Tuesday, 29 November 2011

Why the occupiers in wall street is worth fighting...

Why the occupiers in wall street is worth fighting...

by Katleah Iskre Ulrike

In midst of the global financial crisis, of people going to banks and get their hard earned savings, of taxes that end up benefiting to bigger entities, of seeing Obama's stint of demonizing the wealthy and propaganda patiches such as "restructuring the economy", it is worth likely to say that the people are having mistrust both towards the banks and of the bureaucracy, faux-planning and justifications of laissez faire for monopolism, all encroachments on human freedom and the will to change the society progressively against the systems whose rottness creates hindrance to social growth.

One capitalist said to everyone that Capitalism is worth fighting for, venting message that the ideology itself is the "greatest engine of material prosperity in human history, the fount of civilization, peace, and modernity", but whose civilization, prosperity, peace, modernity that person speaks of? Is it the moochers in rags, or the moochers in coats and ties ranting shit in the stock market? The slaves, as they worked overtime for less pay seemingly had become conscienced in regards to their actions as toilers of machine and earth and upbringers of modernity, prosperity and civilization to everyone; but again who really benefited from that Capitalism despite modern day gadgetry and facades of modernity and illusions of future in all spheres?

In fact, been working for long despite living in a well to do family, I am supposed to be living in pleasure but rather not to get contented in slacking and instead having volunteer work not for the sake of allowances but to mold my character as an individual in an institution called "life" and "reality." Yet as suspect, not all middle class individuals give up something in pursuit of attaining higher consciousness as they themselves rather get contented in an ordinary cycle what the system insisted and offered to everyone; that Capitalism itself, being "fount of civilization and modernity" offered things to silence themselves like soma to stop complaining-as evidenced to those who drink booze to silence themselves and think nothing in regards to personal problems.

Indeed, that as expected many would regard Capitalism as a "Dirty word" out of its actions such as profiteering, exploitation and corruption despite Modernity and Civilization started in the 19th century; that Wall Street giants, Robber Barons, Landlords live in legalized thievery, with state's gifts of priviledge such as barrierless trade and less taxes for their very own pleasure. Anthony Gregory even acknowleged that systems champion Capitalism as "they produce devices of murder for the state." or rather say for themselves in pursuit of maintaining the status quo of free trade, less or no taxes, and perhaps bigger benefits giants ought to scramble upon like those of 19th Century trusts in the United States and Europe. Such desirous interests would somehow fuel discontent on the other especially those who endure the rage of getting bombarded, getting misled, getting tired of oppression in all spheres what today's system set upon contrary to people's will.

Once, an Anarchist friend simply said to the Ayn Rand fanatics that the pharmacy their idol's family owned had been confiscated by the Bolsheviks, and  even they themselves using public roads, bridges, registering their names and everything whatsoever the state insist of, why not also rant over against it? Calling for total privatization of the societies and making roads similar to those of tollways (of paying before you pass as most tend to complain in) to stop their rant against the state who interferes their privacy, sorry to say but the writer is somehow against the state, but how come they themselves against the state for what? For the sake of everyone's desire of equality, freedom and justice? Or just mere individual's desire starting from not interfering in their lives such as getting off from someone else's lawn?

Social Cooperation? Organized Chaos.

Once, Mises said that:

 "A society that chooses between capitalism and socialism does not choose between two social systems; it chooses between social cooperation and the disintegration of society."

Nice to hear what Mises said as a Capitalist, but on the other hand, which is social cooperation and disintegration of society nowadays? And which society pertains to? Is it the masses, the middle class, or the Elitists who controlled every sphere in the society? I do agree on what Social Cooperation is, but does it include oppression, exploitation? Might as well consider instead the latter that the society itself, because of repression prevailing became the cause of disintegration, noticing that massive unemployment, backward development, repressive rule and the like are causes enough to create discontent, hence calling for the dismantlement of the old society in favor of a new one. After all, Social Cooperation under Capitalism isn't Social Cooperation but dictation and contentment-noticing that social systems insist people be contented on things rather than advancing, that in order to survive ought to join the flow of what is being dictated upon to-that everything is a trend to follow and be dubbed thee as they're cooperating", worse, it is itself an organized chaos.

 That even makes sense that in midst of alleged prosperity, modernity, behind these are foolishness and stupidity instilled upon to the vast majority. That:

 "First, the population was dumbed down through a politicized and substandard education system based on pop culture, rather then the classics. Americans know more about their favorite TV dramas than the drama in DC that directly affects their lives. They care more for their “right” to choke down a McDonalds burger or a Burger King burger than for their constitutional rights. Then they turn around and lecture us about our rights and about our “democracy”. Pride blind the foolish." 

 For sure institutions supporting the order are quite thinking that it is "natural" to see people being "gone to the flow" as themselves benefited from it-that made Mises think that it is "Social Cooperation" itself, but to those who faced getting less wages, hunger, unemployment, it would be likely to be described as an "Organized Chaos" given that the order itself instituted something that would create disgust amongst the have not. After all, to the Elite, to the Oligarch, it is their conception of Democracy handed over from the Slave Owners such as Thomas Jefferson.

