mad about government bailouts” identification of the problem, rather than becoming focused on policy proposals that were more or less on the political right.</p>
<p>Second, having a set of demands would require bringing to a close the open-ended discourse that people are currently engaging in, and which seems to be a significant part of the draw.</p>
<p>The “pro-demand” side of the argument would basically be, “Okay, but what can you <em>do</em> unless you have a proposal?” I think it’s a good question, but the situation is a bit more complicated than it might appear.</p>
<p>First, there are plenty of things you can do without demands. Off the top of my head, here are a few that OWS seems, from my distant vantage point, to be doing already:</p>
<ul>
<li>Have a conversation</li>
<li>Engage in mutual aid</li>
<li>Raise awareness about a problem</li>
<li>Make people feel good (if you think this is trivial, reflect on how much we consume corporate-produced media to accomplish this)</li>
</ul>
<p>So, you can do plenty without demands. The one thing you <em>can’t </em>easily do without demands is <em>change the behavior of elites</em>. The concept of a “demand” is not at home in democratic theory—it is an immigrant from negotiation theory. Demands are fundamentally things you demand <em>of</em> people, typically people who have power you do not have to change a situation.</p>
<p>Without demands, the main thing you can’t do is go to members of the political and/or economic elite and say, “do <em>x</em> or we will retaliate thus-and-so,” where the thus-and-so is: not buy your stuff, not vote for you, burn your institutions down, etc.</p>
<p>This is one of those things that sounds stupidly obvious when I say it, but I think is important to any discussion of demands. You don’t have demands for yourself. You have demands because you accept the power of another actor. To have demands of Wall Street or Washington is to accept that Wall Street and Washington will continue to largely control your fate.</p>
<p>I also think the question of demands marks an important option for the OWS movement, as a result.</p>
<p>On the one hand, the regulative ideal of the demand-less approach is to create a space where the role of the existing elites becomes irrelevant. Enough people join the movement that we don’t make the system fairer by fixing the system; we make it fairer by displacing it with something else (and the crux of this would be the “engage in mutual aid” thing—I don't have to love your politics to be willing to feed you or teach you). I like this ideal, but it’s a big project, and I’d be dishonest if I didn’t admit that I’m pretty pessimistic about it happening. I’d love to be wrong!</p>
<p>On the other hand, forming demands might allow significant changes to be made—the Tea Party has been a fairly important factor in GOP politics and OWS could be a significant factor in national and local politics as well (likely, regardless of critique, on the Democratic side of the aisle). But these changes will be modifications of the existing system, to a large extent. No one will accept a demand to commit class or political suicide.</p>
<center>◊ ◊ ◊</center>
<p><em>Note:</em> I want to put in a more public place than buried in a comment thread that I was probably too snarky by half in my response to Steven Mazie’s article in the comments to <a href="http://occupyphilosophy.blogspot.com/2011/10/occupy-rawls-street.html">this post</a>. I stand by my view that Rawls is more radical than he’s often made out to be, but I didn’t need to be obnoxious about it.</p>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13289262678766206439noreply@blogger.com46tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2417634555586331707.post-27910528101761077772011-10-28T11:57:00.000-07:002011-10-29T20:46:14.327-07:00Phronesis & Political Conversation of the OWS Movement<p><em>J.E. Hackett (SIU Carbondale) offers an Aristotelian reflection on the OWS Movement</em></p>
<p>In this short piece, I want to explicate the OWS’s “Aristotelian moments.” I have two short intuitions I’d like to share. First, I think the political conversation in Zucotti Park is about a deliberation concerning the ends to which we structure society, and secondly that while this is the aim of the openness of dialogue, the movement must adopt phronesis in order to secure the search of virtue from incommensurability. Too much inclusiveness can be undermining just as much as a blanket exclusiveness.</p>
<p>The OWS movement is an attempt to sustain an awareness of how we initially establish the ends or end in order that more may flourish. By “flourishing”, I do not mean that the 99% acquire more access to material wealth (though we must admit that wealth makes it easier to live a flourishing life), but a political condition that creates an environment in which others may realize the potential of their own lives. One doesn’t need to be a Marxist in America to see that how we structure society has a direct consequence to how people can realize their own lives and achieve the Good Life.</p>
<p>For the purposes of this entry, by “Good Life” is when all the goods of our lives are present in a balanced way and moreover we fairly have access to develop these goods in our lives. These goods might be knowledge, friendship, and family—they are simply things we want present in our life to make it complete. In this piece, I remain non-committal about what these goods ought to be for America on a whole since, I think, that the deliberation about what goods ought we to promote is a central line of inquiry for the OWS movement.</p> <a name='more'></a> <p>In political conversations, the OWS movement sustains an awareness of ends at great length by maintaining an openness without being quick to determine any particular policy or inherited political category about those ends. It is common for facilitators to make a list by stacking everyone that wants to share. Participants do not make noise when they disagree or agree with a speaker, they simply wiggle their fingers in a given way so they will not drown out someone’s voice. Everyone is respected in sharing their voice.</p>
