Tweet
The embattled center of the fight. Wall Street looked to be on full-scale military-style lockdown. Tourists could pass through, but there was no room to stop and police eyes were everywhere.
The usually-crowded street was pretty much empty as it was cordoned off.
Not much chance of any sort of vehicle making it through all this. BTW, the Occupation is hardly anti-capitalist, even though many people in the media are calling it such.
Oh hey! Before I got to the encampment, I saw that the replacement for the World Trade Center was coming along nicely.
The “A” is the locater for the NY Stock Exchange. Zuccoti Park is nearby, but hardly on top of, Wall Street.
Got to the encampment a few hours before lunchtime, so I got a good, unobstructed view of it all. The residents of OccupyWallStreet were all pretty mellow and kept the whole place very clean.
Sleeping bags and tarps. Patriotic folks, we see lots of American flags there.
Very conveniently, there are food trucks and a fruit and vegetable stand along one side as the park is normally used for lunching anyway.
28 Comments
Thanks for these photos, Rich. I can’t access the videos, but really appreciate your taking the time to do this. To someone not that familiar with New York (was there in my college days) the combination of views is very helpful.
“BTW, the Occupation is hardly anti-capitalist…”
Nonsense. You may not be hearing the word “socialism” but the message is very, very clear.
“People before profits” is inherently anti-capitalist.
Here’s a link to the first official release from OccupyWallSt.
The first paragraph states:
Capitalism is based on survival of the fittest and it a competitive rather than a cooperative system. OccupyWallSt clearly states, right in their very first sentence, “the human race requires the cooperation.”
It is time to send capitalism to its grave along with all other systems of inhumane tyranny. What we need is Democratic Socialism. Democratic Socialism is a system that understands that we cannot have a democratic political system without a democratic economic system where the means of production are used to serve all the people and not just a narrow group of investors. In the end, and it’s been made painfully and tragically clear, capitalism and democracy cannot co-exist.
very nice, helpful too
Action Alert!
Just got news that the city managers office in Sac is going to order the police to arrest people occupying Caesar Chavez park
The city manager has the ability to wave the anti camping ordinance but they don’t want to ‘make an exception’
City Managers office # (916) 808-7213
Please call to urge them to make an exception
Edit
first paragraph should say
Just got news that the city managers office in Sac is going to order the police to arrest people occupying Caesar Chavez park at 11:00 PM
You are wrong and attempting to hijack the message of OWS. The occupation is not, repeat not, anti-capitalist. The occupation is pro-human. The occupation has made a concerted effort to be broad-based and not, repeat not, tied down to one demand, or any demands.
The movement is about waking people up. It is about empowering people to protest the direction the country is moving in.
You are wrong. The movement is not about anti-capitalism. The movement is about waking people up. Capitalism is a system and you are reducing that system to profit, which is only one aspect of capitalism.
2009, Obama to banks: “My administration is the only thing standing between you and the pitchforks.”
2011, #OWS to Obama: “Step aside, Mr. President.”
I forgot to recommend this when I posted earlier (and incidentally, I agree, Rich, with your comment that the occupiers are not anti-capitalist. How could they be if they represent the 99%? I don’t think they are aligned with any social persuasion except the one which says it is unjust for the 1% to rule the 99% in a democracy, and those 1% happen to have all the wealth as well. The country, which was not set up to run this way, is now an oligarchy, and proof of this is the very existence of the protest in all of its manifestations. Had the 99% some say in their own governance, you may be sure they would not be doing occupations – it is not exactly comfortable to do this, even in such a well kept place as the Wall Street Occupation. Conversations about socialism vs. capitalism are no doubt going on in the discussion groups, and I think that is a very good thing.
Thanks again, and I do recommend.
You say, “‘People before profits’ is inherently anti-capitalist.”
So advocate profits before people? Really? You’re proud of that? Where’s your humanity? Are you religious? Christian? Where does that fit with your book?
You wish to attack them for putting people before profits. Fine, but you’re the one with the problem, not anyone who advocate that people come before materialism.
Nice pictures. The protestors look pretty lackadaisical. Guess the heroin hadn’t worn off yet.
I was there early in the morning. Are the occupiers all just a bunch of lazy slackers? I certainly didn’t get that impression. It may have taken awhile for them to coordinate their message and to all get on the same page, but I think they’re tackling very real and serious issues.
They aren’t all slackers. Some are professional agitators. Walk by these guys for the past few weeks on my way to work. Not a meaningful contributor to society in the whole lot.
What’s The MATTER With New York?!
Yeah, but the opposite of capitalism is that the government controls everything and we saw with the Soviet Union that that idea just doesn’t work for every sector of the economy. There are certainly sectors that work better with heavy or complete government control. Health care doesn’t respond to capitalist incentives because a person shopping for a couch and a person trying to recover from cancer are in fundamentally different situations. A parent trying to get her child educated is in a fundamentally different situation from that same person trying to buy a car.
