On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 4:00 AM, James Heartfield < Heartfield at blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> Occupy Wall Street is the left’s own Tea Party, so we should not be
> surprised at the occasional intellectual crossover:
>
> ‘The lefties who pick up Ron Paul's line on the Fed don't really understand
> that he has a coherent political philosophy. When says "end the Fed" he
> means "switch to gold." Again, that makes sense from his POV. But why an
> unemployed kid should embrace the gold standard, well, that makes no sense.’
> (Quoth Doug)
>
> Both movements, Tea Party and OWS, give voice to political alienation, and
> fix on the MAIN EVENT as a focus for that alienation. The Main Event is the
> ongoing bailout of Wall Street. For the Tea Partiers it was a sign of
> government profligacy, for the OWS it is a sign of Corporate Greed. Both no
> doubt have some truth in them, but much more important is that they both are
> movements that signal popular disaffection from the mainstream,
> establishment outlook.
>
> The Tea Partiers peeled away from the Governing Party of George Bush, for
> whom they had been mobilised, but became disillusioned – a disillusionment
> that was turned into a sense of being robbed, when Obama took the White
> House.
>
> Those occupying Wall Street were enthused by Obama, but have found little
> focus for their enthusiasm since – he has not done much to cement his base
> (too busy reaching across to his opponents). Their disaffection comes first,
> its focus comes afterwards.
>
> Wall Street is the focus, because it is the MAIN EVENT. If Obama had been
> fighting a war in Iraq, disaffection would manifest itself in large
> demonstrations against the war. If his central policy had been to move
> America to the adoption of kilometres instead of miles, no doubt there would
> be vast demonstrations against kilometres. The substantial basis of the
> grassroots movements, both OWS and Tea Party is political disaffection: the
> way that mainstream political ideologies have failed to become a focus for
> popular organisation.
>
> That doesn’t mean that there is not a problem in Wall Street. Wall Street
> is an important focus for these populist movements. However, because they
> are popular, inchoate, and intuitive, the character of their reaction is
> likely to be the kind of magical thinking that says ‘abolish the Fed’, or
> ‘eat the rich’ (why not?) – everything makes sense in this carnival of the
> disaffected. ‘Corporations’, Jews, Big Governments, Wall Street chicanery,
> money lenders in the temple – this is the demonology of populism.
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk