[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by Miss Tick

Whether I am living on occupied land or land taken in conquest over a century ago seems irrelevant to me. I understand that using the term occupied does imply the possibility of the occupation ending. This occupation will not end. Yet it doesn’t make me a foreigner in my own country nor am I concerned I will be evicted anytime soon if I say the land is occupied. It certainly was occupied although I think stolen a better description because that doesn’t imply there’s a snowball’s chance in hell of getting it back. I don’t think it is a problem to recognize and validate the issues and grievances of others. Sometimes people just like the truth to be recognized for what it is. They just want to hear the words.

It strikes me as a 'more radical than thou' pose. A piece of rhetorical radical chic that doesn't actually do anything, doesn't change anything and isn't really *meant* to change anything. It's more mantra than anything else. Sort of like when the Right talks about 'family values'. It's an empty phrase that I find annoying. If people *meant* it, if it were more than a pose, that would at least have the virtue of being interesting.

Is this truly what you believe? Because if it is, then conversely, you are saying the poor and the working class must remain shackled. They must live in poverty or remain overworked and underpaid in order for you to remain the petty bourgeois. I don’t agree that is true. I think there is plenty for everyone. No one needs to be swept aside. Only the 1% who hold hostage an obscenely large percentage of the wealth need concern themselves with having less.

I don't believe this. I think that people who talk about the 'petty bourgeois' *do* believe it. I think that the writer of the POC Organize blog post about the petit bourgeois absolutely believes it which is why they wrote it. I think that we can build a society where there is substantial upward mobility. Unlike the Right, I don't think we can or should indulge the fantasy that all of us will one day be millionaires; we won't. I do, however, think that we can expand the ranks of the 'petit bourgeois' so that a *lot* more people can be middle-class. I remember, dimly, an America where a guy with only a high school education could start working at a GM plant at 18 and by his thirties own a house. This wasn't a perfect America by any means but it was an America with a huge middle class. That is what I would like to see us return to. If you work, you make enough to live on. If you continue to work, you will continue to make more money. I think that this is an achievable goal and one that benefits everyone.

Perhaps you are mean something along the lines of the poor and the working class should be given opportunities to become the bourgeois?

Yes, precisely.

Socialism doesn’t scare me. The idea of socialized medicine doesn’t fill me with dread. I don’t hold any particular reverence or loyalty toward capitalism as a stand alone economic system. I think at this point capitalism is failing most of us. Only that 1% really benefits. Many say it is because the type of capitalism we have now is crony capitalism. And that works for no-one but the power elite. Perhaps. I don’t know. I think I am open to ideas. I don’t know if any economic system in its purist sense will meet all our needs. Not that we are experiencing capitalism in its purist sense yet, but I certainly see a trend toward the privatization of just about everything and that scares me. I’m not a small government kind of person, nor am I an ideological communist. I like the middle. It seems the sanest way to go with most everything in life. I don’t like what capitalism has shown me so far. But I won’t shut my ears when someone talks about keeping it as a part of our economic system. I like the idea of a social democracy but I am open to new ideas. New combinations of things that might work. Perhaps there is nothing new left to be thought of when it comes to economic/political systems and systems of government. Perhaps it is more about getting the right formula, the right mix of systems, a dash of this and a bit of that.

Socialized medicine doesn't scare me. But I do not see--because I have yet to see a single historical example of it--how one has a *socialist* economy (as opposed to a democratic socialist one) without having to have a huge, imposing and very powerful state to enforce it. I think that we should bite the bullet and do what every other industrialized nation has done and go to a single-payer health care system. I would *love* to see us do what most of the Western European nations do and provide free education through college for any citizen who passes the entrance exams. I would like to see us put in a *real* floor below which no citizen falls if they don't absolutely want to. I think we can do all of that without going the route of socialism.

I'm not in love with capitalism just as I'm not in love with democracy. I do not think capitalism is the best system for organizing economic activity, I think it is the least *bad* system provided that it is regulated and that the regulations are meaningfully enforced. I am particularly fond of the European social democracy model because it strikes me as hitting the optimum balance between allowing the market to do those things which markets do well (providing luxury goods and choices of goods and services) while taking out of the hands of the market social infrastructure that is necessary to maintain a stable society. The irony is that the Western European democracies adopted the Marshall plan and have thrived on an economic model we exported to Europe after the Second World War in order to provide a stable social base. It has worked remarkably well. I would like to see us eat our own dog food (as we say at my work) and actually use the model we exported to Europe here since we *know* it works. Does that mean Europe is a utopia? No. But Europe does not have the extreme income disparity or grinding poverty that America does. There are no Mississippi's in Germany or France or England.