<p>As I see it, the starting point of the OWS movement is a question about the ends we ought to aim for as a society. Previous political categories and policies are part of the problem in promoting an end that destroys the capacity for others to lead the Good Life. Hence, it is necessary to have conversations about exactly how to address these concerns. Given this assumption, how exactly do we go about changing America such that the ends our society promotes allow for flourishing? What ends ought we to endorse over others such that justice may be realized?</p>
<p>The indeterminacy of the OWS’s message is an open refusal to stop the conversation about the virtue of our political process from being co-opted to an end in which corporations, banks and a powerful elite garner more entrenched self-interests over and above what is necessary for the entire American community to flourish. No solution is offered in the status-quo. However, we are unclear how best to foster flourishing ourselves. That’s why we are asking questions, having dialogues and this is why it is wise for the OWS Movement to refuse translation into partisan frameworks of the Democratic and Republican parties. It is the search for new concepts, interpretations and frameworks to address the challenges we face. In this way, I can also see the following questions striking a chord with the OWS Movement: What combination of virtues are necessary to establish are more just society than the one we now have and ultimately what will those virtues require in the specific American context? I’d be open to the fact that some virtues might be more culturally necessary than others.</p>
<p>In order for us to ask these questions, there are a few requirements that our conversations must fulfill. I offer three capacities necessary to maintain the openness in deliberation. First, there must be “comprehension.” This is our ability to size up a situation and maintain a view to its conceptual wholeness; it is our ability to exercise judgment. However, the exercising of judgment necessitates that we have the appropriate “sense” as to what is truly relevant in our moral situation. We must be able to distinguish the morally salient features of our particular situation in this country. Lastly, not only must we be able to judge the relevant features in our particular situation, and do so with clear understanding, but we must execute this deliberation into action. Execution requires that we must have a “cleverness,” a type of ingenuity in knowing how exactly to put together the means to achieve our end.</p>
<p>Philosophers will recognize my threefold requirement for political conversations as phronesis or practical wisdom. This is the contribution that is mostly relevant to the OWS movement from Aristotle. Indeed, we want a very inclusive discourse, and we require new political categories, conceptual landscapes and methods of inquiry to address the concerns of plutocracy in America. We want very open discourses fostered to meet that challenge. Yet, there will come a time in which these discourses must sift out perspectives, make decisions and bring about an end in action. The ends pursued must come about wisely and rationally. There are many different things being said, and possibly a great many contradictory proposals. It is very likely that we have stacked perspectives that are inherently contradictory to each other. Therefore, to prevent a deliberation with incommensurable results, it is necessary to adopt the intellectual virtues of deliberation in Aristotle such that these conversations can maintain the end in view proper to what we want, and what we want can only come about from a virtuous inquiry into the particular problems America faces.</p>99% Philosopherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02125608880524538869noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2417634555586331707.post-60162590335788554122011-10-28T08:23:00.000-07:002011-10-29T20:54:00.933-07:00Charlie Chaplin: The Original Occupier?<p>In 1940, before anyone was aware of the true extent of the crimes of the Nazi regime, Charlie Chaplin produced, wrote, directed, and starred in <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Dictator"><i>The Great Dictator</i></a>, one of the greatest satirical films ever. The film was nominated for several Oscars (including best screenplay and best actor nods for Chaplin himself). And it was widely loved by American moviegoers and critics of the era.</p>
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/QcvjoWOwnn4?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe>
<p>In the film, Chaplin plays a lower class Jewish man who happens to bear a great resemblance to Hynkel, a bloodthirsty, despotic, politician with designs for world conquest. Through a series of events he replaces the dictator, as the country wages an extended and bloody war.</p>
<p>In the movie’s climactic scene, Chaplin gives a stirring anti-authoritarian, anti-war, anti-fascist oratory. Calling the army to embrace their humanity and imploring the people to live in a spirit of democracy and fraternity.</p>
<p>It would be anachronistic to think that all of what is said in this great speech is applicable to current struggles of the OWS movement. But if you give it a listen, I think you will agree not only that is one of the greatest soliloquies in the history of cinema, but also that Chaplin would have loved to see the OWS, which is after all a very real uprising against “machine men, with machine minds.”</p>99% Philosopherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02125608880524538869noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2417634555586331707.post-14294268276919724092011-10-27T15:53:00.000-07:002011-10-29T21:27:02.572-07:00How the Wachowski Siblings May Have Saved the World<p>Assuming that the average age of the current OWS protester is about 26 years old, then most of them would have been about 14 years old when <i><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Matrix">The Matrix</a> </i>was released in 1999.</p>
