Occupy Wall Street

OK, here’s the basic theme I want to communicate.

The central complaint against the protests is that they don’t have specific goals. Both the right and the left have made this charge, each thinking that they are scoring points against the protesters.

Conors Friedersdorf writes in this column in the Atlantic that the “fatal flaw” of the protesters is that they are protesting “symbolic wall street” verses “actual wall street”, implying that the protesters greatest strength is their greatest weakeness. The strength is based on the idea that symbolic wall street is like symbolic New York City – a magical place in the minds of people in other parts of the country. The author makes the case that the protests should be about what the real wall street tycoons have done illegally and how to reform the system. The underlying theme is that the protest is full of magical thinkers with no real agenda other than “symbolic” notions. Read it here:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/10/occupy-wall-streets-greatest-strength-is-neutering-it/246671/

Further to the left (as I consider Mr. Friedersdorf center right because he can not clearly conceive of the notion that I’m about to write about here – his anti-protester theme is so much stronger than any of his pro-protester themes – that is the quality of his writing about his argument is much stronger than the quality of his writing against the protests – thus making it clear in his process which side he’s on)

Further to the left is Bill Maher who on Friday’s (October 14, 2011) show agreed with the panel that the protesters need to have a clear agenda.

We can expect these kinds of criticisms from the right. However, it took the right wing online news organizations quite a while to even report on the protests – weeks after they started actually. For example, Real Clear Politics did not even mention the protests until well into the second week – long after sites like Truthout, BuzzFlash, Democracy Now! Started reporting on it. Even after the pepper spray incident the right still did not report. Then suddenly the criticism about the protesters being hippies and drum circle whatever started and the theme of the lack of focus (Oh those naughty kids) started.

The entire point I’m driving at is that all of these criticism emerge from the same ideological perspective, one that can not perceive the true significance of the movement because the movement is based in a wholly different ideology. It is akin to a two dimensional creature being thrust into a three dimentional world.
The philosophy that the protest embodies is anathema to both right and left. I’m not even sure many of the protesters understand this idea, though the core certainly does.

This ideology has also been reflected in the other protests around the world – Arab Spring, Spain, Greece, etc…

Simply put – We are nearing the end of out tolerance of hierarchical structures of power and control. The evidence of how this kind of thinking is destroying us is ubiquitous. It is hard to ignore. However, the problem is that there are still too many people who can not see because they have grown up inside the bubble and have been fully indoctrinated (or more kindly put – accepting) of the dominant ideology. I call this the Truman Show paralysis. Truman is conceived and born into an artificial world where everything around him is constructed by the director of the TV show that Truman is the unwitting star in. It is impossible for him to perceive that his life is artifice due to the fact that he has no context for seeing beyond it. We all have these tendencies.

I would argue that hierarchical structures establish these kinds of boundaries in a particularly restrictive manner. Obviously dictatorships, monarchies, fascist states are extreme forms of this and we have seen that they have been on the decline. Rising up through those horrible ashes are quasi-democratic states, representative governments that are controlled by monied interests. Combined with a free market, capitalist ideology, representative government is revealed to have a fatal flaw – too many are easily persuaded by money and power to want more money and power and compromise their eithical and more obligations toward the people who have elected them. This is all old news.

The protests are really driving at disrupting these connections and ideologies. They are consensus building and cooperative – collaborative one might say – toward collective agreement and choice, but where each individual has a right and freedom to express their ideas. This is now much more possible than ever before due to technological innovations.

It is interesting that Twitter was the subject of a New York magazine article this month in which it was noted that their dilemma is not knowing how to move the company forward. The answer is right there and obvious – Twitter (or something like it) is the answer to the question of how to establish a world wide consensus building – truly democratic – collaborative system that frees the world from hierarchical notions of government.

I am not an idealist in this notion. Though I believe it can work, I believe there are many potential dangers – The primary one is the tyranny of the majority. What happens when the majority wants to commit resources only to the needs of the majority and sacrifice the needs of a minority? What happens when someone gets a hold of the algorithm that is established to monitor, filter, and calculate how the consensus is expressing itself?

These are questions I don’t have an answer to. Do we retain some form of Supreme Court that monitors these ideas? Who monitors the algorithm? How do we guarantte the rights of the minority.

Food for later thoughts.