But what the Soviet Union showed us was that communism was incapable of producing attractive shirts (There’s no such thing as an objectively attractive shirt, attractiveness can only be determined via customer preference) and as my father pointed out in the mid 1980s, “The Soviet Union doesn’t produce a single world-class product.” I almost mentioned Stolichniya Vodka, but that’s not produced via modern technological means, so it hardly counted.
So no, I don’t see the argument for state control of most economic activity.
So with the country dealing with 9%+ unemployment, it is or should be obvious that people aren’t out of work simply because they’re lazy, We think they’re out of work because the housing bubble collapsed and the only source of capital to get folks back to work is the Federal Government.
Are there different answers coming from the other political party? Sure, Republicans have contributed lots of new policies, but under their influence, unemployment has gotten worse, not better.
Reasonable people in their situation would be either looking for a job or improving their skill set rather than playing woodstock in lower Manhattan. These fools aren’t doing either.
Gee, two “you are wrongs” in the same post. Seems a bit divisive to me.
You said I was hijacking the message of OWS. First of all, I wasn’t speaking for OWS I was restating, in the first part of my post, EXACTLY what the OWS message is. In fact, I provided a link to it.
In the second half of my post, I showed exactly what I was basing my interpretation on. I’m not “hijacking” anything. OWS speaks for itself… and I interpret for myself.
Finally, you stated, incorrectly, that I was reducing “that system to profit”. Do you see the word “profit” mentioned in this sentence: “Capitalism is based on survival of the fittest and it is a competitive rather than a cooperative system”? OWS called for a “cooperative system” or, am I hijacking their message? Do you consider capitalism to be a “cooperative system”? I’d really like to hear you explain that.
I appreciate that OWS has steered clear of using labels like capitalism and socialism. If I were in charge of their messaging, and I’m not, I would steer clear of using those labels too. I think it’s great that they’re casting the widest possible, least divisive net they can.
That doesn’t mean, however, that the powerful OWS statement isn’t clearly a “people before profits” message. You stated that the occupation is “pro-human”. I couldn’t agree more. Note that I made a reference in my post to capitalism’s “inhumane” tyranny. Capitalism is a system that picks winners and losers and fails to distribute power equally to all citizens. Socialism makes people its priority; capitalism makes money its priority. Capitalism is by definition a survival of the fittest system which in my view is inherently anti-human and it’s certainly undemocratic. It’s not just about “profits”; it’s about pitting some citizens against others.
And, to be very clear, it is also about “profits”, isn’t it? Are you making some differentiation between capitalism and the pursuit of profits that accrue mostly to the benefit of investors? Please explain. Did you read the OWS statement? Look at the items OWS listed… for example, foreclosures, bailouts, monopolization of the food supply, anti-worker policies, outsourcing jobs and cutting worker benefits, buying politicians and on and on. You don’t think capitalism and its inherent pursuit of profit above all other objectives isn’t at the core of the problems they listed? Truly, I would like you to explain, point-by-point, why you believe that.
Is there something you object to when socialists want workers to control their own companies instead of remote investors who don’t live anywhere near where they live and have no real “investment” in what happens to the workers? Workers should control the companies in which they work; not investors. Is there something you object to when socialists want to make health care for all citizens a basic right that should not be bartered for in the capitalist’s marketplace? Is there some reason the costs of damaging the environment and the costs of the American military to guard private oil installations, i.e. externalities, shouldn’t burden the price of products? Do you see a problem with socializing the costs and privatizing the profits? That’s the system we have today because capitalism leads to a corruption of the political process.
Too many differentiate between the political system and the economic system. The two are inextricably intertwined. You cannot allow the excessive concentration of wealth we’ve seen and still expect to have a democratic distribution of power. Capitalism is a cancer that spreads competition into the human soul where cooperation should be growing. Regulations might sometimes offer symptomatic relief but they will never cure the disease. Socialism means “people” or, as you said “pro-human”. I couldn’t care less about the “socialism” label but pro-people is the message any way you twist it.
Is it just possible you have no idea what I was saying? Sheesh.
No, I don’t “advocate profits before people”!!!!!!!
I advocate “people before profits” and I suggest to you that capitalism does exactly the opposite and that’s why we need to get rid of it.
Response to BAckeast. Reasonable people wouldn’t have participated in the Civil Rights sit-ins, either. I was there, sonny. Were you?
You don’t see a difference between civil rights and people over leveraging themselves financially? Maybe that HELOC to buy the lake house, third car, plasma screen, new pool etc etc etc wasn’t such a grand idea.
Well, you’ve made some points I totally agree with. Let’s look at those first. Health care has to be a human right. It should not be rationed, by price, only to those who can afford it. Medicare is a good solid socialist program. Fifty million Americans have no health care or sub-standard health care because of the greed of insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies and others.
And I also appreciate your recognition that public education is to be valued and that educating everyone who wants an education is a societal obligation that should not be “privatized”.