<embed width="570" height="400" src="http://www.youtube.com/v/WnEYHQ9dscY&fs=1&source=uds" type="application/x-shockwave-flash"></embed>
<p>In the now famous scene (at left) from that <em>iconic</em> movie, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morpheus_%28The_Matrix%29">Morpheus</a>, leader of a revolutionary underground, explains the true nature of the Matrix to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo_%28The_Matrix%29">Thomas Anderson</a>. It is a system of control, a world “pulled over your eyes” to blind you from the awful truth that human beings are nothing more than batteries to power the regime of a race of intelligent machines.</p>
<p>The idea of a “world pulled over your eyes” is nothing new to philosophers, of course. 2000 years before <i>The Matrix</i>, the Greek Philosopher <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plato">Plato</a>, in his famous dialogue <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Republic_%28Plato%29"><i>The Republic</i></a> told a similar story—<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegory_of_the_cave">the Allegory of the Cave</a>. There Plato had his readers imagine a group of people held hostage to appearances, forced to accept a shadow play for reality, and he imagined what might happen if one of them managed to get free, and see past the shadows, and look at the world as it really is. What would we he tell his fellow captives then? And how would they react? I don’t want to spoil it for you, but it doesn’t end well.</p>
<p>The Wachowski siblings tapped the same rich philosophical vein in <i>The Matrix</i>. What is real? But they added an interesting layer to the allegory. Their contribution? The people in the Cave are not just stationary captives <i>ala</i> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Clockwork_Orange_%28film%29"><i>A Clockwork Orange</i></a> (another masterpiece of dystopian filmmaking) but they are <i>exploited workers</i>, their production in captivity literally empowers the very system that oppresses them.</p>
<p>Sound like anyone you know? (Or perhaps like 99% of everyone you know?)</p>
<a name='more'></a>
<p>I find it interesting that one of the major cultural myths of the OWS generation is about a group of oppressed humans, living in a system that unfairly exploits their productivity who rise up in a revolution and overthrow that inhumane system. It may be a stretch for a philosopher to make such a broad psychological generalization, but surely a group of people who share that formative cultural myth are more primed for radical political action (if not outright revolution) than say, those of our grandmother’s and mother’s generations, who were told stories about elite members of the wealthiest 1% (e.g., Bruce Wayne, Oliver Queen, Ted Cord, Stephen Strange, Sherlock Holmes, Tony Stark, Reed Richards, Francis Xavier, Thor, Henry Pym, et al...) and even super-powered Space Aliens (e.g. The Martian Manhunter, The Silver Surfer, and Superman himself) who were so enamored of the America of the 1950’s where law and order and fair play reigned that they shun their lives of comfort, or even the extra-terrestrial homes, to make a life for themselves in the Good Old US of A.</p>
<p>In a generation, we went from Clark Kent, alien immigrant <i>in the most literal sense</i> turned defender of “Truth, Justice, and the American Way” to Thomas Anderson (Neo), a living battery in an indifferent machine, who realizes his plight and joins a desperate struggle to cast off his shackles. The Wachowskis might not have been the first to go there, but it was their enjoyable iteration on Plato that reached millions of young people the world over with message that appearance is not reality, that appearances can be tools of oppression, and that revolution is sometimes the only sensible course of action.</p>
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhbs1qasXcjXmaXvPdy-qsryqUd3EqqKGzCaEQHCEGGruDm7pHs7am6kaKwl_mUhL5FEV50Yi2lkC3qqdwB66dfX4t1cFvGUFbz2oO-A94hsL0oQr8MwPGQWtMwtp3xkZWKvX3FMrEmJDI/s1600/Vcover.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhbs1qasXcjXmaXvPdy-qsryqUd3EqqKGzCaEQHCEGGruDm7pHs7am6kaKwl_mUhL5FEV50Yi2lkC3qqdwB66dfX4t1cFvGUFbz2oO-A94hsL0oQr8MwPGQWtMwtp3xkZWKvX3FMrEmJDI/s1600/Vcover.jpg" /></a>
<p>The Wachowskis followed up the <em>Matrix</em> trilogy with another grand revolutionary spectacle. In 2006, they released their film adaption of Alan Moore and And David Lloyd’s classic graphical novel <i>V For Vendetta.</i> The graphic novel tells the story of a anarchic terrorist, compulsively clad in a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guy_Fawkes">Guy Fawkes</a> mask, who carries out a personal vendetta against a brutally fascistic 80s–90s British regime with startling acts of violence and fiery demolition. The Wachowskis tweaked this plot, much to the ire of Alan Moore, by revising the character of V, and making him more overtly heroic liberal freedom fighter, where the original V was an outright anarchist, not given to what Moore called “American liberal” sentiment.</p>
<p>Be that as it may, the film retained many of the revolutionary overtones of the graphic novel. This was especially apparent in the memorable scene where V addresses the nation via television about their Gov’t.</p>
<embed width="570" height="400" src="http://www.youtube.com/v/0oWs_voUPkk&fs=1&source=uds" type="application/x-shockwave-flash"></embed>
<p>Though <i>V for Vendetta</i> performed poorly at the box office compared to the <i>Matrix </i>trilogy, this particular scene, and the character of V himself, has taken on a life of its own as an internet meme.</p>
<p>This is evident in the way that the famous hacker/activist/anarchist network that calls itself <i>Anonymous</i> has appropriated the figure of V via there use of his trademark Guy Fawkes mask. Anonymous operatives regularly appear in Fawkes masks at any public protest.</p>
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjcqqI81qZOMv3F00GI8XzRQwaq8UFIJDBSWLr2LKQ0XRxo5YE5FuRmgs1YdiDQ58KdKC5XU92xMSdaLxAejGoaKy8iljAGrxaBZtKAwJ0qyxIj2ud_G41WJ6sOHrzY70nM2UE_dNmUDkk/s1600/Anonymous+Fawkes.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjcqqI81qZOMv3F00GI8XzRQwaq8UFIJDBSWLr2LKQ0XRxo5YE5FuRmgs1YdiDQ58KdKC5XU92xMSdaLxAejGoaKy8iljAGrxaBZtKAwJ0qyxIj2ud_G41WJ6sOHrzY70nM2UE_dNmUDkk/s200/Anonymous+Fawkes.jpg" width="186" /></a>
