You have to have lived under a rock for the past few weeks to not have heard of "Occupy Wall Street." People have been throwing out all these epithets at these New-Age, Hippie-Revivalists. My favorite: Liberal Tea Partiers.
So am I for anti-Wall Street legislation and change? Yes. Without a doubt. But, to what end?
When we're talking protest, we have to ask ourselves a few questions: (1) who are the rebels (2) who is the establishment (3) who are the haves/have-nots.
In most cases the have-nots are the rebels and the haves are a part of the establishment. But, in this situation, the identification is a little trickier. Is the establishment one of the haves...as in the antagonist, the side the rebels are fighting? This is a really good question.
See, the rebels - let's call them protesters - are fighting Wall Street. We know that. But what is the establishment? Is the establishment Wall Street? If so, then the protesters would be asking Wall street to change. ARE they asking Wall Street to change...or are they demanding Washington to put legislation together to stop Wall Street.
Suppose we say that the establishment is indeed Washington. Doesn't that come back to us? Aren't WE Washington? Aren't we a democracy in which WE are being represented by those men and women sitting on Capitol Hill? So are we protesting ourselves?
Yes. And this paradox brings me to my point. If the United States was a democracy, then the establishment is a coexistence of the haves and have-nots. But, alas, as I've explained, this is not the case. If there are people on the street picketing the way Washington - as in this "democracy" - runs the United States. then how do these two historically antagonized forces coexist? They don't. And we're not a democracy.
We are not a democracy because we aren't being represented fairly on Washington. That is what any sort of protest shows. Protest is the number one identification of an undemocratic polity, despite all those people who dare say protest is a part of democracy. Democratic systems take the into consideration its people's interests in a way in which law and order can be maintained, a way that is written into the system itself. There is no such thing as a representative democracy. It is just a paradoxical euphemism for oligarchy, just as a capitalist democracy.
If these protests tell us one thing, it is this: initiatives and referendums are a must. There is no way a democracy can remain one without the loss of life and limb - whether it is that of the haves or have-nots, it is still a loss for the greater democracy, that is inherent in protest - if no orderly method for consideration is made inherent within the system. This is the next level, the next generation in Revolution, a revolution through reform, the daughter of belligerence, the sister of non-conformity.
So am I for anti-Wall Street legislation and change? Yes. Without a doubt. But, to what end?
When we're talking protest, we have to ask ourselves a few questions: (1) who are the rebels (2) who is the establishment (3) who are the haves/have-nots.
In most cases the have-nots are the rebels and the haves are a part of the establishment. But, in this situation, the identification is a little trickier. Is the establishment one of the haves...as in the antagonist, the side the rebels are fighting? This is a really good question.
See, the rebels - let's call them protesters - are fighting Wall Street. We know that. But what is the establishment? Is the establishment Wall Street? If so, then the protesters would be asking Wall street to change. ARE they asking Wall Street to change...or are they demanding Washington to put legislation together to stop Wall Street.
Suppose we say that the establishment is indeed Washington. Doesn't that come back to us? Aren't WE Washington? Aren't we a democracy in which WE are being represented by those men and women sitting on Capitol Hill? So are we protesting ourselves?
Yes. And this paradox brings me to my point. If the United States was a democracy, then the establishment is a coexistence of the haves and have-nots. But, alas, as I've explained, this is not the case. If there are people on the street picketing the way Washington - as in this "democracy" - runs the United States. then how do these two historically antagonized forces coexist? They don't. And we're not a democracy.
We are not a democracy because we aren't being represented fairly on Washington. That is what any sort of protest shows. Protest is the number one identification of an undemocratic polity, despite all those people who dare say protest is a part of democracy. Democratic systems take the into consideration its people's interests in a way in which law and order can be maintained, a way that is written into the system itself. There is no such thing as a representative democracy. It is just a paradoxical euphemism for oligarchy, just as a capitalist democracy.
If these protests tell us one thing, it is this: initiatives and referendums are a must. There is no way a democracy can remain one without the loss of life and limb - whether it is that of the haves or have-nots, it is still a loss for the greater democracy, that is inherent in protest - if no orderly method for consideration is made inherent within the system. This is the next level, the next generation in Revolution, a revolution through reform, the daughter of belligerence, the sister of non-conformity.
No comments:
Post a Comment