Is "Technology" and "Consumer Goods" Capitalism?

If people likely to say that things this and that are made out of Capitalism, especially clothes, gadgetry, even the computer used in this blog, are narrow minded not noticing who created those things from the start; they would say that the Capitalist did it, but does it include the Workers who really worked hard for it? They are the ones even laid off and replaced by another, or even replaced by machines that would generate more profits from it especially from its surpluses exceeding from an average supply to be made upon; labor indeed creates wealth and capital, but in reality labor are being discarded in favor of an easy one-that once made the Luddites gone angry against the machine and destroyed it, and yet more workers are employed to man machinery, but do they got benefits for working in long hours in order to make batches of cloth, clothes, gadgetry, processed foods and the like? Lucky if there's someone acting like William Hesketh Lever, who, in lieu of salaries be given to the workers in kind such as housing, food and amenities, but as of this day few from that class ever acted as a "messiah" to the working class-and the working class rather act as messiahs for themselves to counter repression against a system detrimental to their development. They may speak that these are made out of Capitalism, clothes, gadgetry, same as unemployment and misery especially that hoarding, price increases, prevail in a time of crisis and uncontrolled instances.

And if still insisted, rather shows the narrow mindedness worse than whom are they speaking against. It's like wanting to deprive someone of clothing and rights if that's the case, yes most of it were branded, most of it were sold dear, but despite these who really made those products from the start? How come some are forced to strike as they had low wages and less benefits despite making those clothes, gadgetry and the like? Everyone mourned Steve Jobs's death but few noticed deaths of workers in a factory making IPods in China; more had afford to buy and use IPods including activists, and by playing antisystem music might as well become weapons against them. Lenin, for instance even told that "The Capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them." That also meant being against Capitalism aren't limited to those who do DIY, there are those who utilize things what is currently sought to turn as weapons against it. Why there are hackers and online protesters? Why there are those who tend to use modern gadgetry for alternative uses? they utilize everything. And according to history, an African tribe, despite using chants and spells, disdain for "modern" lifestyle used iron axes in lieu of their stone axes for their own purpose, but does it mean they adapt capitalism? Well, it is the people and not things who decide, it is the people who had the will to use things and be reinterpreted as such and not vice versa as what most ought to think upon; it's like does it mean using the Internet, using IPod, wearing clothes and the like coming from Capitalism makes a person a Capitalist? What a narrow minded idea then that technology, consumer goods are Capitalism, not noticing that behind all these are those are having less wages, less benefits, liable to be fired, yet having the knowledge of creating this and that that allegedly made an individual a Capitalist! 

Becoming "Prometheuses", "Spartacuses", "Nat Tylers"...

One writeup even made this writer digging through that "If Marx's buddy Engels hadn't been a factory manager, he would have lacked the leisure time needed to help concoct their destructive philosophy" as stated. And seems that person who made that quote is too technical to think about it-how come Babeuf, a lawyer had much time writing that served as what Marx's and Engels's did? How come Blanqui, an intellectual devoted his time in revolutionary activity and calling it as a profession? The problem of those who are too technical to think didn't notice that those with good backgrounds, yet rebellious, are like Prometheus who stole fire and end up chained and its liver eaten by a bird of prey! It is their will to mold themselves as working class than getting contented in their lives for nothing, speaking of contentment the system insists contentment, rather than change as what everyone suspect; that perhaps include some who tend to keep workers well enough by giving in kind the way William Hesketh Lever did in Port Sunlight and Robert Owen in his factories in England during the 19th century. The latter two had good backgrounds, yet concoct something that would counter what are they of.

After all, few of the elite are acting like Prometheus and perhaps rebellious deities whilst some of the middle class, affected by the crisis are becoming Spartacuses and Nat Tylers supporting the vast mass of the poor just like in Wall Street and in London. The crisis itself made by the repressive policies and massive discontent had likely to pull the pillars of that damned "Civilization" of the Elitists, Oligarchs down in favor of creating a new one. That the occupy movements and mass actions set upon to, including the right to bear arms against the system.

For sure there would be some would say that the events like those from the Occupy movement made things grow worse, but again as history stated much that it is entirely a history of class struggles, of rise and fall of systems, that perhaps the current system tries to keep itself in order to prevent from falling down. One fanatic even said that:

"It is simply a fact that capitalism, even hampered by the state, has dragged most of the world out of the pitiful poverty that characterized all of human existence for millennia." 

If so, then it is Capitalism itself also put Nations also into pitiful poverty as evidenced in the underdeveloped and developing Nations of the world trying to be self-reliant and sufficient yet remained backward and dependent on foreign imports in exchange fore reliant in an agricultural background, that wars became policies to insist what made them parasitically beneficial to those who initiate it. Is the Third World became progressive as it dragged off from poverty through credit? Nope. So are those who are affected by the crisis that cost their savings, that the taxes are being allocated to the banks instead of services just like last 2010. These examples perhaps made discontent and rebellion justifiable despite system's attempts to spoil the people with corporate philanthropy, technology, and other varieties deemed to be called as public relations.

And if used, again are like ropes being sold to everyone and used to hang those who started it all.