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhjh3wmzZhz1TEXNoTNTdn2Apxy2l8FIYiapPAs9ZTopOsl9Q77_I0ZFeticNqUyJawahI3vxVLHy3IvZ4lwAgw8-RhxEC2G0T4wRU67nzF-8zKbiOvu56dFDebhaLq4KYbhyphenhyphenWeBqHlO2M/s1600/FawkesOWS.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="184" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhjh3wmzZhz1TEXNoTNTdn2Apxy2l8FIYiapPAs9ZTopOsl9Q77_I0ZFeticNqUyJawahI3vxVLHy3IvZ4lwAgw8-RhxEC2G0T4wRU67nzF-8zKbiOvu56dFDebhaLq4KYbhyphenhyphenWeBqHlO2M/s320/FawkesOWS.jpg" width="320" /></a><br style="clear:both"/><span style="font-size: .8em;">Left: OWS protesters in France; Right: members of <em>Anonymous</em> protesting Scientology in Florida</span>
<p>And the meme of the protester in a Guy Fawkes mask has spread as well to many of the OWS camps around the world.</p>
<p>I take the ubiquity and obvious importance of the figure of V, represented by people’s willingness to wear his mask, as evidence of a generation that associates itself with the revolutionary narrative the character embodied rather than the “Truth Justice and The American Way” narrative of our parents and our parents parents.</p>
<p>As more and more people awaken, like the red pills in <i>The Matrix</i>, to discover that they have been commodified, dehumanized, chopped, bundled, bought, and sold as means to grow corporate capital, used as fuel for a reckless financial bubble to enrich the 1%, more people will be politically radicalized, and embrace the persona, and the narrative, of revolution.</p>
<p>The Wachowskis, who studied philosophy in college, have managed to make an impact on millions of young people around the globe. Through their craft, they’ve helped (in no small way I suspect) to change the narrative and mythos of a generation of young Americans. In the end, the changes they helped bring about, and the narrative they helped us to imagine, might end up being a vehicle of positive change in the lives of millions of people. They might help save the world.</p>99% Philosopherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02125608880524538869noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2417634555586331707.post-32913457214447661952011-10-27T12:55:00.000-07:002011-10-29T21:34:12.952-07:00More on Rawls & Occupy Wall Street<p><a href="http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/21/rawls-on-wall-street/">My piece on Rawls and Occupy Wall Street</a> from last week has
garnered some critical reactions, and I reply to one of the more prominent responses in this rejoinder, posted today on <a href="http://bigthink.com/ideas/40850">Big Think</a>.</p>
<p style="text-align: right; margin-right: 50px;">–Steve Mazie<p>Steven Maziehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03841067034826261853noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2417634555586331707.post-12183058724559994172011-10-27T05:40:00.000-07:002011-10-29T21:53:02.092-07:00Quan = Quisling<img src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-xlHZA9_kzbo/TqzXdyLc-fI/AAAAAAAAAC8/cSa8Ay_lQZ4/s1600/Quan.png" style="border: 0px;" />Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2417634555586331707.post-72747245135629656202011-10-26T10:59:00.000-07:002011-10-26T14:54:21.690-07:00Video on The Police-State Reaction to Occupy OaklandIn a press release dated October 25, Joanna Watson of the Media Relations office at the Oakland Police Department, denied that the police used non-lethal "rubber" bullets and "flash-bang" or concussion grenades on protesters. Here is the relevant quote from the press release:<br />
<br />
<b>Q. Did the Police deploy rubber bullets, flash-bag grenades? </b><br />
A. No, the loud noises that were heard originated from M-80 explosives thrown at Police by protesters. In addition, Police fired approximately four bean bag rounds at protesters to stop them from throwing dangerous objects at the officers.<br />
<br />
(The full press release can be found<a href="http://www.youtube.com/redirect?q=http%3A%2F%2Fwww2.oaklandnet.com%2Foakca%2Fgroups%2Fcityadministrator%2Fdocuments%2Fpressrelease%2Foak031911.pdf&session_token=DsweqpK_RyB5CZTmRA9TdxeA2ZN8MTMxOTczNTMwMUAxMzE5NjQ4OTAx"> here</a>)<br />
<br />
<b>After the jump...</b>video of an Oakland PD Officer throwing a concussion grenade into a group of protesters who are trying to give aid to a woman who has fallen and injured herself.<br />
<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<object class="BLOGGER-youtube-video" classid="clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=6,0,40,0" height="266" src="http://0.gvt0.com/vi/QqNOPZLw03Q/0.jpg" width="320"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/QqNOPZLw03Q&fs=1&source=uds">
<param name="bgcolor" value="#FFFFFF">
<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/QqNOPZLw03Q&fs=1&source=uds" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" height="266" width="320"></embed></object></div>
<br />
I have to admit that I can scarcely believe what this video clearly shows. Namely that the police, at least in Oakland, can be easily persuaded to overlook their credo "to serve and protect", unless of course this is understood as applying only to the interests of the Corporate plutocracy. They certainly seem uninterested in protecting the rights of freedom of speech and freedom of Assembly of the protesters, nor do they appear at all concerned for the physical health and well-being of the people, who they lob concussion grenades at with callous disregard.<br />
<br />
How callous is their disregard?<br />
<br />
Here is a video at the scene by a filmmaker named Abby Martin with the group "Media Roots". Warning: There is some very free, and unedited, speech in this video:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<object class="BLOGGER-youtube-video" classid="clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=6,0,40,0" height="266" src="http://0.gvt0.com/vi/1NJXEsXlw7Q/0.jpg" width="320"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/1NJXEsXlw7Q&fs=1&source=uds">
<param name="bgcolor" value="#FFFFFF">
<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/1NJXEsXlw7Q&fs=1&source=uds" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" height="266" width="320"></embed></object></div>
<br />
What Ms. Martin captures very well here is the utter disregard for the people these police show. They seem to be, as one commenter on Youtube aptly puts it, "zombies" responding with violence to peaceful demonstrations, and protecting the (criminally) accumulated wealth of the 1% while blankly and silently staring off into the distance. Not one of them offers a non-pathological reply to the honest, humane, questions put to them.<br />
<br />
I for one am in utter dismay at these developments, what do our readers think?99% Philosopherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02125608880524538869noreply@blogger.com14tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2417634555586331707.post-63831078977453339432011-10-25T15:39:00.000-07:002011-10-29T21:59:00.247-07:00Thanks<p>On behalf of all the authors and editors, I would like to thank our readers for getting the word out about the blog. Thanks in large part to Prof. Brian Leiter at <a href="http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/">Leiter Reports</a> our site quickly gained readership last week. About midweek we were mentioned by Andrew Sullivan at the <a href="http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/">The Daily Beast</a> and that sent page views soaring, and a day or so later we were mentioned in the <i>New York Times</i> philosophy blog, <a href="http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/category/the-stone/">The Stone</a>.</p>
<p>All in all, we had just over 20,000 page views in less than a week, which is a good (if unsustainable) start. We’ve also added several new authors. And we’ve developed some exciting plans, including and new WordPress homepage, that we’ll be sharing with you soon.</p>
<p>Thanks for helping us get off the ground running, for your continued support and interest.</p>99% Philosopherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02125608880524538869noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2417634555586331707.post-48957049916629357232011-10-25T15:18:00.000-07:002011-10-29T22:05:23.894-07:00Welcome to the Police State<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgrhDoS0xy1MyU6tsZv3SQb1w5_PAXdfoLJ7Erp6JgCWfn3nE0_6Ep_KXpVtb73b90li_aWf2DuawL-lMMtbpK5qYT37kcalbCfPd66VotneQ0uhDYPZZ8hyclXxHkZxLr3HHdFAc08nOU/s1600/oakland+attack.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="195" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgrhDoS0xy1MyU6tsZv3SQb1w5_PAXdfoLJ7Erp6JgCWfn3nE0_6Ep_KXpVtb73b90li_aWf2DuawL-lMMtbpK5qYT37kcalbCfPd66VotneQ0uhDYPZZ8hyclXxHkZxLr3HHdFAc08nOU/s400/oakland+attack.jpg" width="300" /></a>
<p>For the past few weeks the Occupation has been kept in the public-eye in large part thanks to the ongoing police pogrom being perpetrated against the peaceful encampments of the movement. As we all know, thousands have been arrested in New York City alone, and hundreds more around the country have been subject to humiliation, gassing, intimidation, and outright physical violence at the hands of police operatives nation-wide.</p>
<p>But it appears that in the race to be the first to appease their worried plutocratic masters the Oakland Police department has shed all semblance of decency and humanity and opted instead for <em>700 police in riot-gear</em>, tear gas, <em>flash-bang grenades</em>, and rubber bullets to respond to the dire threat that is a peaceful democratic community.</p>
<p>Having lived most of my life in the United States, where I was raised to believe sincerely in the rights of peaceful assembly and freedom of speech, I have to admit that this unhinged and poorly planned reaction on the part of the sycophantic police-force of Oakland is not only deeply offensive, but utterly outrageous.</p>
<a name='more'></a>
<p>But the real outrage is that our police have not yet awakened to the realization of their true power. As long as they continue to serve the interests of the plutocrats, they will continue to be tools of oppression in the hands of callous and indifferent politicians and CEOs. But if they could be awakened, they would be a terrific addition to the movement.</p>
<p>I think we should make it a priority to reach out to police unions (where there are such) and to policeman's benevolent associations, and to policmen and women as individuals and implore them to join the vanguard of our movement. Imagine if those 700 police in riot gear had been met by 100 of their own? Would they have been so quick to terrorize the peaceful members of Occupy Oakland then?</p>
<p>And not just the police, we also need to reach out to returning war veterans. Perhaps march on V.A. Hospitals around the country, to tell them we appreciate their service to our country, and we need them to join with us in creating a better future.</p>99% Philosopherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02125608880524538869noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2417634555586331707.post-53991538774675594902011-10-24T15:45:00.000-07:002011-10-29T22:15:24.913-07:00The Fascist Reaction<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><div style="text-align: center;"></div><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.cultiris.com/kepek/thumb/INT-00059561/pr/INT-00059561.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="438" src="http://www.cultiris.com/kepek/thumb/INT-00059561/pr/INT-00059561.jpg" width="480" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Brownshirts beat up commies in the streets.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<p>From <a href="http://crooksandliars.com/john-amato/chemical-bomb-used-attack-occupy-portla">Crooksandliars:</a></p>
<blockquote>Occupy Maine protesters say Sunday morning's attack with a chemical explosive has left them with a mixture of anxiety and resolve.<br />
<br />
