I agree with them philosophically. Yes, America’s values are out of balance. We invest in making money, and it’s a wonder we’re not more screwed up. You can’t invest in making money. You can only invest in creation. Creation drives growth. Once the whole system becomes a circlejerk of ponzi schemes and mortgage-backed securities, you’re just playing roulette with someone else’s money. There is so much hypocrisy in the system where we will bail out the richest corporations and banks while we tell American citizens if they get sick, it sucks to be them.
That said, operationally OWS and I are on opposite ends of the spectrum. Here’s the problem as I see it. First, Nelson Mandela declared that the oppressors define the battlefield. If the nature of the oppressor is violent, then the only tool you have is violence. Some disagree with it, but I think it makes good strategic sense. If you’re being shot at, it’s time to get some guns.
It would follow then, that if the nature of the oppression is commercial, then commerce is where you should wage your struggle.
Start a business with a charter like Ben and Jerry’s, where the CEO cannot earn more than 7 times the lowest salary. Start an insurance company like USAA. Start a financial services company that only invests in sustainable technology and businesses. Start something that reflects your values. Vote for candidates that reflect your values. Run for local office.
You cannot tear down the existing system. It is too big, too wealthy, and too entrenched. Yes, I know you are young and idealistic, but your boundless enthusiasm isn’t going to cut it.
I just read about an Australian brand of matches (to light a fire) called Dickheads (a pun on the creator, Dick’s name, and another Australian brand called Redheads) which manufactures domestically in Australia, thus keeping the entire value chain (including taxes) within the borders. That’s long-term strategy right there.
Slightly off-topic, I disagree with the notion that you quote Mandela as having stated. I mean, it flies in the face of what we know about e.g. dictatorships vs. critical literature, despite attempted censorship. Crown example is Vysotskyj who met the USSR with song, and was so huge that even the Union couldn’t risk killing him.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Vysotsky
Here we are. Dick Smith Foods:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dickheads
Remind me to donate to wikipedia:)
Nelson Mandela believed this strongly as his principle of struggle and justification for armed opposition based on the systematic violence that was used to pacify the majority black population of South Africa. It was a violent struggle, because the oppressor used violence. Yes, it was asymmetric, in that the response was in no way nearly as widespread or as deadly as what the government did, but it was they who initiated the violence. They defined the struggle as violent, not the ANC. If the ANC fought back with violence, Nelson Mandela believed it was justified. I might have chosen a different path, but I can’t disagree with his logic.
Yes, I have that whole argument here in Puerto Rico. Buying stuff from abroad because it’s cheaper is a logical fallacy because it begs the question, who says it’s cheaper just because the price says so? The overall cost to the economy with capital flowing away can perhaps cause more economic struggle in the future as industries that generate wealth continue to leave/outsource. It really pisses me off when they use tax money to buy office supplies and furniture from China. It’s like goddamnit folks, keep that money local. We have factories here that can do that. China might be a little cheaper, but then what is more expensive, paying a few dollars more for a desk or paying unemployment compensation because the desk factory closed.