Leiter Reports: A Philosophy Blog

News and views about philosophy, the academic profession, academic freedom, intellectual culture, and other topics. The world’s most popular philosophy blog, since 2003.

  1. Fool's avatar
  2. Santa Monica's avatar
  3. Charles Bakker's avatar
  4. Matty Silverstein's avatar
  5. Jason's avatar
  6. Nathan Meyvis's avatar
  7. Stefan Sciaraffa's avatar

    The McMaster Department of Philosophy has now put together the following notice commemorating Barry: Barry Allen: A Philosophical Life Barry…

“Occupy Wall Street”

Brian Leiter

MOVING TO FRONT FROM OCTOBER 4 TO ENCOURAGE MORE DISCUSSION.

Everything you need to know here.

ADDENDUM:  And Chicago too!

ANOTHER:  Roy Blumenfeld, a former philosophy PhD student at CUNY and now a documentary filmmaker in NYC, writes:

Thank you for posting about the Wall Street protests. If you'd like to link to a video, consider the following inside look I've uploaded covering the lead-up to the bridge arrests: http://vimeo.com/29943384 . I couldn't film the arrests because I was one of the first to be arrested, and didn't want to risk dropping my camera while getting cuffed.

Also, I think it's worth mentioning to your readers that journalists were arrested along with protesters (most prominently Natasha Lennard of the NYTimes). In New York, journalists are required to obtain official press passes from the police, not their employers (a phenomenon unique among democracies, as far as I know). As freelancers, neither Ms. Lennard nor I qualified, and were thus kettled along with protesters.

Finally, you might want to consider an endeavor like the one pursued by Nicholas Kristof on Sunday, or Richard D. Wolff here which is to offer some education and guidance to the protesters. One way to do this is to solicit specific, intelligent talking points from your readership to submit to the protesters. An even better way is to solicit suggestions for good sources of information protesters could read and share. Despite attracting a lot of attention, this movement still has a serious image problem. In part this is natural — protesters have a wide variety of concerns, which may or may not coalesce as the movement progresses. But often one gets the feeling that these young men and women just aren't sure what exactly to advocate for, and could use intelligent voices on the left offering policy guidance. Robert Paul Wolff writes "aside from saying 'Amen,' there doesn't seem to be much I can do to support it." This is one thing you could all do.

Per Mr. Blumenfeld's suggestion, I'm opening comments for input and advice from readers.

Leave a Reply to Justin Fisher Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

18 responses to ““Occupy Wall Street””

  1. Matt Drabek

    The most basic piece of advice I could give is to stop listening to the intelligent voices on the left, particularly if those forces are trying to push the movement toward adopting policy aims. Why not instead create a democratic and safe space for the participants to air their concerns and to invite others to participate? It also seems to me that, for the most part, this is what they're already doing. See, for example, this piece from racialicious: http://www.racialicious.com/2011/10/03/so-real-it-hurts-notes-on-occupy-wall-street/

    Reply
  2. Stephen Parsley

    One good step would be to start recognizing that it's not just big banks that are the problem, but more so their clients in Congress and the White House. This is just as much the fault of Democrats as Republicans. I've seen protesters being interviewed who talk about how they still support and believe in Obama. This allows the media to pigeonhole them as "disgruntled Obama supporters." That guy is no different from his predecessor in his Wall Street dealings. Bankers are going to be greedy for the foreseeable future—it's a failure of government that's the problem. Start pushing for different politicians.

    Reply
  3. Craig Duncan

    I don't have much to offer by way of pithy talking points. However, and somewhat ironically, a recent article by Robert Reich in the New York Times ("The Limping Middle Class," 9/3/11) may provide some; it's a nice potted history of how we got into our current economic disaster. (I say "ironically" since the New York Times has been slow to begin giving the protests the attention they deserve.) At the very least it is good background reading. Here's the link:

    http://community.nytimes.com/comments/www.nytimes.com/2011/09/04/opinion/sunday/jobs-will-follow-a-strengthening-of-the-middle-class.html?sort=recommended

    There was a fantastic graphic that accompanied the Reich article, which speaks volumes and should be required viewing:

    http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2011/09/04/opinion/04reich-graphic.html?ref=sunday

    The first graph in particular is telling; it juxtaposes a spiking productivity rate with a flat-lining average wage level. Americans are more productive than ever, but only those at the top have anything to show for it. Perhaps this suggests a talking point of "shared prosperity" or "share the wealth!" (Protester signs that read "Where's the People's Bailout?" sound a similar theme, I suppose.)

