Occupy Wall Street
A few days ago, Distinguished Professor of Politics at Occidental College, Peter Dreier, published an article regarding the potential co-opting of the "Occupy Wall Street" movement. ( http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-dreier/occupy-wall-street_b_1005708.html ) Interestingly, the author argues that co-optation by more powerful forces does not equate to failure. I can see why he would make this argument, since he assumes that such a co-opting would be " by the unions, or the Democratic Party, or other liberal forces." He goes on politicize the issue even more, painting a picture where it's primarily "liberals" (and to a lesser extent "moderates") who are pushing for reform on Wall Street in the first place.
First of all, everyone would like to see reform on Wall Street. So why attempt to divide people that way? Doesn't such politicization usually lead to emotional mindsets and irrational thinking? Second, the author suggests that watered down legislation ("modest versions") should be viewed in a positive light ... as "stepping stones to further reform." Finally he argues that such a scenario cannot even really be considered co-optation, since some progress can be still be measured, defanged as it may be. He cites previous reforms where he perceives this has been the case, most notably, The New Deal. (1) This might be easier to swallow if power were consolidating less instead of more. But the truth is, power is consolidating more and more. Things are only getting less and less equitable.
This sort of politicization is the placebo that we have been conditioned to accept instead of the real changes we would like to see. In fact, "large swathes of academia are little more than publicly funded mechanisms for disseminating and producing an ideologically-driven world view," (http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2010/06/11/crywolf ) This is true on both sides of the political tracks. It is common for think tanks to be affiliated with (and even housed on) major universities, both of which are funded by big foundation money, big foundations owned by, you guessed it, big business interests. Here is how they prevent truly revolutionary forces from ever forming because they are the ones steering/funding them. They fund/promote squabbling and politicizing to distract attention away from the real goings on. Talk about co-opting! You may have noticed in the previous link that professor Dreier is involved in some very unethical political activities at Occidental College, where he is behind a project (Cry Wolf Project (http://keywiki.org/index.php/Cry_Wolf_Project ) which actually solicits students and faculty, paying them to write to "help battle with conservative ideas." Tisk - tisk - tisk !!!
Will the real co-opters please step forward? No, they'll just keep hiding behind their "charitable" tax exempt foundations, and continue their quest to make the world safe for transnationals. By the way, for a much better article on the fine art of co-opting reform movements by the power elite, see professor Michel Chossudovsky's article last year ( http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=21110 ). In this case it's the anti-globalization movement being hijacked. Yes, he names names, and some familiar ones I would add. Now here is a professor who has not sold out to the corporate overlords.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
(1) Never mind that the New Deal's Agricultural Adjustment Act and National Recovery Act ended up doing the exact opposite from what they were supposed to do, throttling small farmers and small business owners. Surprise, surprise. And never mind that the New Deal gave us Social Security, Fannie Mae and the Securities Exchange Commission, which have served the common man oh so well. Oh, I know, they could never have forseen these things taking a turn for the worse ... just like the Bretton Woods institutions. Always sugar and spice and everything nice on the surface. And when the results come in: "Oopseedaisy. Who could have known? We had only the best intentions, etc ... " Sure. Let's check in with Howard Zinn on this one:
But the New Deal's organization of the economy was aimed mainly at stabilizing the economy, and secondly at giving enough help to the lower classes to keep them from turning a rebellion into a real revolution."
"The New Deal gave federal money to put thousands of writers, artists, actors, and musicians to work-in a Federal Theatre Project, a Federal Writers Project, a Federal Art Project: murals were painted on public buildings; plays were put on for working-class audiences who had never seen a play; hundreds of books and pamphlets were written and published. People heard a symphony for the first time. It was an exciting flowering of arts for the people, such as had never happened before in American history, and which has not been duplicated since. But in 1939, with the country more stable and the New Deal reform impulse weakened, programs to subsidize the arts were eliminated.
For black people, the New Deal was psychologically encouraging (Mrs. Roosevelt was sympathetic; some blacks got posts in the administration), but most blacks were ignored by the New Deal programs. As tenant farmers, as farm laborers, as migrants, as domestic workers, they didn't qualify for unemployment insurance, minimum wages, social security, or farm subsidies. Roosevelt, careful not to offend southern white politicians whose political support he needed, did not push a bill against lynching. Blacks and whites were segregated in the armed forces. And black workers were discriminated against in getting jobs. They were the last hired, the first fired. Only when A. Philip Randolph, head of the Sleeping-Car Porters Union, threatened a massive march on Washington in 1941 would Roosevelt agree to sign an executive order establishing a Fair Employment Practices Committee. But the FEPC had no enforcement powers and changed little."
Howard Zinn, from "A
People's History of the United States"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~