"We are more motivated to keep doing what we're doing," said Stephanie Wilburn, of Portland, who was sitting near where the chemical mixture in a Gatorade bottle was tossed at 4 a.m. Sunday. "They have heard us and we're making a difference."<br />
<br />
Wilburn said she was startled and briefly lost hearing in her left ear when the device exploded beneath a table about 10 feet away. Wilburn's hearing returned and police said no injuries were reported.<br />
<br />
Portland police Sgt. Glen McGary said the bomb was thrown into the camp’s kitchen, a tarped area where food is cooked and served. Protest organizers said the explosion lifted a large table about a foot off the ground.<br />
<br />
"There was no fire . . . We had a good 20 feet of thick smoke rolling out from under the table," Wilburn said. They could see the "G" on the 24-ounce bottle and its orange cap, as well as bits of silver metal, she said.<br />
<br />
She and a friend who ran over to look at it breathed in fumes that smelled like ammonia, she said.<br />
<br />
<em>Witnesses said a silver car had been circling before the attack, its occupants shouting things like "Get a job" and "You communist." They believe someone from that car threw the device, according to a statement from Occupy Maine.</em><br />
<br />
The demonstrators are protesting what they describe as unfairly favorable treatment given banks and other corporate interests at the expense of working people and those trying to find a job.</blockquote><blockquote>Shane Blodgett of Augusta was sleeping in his tent in the middle of the park when the explosion woke him up.<br />
<br />
"I heard a sound which I thought was a gunshot," he said, gesturing at the collection of three dozen tents that cover the south side of the park at Congress and Pearl streets.<br />
<br />
"I was in fear for my life. I thought someone was walking around with a gun. I didn't dare poke my head out," Blodgett said. He eventually went back to sleep..."Get a job" and "You communist." They believe someone from that car threw the device, according to a statement from Occupy Maine</blockquote>Is this the beginning of a violent right-wing backlash? Thoughtful analysis welcome. </div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2417634555586331707.post-59420097552825920062011-10-23T13:25:00.000-07:002011-10-23T20:11:51.307-07:00Capital Architecture<div>
<a href="http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21228354.500-revealed--the-capitalist-network-that-runs-the-world.html">The New Scientist has an interesting article</a> that uses mathematical modeling of transnational corporation ownership data to map the concentration of economic wealth.</div>
<div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Neat, right?</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The article mentions what's useful (mapping the architecture of the economy, checking for stability, calculating exposure) and what's not (determining which individuals actually <i>control </i>the capital).</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Protestors that allegedly claim that there is a vast global conspiracy are used as an argumentative foil. The article chortles that such a conspiracy is highly unlikely. I think that most of the protestors and the 99% would completely agree. We have to remember that the 99% is a highly diverse group, with a wide variety of different beliefs, some of which are more well-founded than others. We ought to be very careful when representing the entire group in a certain light based on the beliefs of very few. The way that the paragraph was written, it's ambiguous. One way of reading the sentence is that the protestors are a unified group with some coherent set of claims, one of which is belief in a global conspiracy. By highlighting the conspiracy claim, it suggests that the belief is somehow indicative of the group as a whole, or at least widespread enough to merit mention. Otherwise, the sentence might have been written, "one thing won't chime with <i>conspiracy theorists'</i> claims".</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
There is one major flaw in reasoning in the article, made by Dan Braha of NECSI: "The Occupy Wall Street claim that 1 per cent of people have most of the wealth reflects a logical phase of the self-organising economy."</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Quite simply, this statement is false.</div>
<div>
<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br /><br />
<br /></div>
<div>
The study models highly interconnected <i>transnational corporate</i> ownership, not ownership of <i>personal</i> wealth.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
It may be that in a self-organising economy, a small percentage of corporations end up controlling most of the capital. If true, then this is a highly useful fact to know as we consider the merits of various systems of economic organization and regulation.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
However, that does not entail that we permit vast concentrations of <i>individual</i> wealth. Resource inequality between persons undermines fundamental commitments to moral, political, and social equality. If we raised the top marginal tax rate, we could shift the wealth distribution into something far more efficient, equitable, stable and sustainable. Therefore, it is false that a self-organising economy logically entails concentration of wealth into one percent of the population.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