    The trick is to find policies that will lead to shared prosperity. I think a revitalized union movement has to be part of the equation. So insisting on, say, the passage of the Employee Free Choice Act is a concrete policy demand. So too is a demand to put the teeth back in the National Labor Relations Board; from what I have read its fines against corporations who engage in union-busting tactics are ridiculously low, and as such are simply treated simply as a cost of business.

    Of course, we also need financial regulation to make high-flying financial careers less absurdly lucrative and less focused on short-term gain. The tricky thing is the reforms required in this vein get technical quickly and don't make for stirring signs or bumper stickers.

    Given this, it's understandable that many of the protesters' signs are about greed. Maybe they should be. How else to explain the astronomical wealth of the top 1%? If the protesters could make the average American aware of just how rich the truly rich are, that would be a good start — i.e. broadening the audience for the sort of lifestyle facts chronicled by Robert Frank in his book "Richistan" (as well as his Wealth Report blog on — more irony — the Wall Street Journal's website). Maybe protest signs along the lines of "Your shoe budget = my annual salary" are in order.

    Reply
  4. Toby

    I think it is somewhat hard to come up with / communicate suggestions that would suit these sorts of groups without first having spent some time speaking with some of the people there. For Chicagoans: I've been to Occupy Chicago a couple times, and I know some others who have put in quite a bit of time there getting people organized. If anyone in the area would be interested in checking it out with a fellow student / academic / philosopher (well, in training), I would be interested in hearing from you: tobynotahorse@gmail.com

    Reply
  5. Tim

    Keep pushing the "We are the 99%" slogan (see the link in Prof. Leiter's post directly above this one). It's awesome!

    Reply
  6. Kahlil Chaar-Pérez

    I respectfully disagree with Mr. Blumenfeld's suggestion that the activists involved in Occupy Wall Street need to be "educated" about "adopting policy claims." As Matt Drabek points out above, "policy claims" are the opposite of what this emerging movement is trying to build: a critical dialogue and a creative repertoire of actions not linked to government structures and policy talk. If anything, figures such as Kristof, Wolf, and Mr. Blumenfeld himself should pay a visit to the occupiers' camps and listen to what these people have to say. Maybe they would learn a thing or two.

    Reply
  7. Justin Fisher

    Here are some talking points that seem to fit the spirit of this movement and are quite morally defensible:

    1. Too Big to Fail is Too Big to EXIST

    2. Stop Socializing Risk while Privatizing Profit

    3. Corporations are NOT People

    4. Elections Should be Decided by People, NOT by Corporate Money

    5. Stop Letting Insurance Companies Profit by Denying Us Health Care

    6. We Want What THEY Have – Give us European Quality Healthcare Now

    7. Don't let Republicans block Consumer Protection

    8. Provide Reasonable Debt Relief Now

    9. Unions are one of the few groups left trying to help working people – LEAVE UNIONS ALONE!

    10. Stop Trying to Keep Poor People from Voting

    11. If we cut our military spending in half, it would still be batsh!t crazy for any country to attack us. So why not cut military spending in half, and spend that money on things that ACTUALLY HELP?

    12. Don’t Build Other Nations – Build Ours!

    13. Build Infrastructure Now (Employment is cheap, financing is cheap – there’s never been a better time! Plus we REALLY need the jobs.)

    14. Who started class warfare? Us or the rich people who hoarded all the money and sent our jobs overseas?

    15. When rich people get capital gains for sitting on their assetts this should be taxed AT LEAST as much as when the rest of us actually work for our money.

    Reply
  8. David Logan

    It seems to me that protesters have so far done little to persuade NYC police officers of their cause (though I admit to being less than fully informed).

    If that's right, here are some general guidelines which might prove valuable as the demonstrations become larger and probably more unruly.

    First, police officers ought not be viewed as enemies of the protesters or protectors of the ruling financial class (though such views are largely justified). The police ought to be seen as victims of the ruling class who, side by side with protesters, can help the demonstrations proceed undiminished. By my lights, threatening cyber attacks and lawsuits against the NYPD is a bad idea (at least initially) because those activities will encourage hatred between protesters and the police.