Revolution is an overthrow and thorough replacement of an established government or political system by the people governed. I don’t think anyone is advocating that at this time. I have heard people call it a revolution, as in that quote by Lawrence Lessig, but anyone who understands revolution recognizes that this is a reform movement.

I hope that it stays a reform movement. Twenty years ago, when I was a Trotskyist, we spoke of revolution quite a bit. Then I met someone who had actually fled to the US after a revolution in her home country and that really took the scales from my eyes.

Even in the sources you provided I didn't see evidence that some people are not welcome at OWS or the GA meetings. I imagine some people may exclude themselves for various reasons, but the movement seems open enough. I personally think inclusion is extremely important if this movement is to have any measure of success.

Oh, I'm sure that on paper everyone is welcome. That doesn't mean everyone is welcome. Just as several writers have written pieces saying that this or that language being used is off-putting for people of color, certain other language being used is off-putting for people of color who happen to also be middle-class and trying to expand that class instead of seeing it contract. I do think that the movement is going to have to bring in the broadest cross-section of the American public in order to succeed (or the powers-that-be are going to have to be grindingly stupid like they were in Oakland). My concern is that they won't.

Actually I advocate working toward a philosophical global unification regarding the interests of the poor and the working class. That would mean finding a way to work with people who hold vastly different and in some case opposing ideologies. I don't think it is impossible to unite very different people to work toward a common purpose. After all the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

The other day I read something (I forget where) that has made me ponder whether or not we on the Left aren't hamstringing ourselves in some ways. Part of the problem I see us having in our nation is that, unlike a number of other nations I can name, the rich here do not feel any particular tie to the United States. German companies try to keep a certain percentage of jobs in Germany. Japanese companies behave the same way. As do the French and the British and the South Koreans and the Spanish and the Russians. Not the Americans. Now, is there anyone here who would say that Volkswagen, Audi, BMW or Mercedes-Benz aren't real companies? Would anyone say that they put out products no one wants or products that are inferior? Would anyone say that Sony or Toshiba aren't real companies? Does anyone think that the people who sit at the apex of any of the above aren't rich beyond the dreams of avarice?

Without diving into an orgy of protectionism I would like to see a bit more economic nationalism on the part of American corporations. I would like to see our tax code restructured in order to make it clear that we value job creation *here* not in Singapore. I'm sure the Singaporeans are a noble people with a distinguished history and given a choice between my next door neighbor getting a job building, say, solar panels in Portland and someone in Singapore getting that same job, for the same company, but being paid a fraction of the salary with the profits not being repatriated to the United States, I'll take my neighbor getting the job, thank you very much. I think we can restructure the business tax code to embody that ethic. Imagine, for instance, the definition of a US company (and thus domestic products) being something like this:

An American company is defined as any LLC or LLP or other chartered business which has its corporate headquarters in the United States of America and that employs 80% of its workforce domestically. There is a tax rate for American companies and then there's a tax rate for foreign companies. If My Widgets, Inc. moves its headquarters to the Cayman Islands because of the loose banking laws, they are no longer an American company. Their products are now imports not domestic products. They are taxed at the higher rate for foreign companies and their goods have whatever kind of import or excise taxes that foreign goods have. This would make the widgets from MWI far *less* competitive.

Now, has the government told the owners of MWI where they have to put their factory or their HQ? Nope. They are free to move their business anywhere they wish. They are also free to pay the consequences for doing so.

The Right loves to talk a lot about personal responsibility and 'moral hazard' but that is always and forever a one-way street. If we have long-term unemployment benefits that creates a moral hazard. If we have a welfare system at all that denies personal responsibility. But for some reason, the moment we are talking about businesses there's no more responsibility and there's no more moral hazard. Suddenly businesses will always do the right thing in all circumstances regardless of what their actions actually are. How do we know those are the right things, because businesses do them.

If personal responsibility is good enough to cudgel the high school dropout with then I think it's good enough to cudgel the MBA from the Wharton school who gets it into his head that it would be a great idea to buy up company X, strip it to the bone, move the HQ to someplace where they won't have to pay taxes, move whatever is left of the manufacturing operations to some other nation where they can pay workers $2 a week, and in the process completely obliterate the economy of an American city. If we can say that unemployment benefits should be limited lest they be abused, then we can equally say that the tax code shouldn't be an invitation to ship good, middle-class jobs overseas lest business people be tempted to do what we've told them, through the medium of our laws, is perfectly acceptable. I don't see how we can do that without appealing to a sense of 'you take care of your countrymen first' across the board.

Cheers
Aj