It is also not the case that all of the 99% object to capitalism <i>per se</i>, or even that all of the protestors do. Capitalism can be defined in many different ways, but what I take to be distinctive is private ownership of the means of production. This contrasts with other ownership systems such as public or worker-owned firms.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Capitalism often operates in market economies. A market economy is one in which the price and quantity of goods and services produced are determined by some sort of market mechanism such as the free price system (signaling of supply and demand). Need a concrete, simple example? Ebay. The seller puts an item up for auction, the buyers bid. If the item is scarce, the price goes up. If it's worthless, the item fails to sell. Contrast this system with a command/planned economy: one where price or quantity of goods and services are set by non-market forces such as a government. The former USSR had a centrally-planned economy.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Naturally, the question of regulation arises at this point. It is important to note that even comparatively free market economies are still regulated. The question is always how much they ought to be regulated. The market is an intangible entity defined and created by humans for the purpose of coordinating resource distribution. It could take any form, and we shouldn't limit our imaginations to its present configuration.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Proponents of laissez-faire capitalism rarely agree that truly <i>every</i> transaction between individuals should be free of government intervention. This view is at bottom, completely anarchical and utterly absurd: we think that there should be rule of law, for instance. But of course, that requires enforcement, which means a full legal system with courts and police and such. Those who promote laissez-faire usually have some minimal conception of regulation. So then the question is not whether to <i>have</i> regulation, but rather <i>how much</i>.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
After all, we do not presently permit individuals or their organs to be sold within the United States. We outlaw slavery. We tightly regulate prostitution and drugs, where they are permitted. Some things are, and ought to be beyond the scope of the market.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
We don't think that the market ought to determine the worth of a human life, nor determine who deserves which set of political liberties. The ideal in the United States is a presumption of its citizens as free and equal persons.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Even those who trumpet 'free' markets usually imagine for the sake of argument that the transacting parties are free and equal with access to the same information. If they don't accept these as minimal conditions, it's hard to see how their view could possibly be justified. On what basis could we judge such a system as preferable to one that meets them?</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
One can accept certain regulations but reject others: for instance, that persons should be free and equal but that corn subsidies undermine what is valuable about specialization and trade.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Finally, as a society we determine how much individuals are allowed to profit off of the market. As our system is highly complex and interconnected, we understand that at bottom, this is a cooperative enterprise. Even so-called titans of industry need teachers to teach the next generation, medical professionals to tend to the sick, air traffic controllers to direct air traffic, and so on. It's not unreasonable to require that the most fortunate individuals pay back into the system that birthed and supported their venture. No one can possibly achieve greatness alone.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
What I object to, as a 99%er, is the gross concentration of personal wealth, the complete corruption of political power with money, and a banking system that incentivizes short-term thinking and speculative asset bubbles.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I want to see a market economy.</div>
<div>
I want to see a rise in the top marginal tax rate.</div>
<div>
I want to see full public financing of elections and a decoupling of political and economic power.</div>
<div>
I want a financial transactions tax and greater corporate taxes that adequately capture negative social externalities (such as the costs of pollution and environmental damage).</div>
</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Cross-posted <a href="http://sfsuphil.blogspot.com/2011/10/capital-architecture.html">here</a>.</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2417634555586331707.post-66141106806482812612011-10-21T17:45:00.000-07:002011-10-22T11:26:12.292-07:00Occupy Rawls Street<a href="http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/21/rawls-on-wall-street/?hp">Steven V. Mazie over at the Stone today</a> talks about how `those' Occupiers ought to read and discuss Rawls. First, as an associate professor, I'm fairly certain he's one of us 99%ers. Second, `we' do. I agree that more of us should; Rawls shaped contemporary moral and political philosophy and has much to say on political equality and distributive justice. For those that are not familiar, however, I'd like to offer a few points of clarification.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
He writes, "Some individuals may be more motivated and harder working, and thus can legitimately expect greater rewards for their efforts." This is part of a section of the article that is purportedly representing Rawls' view. But that was not Rawls' view.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
It is not that individuals that work harder <i>deserve</i> a greater share of resources. After all, Rawls explicitly says that one does not deserve one's natural endowments. One's work ethic is one such character trait. It may be caused simply by good genes and/or the right sort of environment: in short, luck. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
It's also not that individuals ought to <i>expect</i> greater reward for their efforts. The only proper motivation for individuals, on Rawls' view, is to uphold and affirm the principles of justice (including the difference principle). They believe that we ought to make the worst off as best off as we can (with some important restrictions.)</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