    Second, some talking points (at police stations in addition to the *normal* venues) ought to revolve around the hardships faced by police officers at the hands of the financial elite. The list of hardships includes: increased crime due to increased poverty, increased food prices for all, the challenge the elite pose to popular social programs from which police benefit, and etc. These sentiments ought to be expressed in as conciliatory a language as possible. The protesters might also consider talking points aimed toward lower-level finance types, secretaries, and others on Wall St. who hate the financial system as much as the protesters.

    Essentially, the protesters should take care not to draw any line of conflict other than that between the "99%" and the ruling financial class (and the politicians who act on their behalf). The lines of conflict should NOT be drawn between protesters and the police, protesters and low-level Wall Streeters, or-as Republican goons push-protesters and the mass of hardworking "capitalist" Americans.

    To this post, it might be objected by radical activists that eventually the demonstrations will need to involve action against the police. I don't necessarily disagree, but at least initially a conciliatory approach seems to be the best strategy.

    Reply
  9. Carl

    I've got to say that I find this post rather confusing. Roy Blumenfeld says the protesters don't know why they're there, except that they're mad about stuff, so we should suggest what they should protest, after the fact. Kahlil Chaar-Pérez suggests that they do know what they are protesting, when, based on the interviews I've seen in the media, they're as much anarchists as anything.

    How about this: bring back Glass-Steagall. The banking problem in this country stems from the fact that depository institutions were allowed to engage in trading on their own behalf, advising on M&A, things like that, and they got addicted to the higher margins that these more speculative enterprises brought. Dodd-Frank was intended to be a softer version of Glass-Steagall, but it was pretty much a failure from the beginning because it didn't go far enough to limit banking profits, but it seems (based on the draft of how it'll be implemented that got released this week) to add lots of highly detailed rules that will add to costs without changing the underlying economics of the industry.

    Reply
  10. Nathan Jun

    The parallels between OWS and the ill-fated alter-globalization movement (may she rest in peace) are startling. The media, the liberal establishment, the right–it seems they are all responding to OWS in more or less the same fashion they responded to the summit protests of a decade ago. (Anyone else been feeling a weird mixture of deja vu and nostalgia? I saw Naomi Klein on TV the other night and literally found myself thinking, "Dude, it's like '99 all over again." And then I felt very stupid and went to bed, ashamed, and also sad that I am no longer twenty years-old. *sad face*)

    Anyway, as David Graeber argues in his excellent "Direct Action: An Ethnography," the truly anarchistic dimension of the alter-globalization movement consisted in its emphasis on praxis/means over ideology/ends. I think he's right about this. At the time, many AG activists resisted identifying the movement with any one ideology or, what comes to the same, to conceptualize it as a "Movement of Movements" defined by its strategies (i.e., direct action, spokescouncils, affinity groups, consensus, etc.) rather than its overarching theoretical framework (i.e., liberal, Marxist, anarchist, etc.) The idea seemed to be that starting with a practical emphasis would allow a theoretical or ideological framework to emerge organically from within the movement as a result of praxis. The problem, of course, is that strategic preferences always presuppose theoretical/ideological preferences. It was always clear to me–Naomi Klein's protestations notwithstanding—that the very emphasis on praxis in general and direct action/consensus in particular over "ends" was itself an indication that the ideology of the AG movement was essentially anarchistic and that, given time, it would become clear to all involved that reformist and vanguardist (read: non-revolutionary, non-antiauthoritarian) "voices" would be difficult to countenance at AG spokescouncils. To invert the economic maxim, "good currency drives out bad currency"; eventually the AG movement would BE fully anarchist even if it refused to represent itself as such…

    Since I’m not directly involved with this (there’s no “Occupy Wichita Falls” yet), I only have second-hand knowledge of the internal discussions activists have been having, 90% of it gleaned from online reading. Like the AG movement before it, OWS' preference for/emphasis on consensus, direct action, decentralization, horizonatality, etc. bespeaks a strongly anarchistic orientation. But it is not an anarchist movement–it is a "popular front" and, so far as I can tell, it is already experiencing the kinds of problems typically associated with “popular front” movements. I think it’s fair to say that OWS has a unified commitment to “anti-corporatism,” but this is a symbolic unity at best (it reminds me, again, of the “anti-consumerism” of the AGM). For example, the movement seems to be hotly divided over whether to interpret “anti-corporatism” as “anti-capitalism” or as “corporate reform.” Among those who agree on the “anti-capitalist” interpretation, the traditional sectarian divisions will emerge soon enough if they haven’t already.