But to define socialism as “government controls everything” fails to recognize that there are many flavors of socialism. Allow me to offer a few components of what I advocate. Perhaps you’ll agree with a point or two.
I don’t want “the government to control everything”. I want workers to be in control of their own companies. You might call these “cooperatives”. I don’t like the idea that people with enough capital to invest can shut down factories or can ship jobs overseas to cheaper labor markets and to countries without adequate regulations. I don’t like the disconnect we get with an employer at one location and remote investors somewhere else. Do they care how much their company pollutes if they don’t live there? Do they care what happens to human beings when they shut down a plant and move it somewhere that has cheaper labor? Investors care only about their return on investment and that ultimately leads to poor situations for working people.
Corporations charters actually mandate that companies must try to maximize profits for their shareholders. This leads to some very undemocratic and unsavory behavior. They lobby to weaken regulations corrupting the political process. They pollute the environment or take risks (think BP’s oil spill). They lack patriotism and, rather than doing the best they can for the country, they pursue the narrow, greedy interests of their shareholders. My flavor of socialism would mandate, first and foremost, a societal obligation for all corporations. Any corporation found to be “anti-social”, i.e. against the interests of the people and the environment, would be shut down. If these manmade structures don’t serve us, let’s get rid of them or redefine their charters.
In the end, my goal for socialism is to build a political system that does all it can to share power equally among all citizens. The first order of a good socialist system, in my view, has to be what I call “equality of citizenship”. Under capitalism, it’s clear this can never happen. The goal is to build an economic system that encourages democracy rather than one, i.e. capitalism, that corrupts it. Too many make the mistake of disconnecting the political system from the economic system. If your economic system isn’t democratic, your political system won’t be either.
By the way, I would call for state control over certain functions in the society. These would include insurance, banking and possibly the energy industry. Oil company profits are nothing short of obscene. I also would place severe limits on things like pharmaceutical industry profits. We, as taxpayers, have heavily subsidized the research they do and then they turn around and make drugs so expensive that many cannot afford them. Pro-people socialism would not tolerate such nonsense.
Thanks for clarifying. Your original post came across as you wanted complete state control of all economic functions and as I said with the Soviet Union, people have been there, done that and it didn’t work for lots of areas.
You and I are in complete agreement that some economic functions are best handled by government, some by cooperatives, some by non-profits, but I dunno, I still think the traditional private enterprise corporation still has a legitimate place in the economy. I do agree that corporations should be controlled so that they serve the larger society. Corporate executives have vastly too much power at the moment.
So you’re in agreement with Herman Cain then.
Sorry, but I just can’t go with the idea that we have 9% unemployment just because people are lazy. At 3% or 4%, sure, that explanation might be valid, but Atrios kept track of employment numbers throughout Bush’s term in office and I believe still does. The number of new jobs very rarely got to the point of even keeping up with population growth. National economic policies were simply crappy and were weighted against American job seekers.
Protesters have lake houses? Really? Cool. I had no idea. Lake house protesters… what will they think of next?
Do you want to know a little more about who’s “over leveraging themselves financially”? Do ya?
Well, then read this. Will you be happy when the big boys on Wall Street take the whole country down with them?
The problem isn’t just “corporate executives”. The problem is that investors can vote in the shareholder meetings and workers cannot. This is not a “democratic economic system.” Again, look at how the economic system and the political system are intertwined. Without a democratic economic system, you cannot have a democratic political system.
When I speak of socialism, and I have no problem paying an investor some return on their investment, I want to give a vote (in the shareholder meetings) only to the workers. Money, which is all investors really are on the corporate balance sheet, should not have a vote. They can “vote” by putting their money elsewhere if they prefer but they should not have control over the lives of the workers. Corporations should be run in the best interests of their workers and in the best interests of the broader society. Investors interests are the polar opposite. Profit is the only objective. That’s why they should not be allowed to vote in the shareholder meetings.
When you say my “original post came across as you wanted complete state control of all economic functions”, I’ll have to go back and look at what I wrote in detail. I would never, ever advocate that. I certainly have no love for the tyrannical Soviet Union. Did I really imply such things or did you associate your understanding of socialism with these ideas?
I’ll have to double-check that. Thanks for the feedback. Stay safe.
In this context, I don’t associate the Soviet Union so much with tyranny as I do with economic stagnation and a very brittle social and economic system.
I’d like to sharply limit the power of the money people, but I can’t agree to leave them completely without a voice.
And yeah, when you speak of socialism without carefully qualifying the term (as you then did above), folks like me tend to assume you favor complete state control of the economy. That’s just the way most people figure is the direction you’re going in.
are you sure your name is not backseat? you appear to being sitting in it and can’t see what is going on. These are the most shallow and cold comments I have seen in quite some time time in regard to fellow humans and I would bet that heroin is not your problem, but you drink plenty of beer or are you one of the champagne 1%. Or possibly one of the many cocaine addicts working on Wall Street?
Sorry Welsh, that was meant for Backseat.