It is rather that, for <i>whichever</i> reason we might end up with an inequality, it can be justified (preferred to other distributions) because it benefits the worst off. If anyone can object to inequality, it's those disfavored by that inequality. <i>Ex hypothesi</i>, those very same worst off are better off than they would be under any other distribution. The fact that they are better off gives them a reason to prefer the unequal distribution.<br />
<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a> </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Of course, it would be irrational for an individual to prefer a distribution where she gets $101, and another gets $1 trillion, than one in which both parties get $100. And this is where the restrictions become important.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The principles of justice are lexically ordered. The first principle requires that all citizens are to have the most extensive set of basic liberties compatible with the same set of liberties for all others. This includes the political liberties. If the level of resource inequality interferes with equal liberties, then it is prohibited. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
This is clearly the case in the United States today. <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/10/17/us/politics/a-guide-to-political-donations.html?ref=politics">Money has a corrupting influence</a> on political power in ways that undermine our status as free and equal citizens.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The second principle contains the difference principle: that inequalities must be arranged such that they are to the benefit of the worst off. But, it also insists that such inequalities must be attached to positions and offices open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Of course, the wealthy today are at a substantial advantage. Working and middle class children are more likely to become less wealthy than their parents than to stay the same, much less rise above: the United States is one of the worst countries recently measured in a study of i<a href="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=473188">ntergenerational income mobility</a>.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Rawls is explicitly concerned with substantive, not formal (i.e., legal) equality of opportunity. So, it is not sufficient that the law does not expressly forbid members of a certain class (e.g., women, minorities) to occupy the favorable positions. They must actually be able to obtain the position. Suppose that some trinket is a necessary item for a favorable position. Then contenders must all have the means to acquire the trinket.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I take it that what is obvious to everyone protesting is that the inequality does not meet these conditions. Substantial resource inequality is incompatible with full social and political equality. The widespread sentiment is that the country is being run for and by the fortunate few.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
What Mazie says, however, is that "inequality becomes injustice when the cooperative nature of society breaks down and a significant segment of the population finds itself unable to thrive, despite its best efforts." </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
This is incorrect as applied to the present United States, as is implied in the paragraph. These inequalities are unjust because they violate the two principles of justice. That is, it is obvious that:</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
1. Resource inequality undermines political equality.</div>
<div>
2. Inequalities are not attached to social positions and offices open to all.</div>
<div>
3. It is false that the worst off could not do better on a different distribution.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Mazie instructs us to focus our efforts on arguing over the finer points of Rawls rather than engaging in "intellectually bankrupt rhetoric", whatever that is supposed to mean. I'm happy to take him up on that aspect of the challenge, at least (cross-posted <a href="http://sfsuphil.blogspot.com/2011/10/occupy-rawls-street.html">here</a>).</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Bizarrely, he claims that occupiers are focused on hatred of the rich, rather than frustrated at policies and institutions. Mazie, I see your "Eat the Rich" sign and raise you a <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/the-wonkiest-signs-from-occupy-wall-street/2011/08/25/gIQAV0CbrL_blog.html">"Down with Self-Settled Asset Trusts"</a>.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Mazie suggests some ways that we can move toward a more just society, and I am wholeheartedly inclined to agree: "structural changes in campaign financing, the banking system, and the tax code".</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Mazie concludes by observing that a political movement is more likely to be successful if it does not focus on bettering the worst off, so we should plump for Rawls' more 'inclusive' formulation of the difference principle.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
There are separable questions here:</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
1. What <i>justice</i> demands.</div>
<div>
2. How we can achieve a more just society.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I take it that the point of the exercise is to see that the basic structure of our society is highly unjust already. That's something that is detrimental to all of us. It rightly unsettles most Americans that we are not free and equal citizens: this is a much vaunted and cherished political ideal.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I take it his point was that we must find some common ground on which to motivate coordination of the 99%. He thinks that requires moving to the inclusive formulation, but I don't see how that follows. If we take Rawls' argument seriously, we should all be motivated to make the necessary changes to the basic structure to ensure that we really do live in a society worth pledging allegiance to, with "liberty and justice for all."</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com13