    As external pressures from the liberal establishment (as well as internal pressures from fringy right-wing/End the Fed groups) continue to mount, liberals within the movement will start clamoring for leaders, party affiliation, etc. It seems to me that the AG movement never fully reached that point prior to 9/11 (which was the beginning of its end) but it was definitely headed in that direction. Had things turned out differently, my guess is that the radical anti-capitalist blocs would have strategically intensified the “revolutionary” optics of the movement in an effort to scare away the liberals/Democrats, and it probably would have worked.

    Radicals in the OWS could do the same thing–and it would DEFINITELY work in this case, since liberals/Democrats will NOT want to be associated with a “revolutionary” movement in an election year–but they won't because they are worried about scaring away “ordinary people” with spooky words like “anarchism.” (Again, the same thing happened with the AG movement. I vividly remember folks having long, drawn out arguments about “reaching the masses” — !!! – and how "ordinary people" will never accept a movement that is associated with anarchy, etc. etc. Nothing ever changes.)

    People say the AG movement was an example of the “tyranny of structurelessness.” That’s bullshit. It was an example of the “tyranny of idea-lessness.” Even without 9/11 the same thing would have happened: the liberals would have broken away because they couldn't co-opt the movement for the Democratic Party (and formed NGOs and policy groups instead); and the radicals and revolutionaries would have splintered over ideology (Marxism vs. anarchism) and tactics (social democracy vs. vanguardism vs. syndicalism vs. insurrection vs…)

    I worry that the same thing will happen in this case.

    Reply
  11. Jim Nichols

    Prof. Leiter,

    Here is a CNN interview that I was a part of yesterday morning with 2 other occupy atlanta activists.

    http://cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/us/2011/10/08/holmes-occupy-wall-street-intv.cnn.html

    As both a participant in some of the early #occupy events here in Atlanta, someone that's been attacking the rot within the Goldman Sachs center-right Democratic Party from the inside for a number of years now, and as an undergraduate in the Ga State University Philosophy Department I think there is massive confusion about what #occupy is. My fear is that many academics will sit back rather than participate at a time when they are needed most.

    Its a demotic- moment in history. Which means its messy, awkward, and will not manufacture the easy photo-op moments that well meaning Democratic Party/"progressive"/Move-On activists desire. Massive social and economic inequities are bubbling to the surface. Many of the people getting involved are anti-politic to a fault; distrustful of institutions be they party politics, unions, or any long term institution that could and must be harnessed, maintained, and nurtured for long term reforms to occur.

    U.S. imperialism has rotted the social fabric of our communities. It has corrupted the internal political process and created an illiterate and irrational citizenry fixated on bread and circus. This is a moment in history where reforms will require long term commitment by individuals to network, develop skill sets, and form new alliances. This will take nurturing and time. The media's focus on what "this all this means" in the short term and efforts by well meaning political and labor machine activists to force the moment is short sighted to the the massive long term challenges we face.

    Sheldon Wolin noted in his book Democracy Inc. that, "Demotic action is typically triggered by felt grievances–not, initially by a yearning for political participation. Because of the exhausting demands of making "living," surviving under harsh circumstances, dedication to a political life is hardly a conceivable vocation. While governing is a full-time, continuous activity, demotic politics is inevitably episodic, born of necessity, improvisational rather than institutionalized."

    If I'm reading him correctly I think that right now is a moment where #occupy is the demos becoming self-conscious of itself and that the challenge for those who see potential in this moment is to act…

    "to recover lost ground, to "popularize" political institutions and practices that have become severed from popular control. It involves renewing the meaning and substance of "representative democracy" by affirming the primacy of Congress, curbing the growth of presidential power, disentangling the stranglehold of lobbyists, democratizing the party system by eliminating the barriers to third parties, and enforcing an austere system of campaign finance."

    I truly hope that those in academia recognize the moment for what it is, get involved sharing their knowledge and perspective, and feed positive energy to the well meaning participants–not to mention some good logical lashings to right-wing talking points being churned out as we speak in well financed think-tanks.

    The expertise that comes from the time and training of philosophy is a privilege that many on the streets have never been able to enjoy. Most of these people will never again have an opportunity to cross paths with experts and elites whom they can learn and grow from. But right at this moment they are organizing events right down the road, down the block, down the hall from you and they merely need you to show up.

    A strange mixture of utopianism, institutional naivety, and conspiracy theory is feeding some of the most energetic activists and only engagement and dialogue can address this problem. Be it going to a rally to talk to people in the crowd, volunteering to give teach-ins, or taking a moment to put thoughts to paper so that others can spread them across their social networks to churn up debate–all of these actions help build positive demotic- momentum that is greatly needed.

    The demos is acting and its in great need of mentors and positive energy to push this moment in history forward. There are many Professors who read your blog that I hope will heed that call to participate. Please let them know there are many of us participating in #occupy events who are desperate for them to do so. No one can be neutral on a moving train.

    regards,
    Jim

    Reply
  12. Alex

    I just want to second something mentioned by Justin Fisher (his #3 and #4) and Jim Nichols. It's blatantly obvious that normal democratic processes in this country have been overrun by special interest money and bizarre election practices. This ought to be one of OWS's main talking points. It's rather easy to communicate, it's got pretty near universal appeal, and it justifies opting for extraordinary forms of democratic action (like occupying public property). Most importantly, without meaningful campaign finance reform any policy gains that might come from this movement will be empty or fleeting.

    Reply
  13. Roy Blumenfeld

    Allow me to revise, in light of the past week's events and renewed discussion here. My note to Brian was an attempt to get those readers who are sympathetic to OWS involved in some way from afar. Not everyone can, as Kahlil Chaar-Pérez suggests, show up at Liberty Square and participate personally (for the record: as a NYer I've been there daily).

    Furthering the discussion with a focus on specific policy points was just one method suggested for contribution, and not the best. At the time, I said "an even better way is to solicit suggestions for good sources of information protesters could read and share." Now that the movement has spread I say: the *best* way is to get involved locally.

    Reply
  14. Mark

    Just to echo Roy Blumenfeld's helpful comment above (and Toby's from earlier), I'd say: if you're at all interested in the #occupy demonstrations, and you're able to get along to a local one, do. I was frankly skeptical about OWS when I first read about it, but I went down to spend some time at Occupy Chicago and found the folks there to be considerably more organized, realistic, and good humored than I had been led to expect. It's not perfect, it's not going to change the world overnight, and it's still unclear exactly where it goes from here, but it's more than worth your time to get down there and check it out for yourself.

    For those in Chicago: I spoke to a couple of the organizers at the meeting I attended, and they're *desperate* to find local academics to support them by speaking, teaching, or just showing up for a while. If you'd like to get involved, email me at mhopwood at uchicago dot edu, and I'll put you in touch with them.

    For those interested in specific demands / talking points, Occupy Chicago has been debating a list of 12 proposed demands (the first of which is reinstating Glass-Steagall):

    http://occupychi.org/2011/10/07/our-proposed-demands/#more-879

    Reply
  15. Jen

    Substantially raise the top marginal tax rate and institute a financial transactions tax:

    http://sfsuphil.blogspot.com/2011/10/other-99.html

    Reply
  16. seth edenbaum

    "The most basic piece of advice I could give is to stop listening to the intelligent voices on the left, particularly if those forces are trying to push the movement toward adopting policy aims. Why not instead create a democratic and safe space for the participants to air their concerns and to invite others to participate?"

    That's Graeber's argument and it's absurd, a fantasy of revolution designed to end in failure assuaged by the distinct pleasures of moral superiority. See Camila Vallejo in Chile for something more serious

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/oct/08/camila-vallejo-latin-america-revolutionary

    Reply
  17. Nathan Jun

    Philosophers who want to express solidarity with the Occupy Movement might be interested in this signing this petition:

    http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/philosophers-in-solidarity-with-the-occupy-movement/

    Reply
  18. Roberto

    Until the chain instituted between capitalist and labor, i.e. work for necessity/money, is broken with social mechanisms like the basic income guaranteed, the relationship between the haves and have-nots will not change, and it will always be of utter dependence. The basic income guaranteed is financially feasible and will allow people to consume and work for what they really care.

    Reply

Designed with WordPress