The Revolution of 2011?

What we see today with the protests now happening around the globe is a clash between populist, progressive values, and the regressive, elitist values of the corporate class and their flunkies.

(GOLD RIVER B.C.) - The year 1848 is noted for the revolutions that swept across much of Europe. Historians in the future may write of the revolutions of 2011. What started as a popular revolt in Tunisia in late 2010 and spread throughout the Arab world has now gone world wide as people gather everywhere to protest the current order.

In the United States the protest on Wall Street in New York City has been continuous for over a month, and gives no sign of ending soon. The past weekend protests were staged in eighty or more countries around the world including Canada. A protest in Vancouver is estimated to have drawn 4000 people and some say that they plan to stay and protest til the new year. In Nanaimo about 500 people gathered to protest, and the list goes on with local protest groups springing up everywhere.

The underlying reasons for the revolutions of 1848 were in some ways much like the ones driving the protests of 2011. Demands for greater political participation and a fairer share of the economy are threads that run through both.

One might question why in such an affluent society as the one in North America above the Mexican border, or some of those in Europe and Asia, people would protest. The answer lies in the economic numbers, and in the decline of the system built to repair the damage of the Great Depression and World War II.

Out of that depression came social programs to strengthen society and temper the effects of a predatory economic system. Public responsibility for the welfare of all citizens was acknowledged and taxes raised to meet that responsibility. The business community was better regulated to prevent some of its socially destructive excesses. Historic civil rights wrongs were addressed, or in some cases a least acknowledged. Then came the '80s and the regressive backlash.

Over the last thirty years many governments have caved in to the regressive elements in society, the corporate class, and proceeded to unravel as much of the progressive policy of the mid 20th century as they could, reducing both the power and the income of the bulk of the population. The result is that many people feel powerless today, whether they be rank and file Reform Party types, Tea Partiers or the Occupy groups that are now threatening to eclipse all others.

The numbers tell a story that explains why such dissatisfaction can arise and go viral. Using the United States as an example we see that in 1922, before the Great Depression, the richest 1% of the population held almost37% of the wealth. By 1976 it had shrunk to about 20%. Then, policies changed and by 2007 it was up to almost 35%. Canada has a similar tale of growing wealth disparity.

Most people born in the past forty years, if they are not in the top percentile of wealthy, have had a life of falling behind as the rich get progressively richer in comparison. And, the wealth increase of the rich is built on reduced public protection and services, including education, and reduced employment opportunities as jobs are sent off shore to cheaper labour pools.

What we see today with the protests now happening around the globe is a clash between populist, progressive values, and the regressive, elitist values of the corporate class and their flunkies. The economist Robert Reich hit the nail on the head recently when he wrote:

"Progressives believe in openness, equal opportunity, and tolerance. Progressives assume we’re all in it together: We all benefit from public investments in schools and health care and infrastructure. And we all do better with strong safety nets, reasonable constraints on Wall Street and big business, and a truly progressive tax system. Progressives worry when the rich and privileged become powerful enough to undermine democracy.

Although some good came from the revolutions of 1848, mostly they were crushed, often brutally. What will happen here, now, remains to be seen.

Jerry West grew up on a farm in Fresno County, California, and served with the US Marine Corps from 1965 to 1970 including 19 months in Vietnam with the Third Marine Division, and three years at MCAS Iwakuni where he became an anti-war organizer in 1970. He earned an Honors Degree in History at the University of California, Berkeley, and did two years of graduate study there. While in university he worked seasonally in fire and law enforcement with the US Forest Service.

After university he worked for a number of years in the international tour industry in operations and management before moving to a remote village on the west coast of Vancouver Island where he is currently the editor and publisher of The Record newspaper serving the Nootka Sound region. He is a Past President of the Northern California Land Trust, and a member of Phi Beta Kappa.

Salem-News.com Top Stories

2025: Hope for the Best, Prepare for the Worst

Two Wars with No Way Out

No One Owns the Future

The Ugly Origins of Trump's America First Policy

A One-State Solution Could Transform the World

Comments Leave a comment on this story.

All comments and messages are approved by people and self promotional links or unacceptable comments are denied.

Jerry West October 25, 2011 2:48 am (Pacific time)

And, another:

http://www.businessinsider.com/what-wall-street-protesters-are-so-angry-about-2011-10

**The problem in a nutshell is this: Inequality in this country has hit a level that has been seen only once in the nation's history, and unemployment has reached a level that has been seen only once since the Great Depression. And, at the same time, corporate profits are at a record high.**

Jerry West October 24, 2011 3:30 pm (Pacific time)

Another piece worth looking at:

,bhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-holt-gimenez/occupy-food_b_1021078.html?

** In the past few weeks, the U.S. Food Movement has made its presence felt in Occupy Wall Street. Voices from food justice organizations across the country are connecting the dots between hunger, diet-related diseases and the unchecked power of Wall Street investors and corporations....**

Jerry West October 23, 2011 6:12 pm (Pacific time)

Anonymous wrote: "George Lakeoff has it incorrect, it is not conservatives that control the bankers on Wall Street, or other large financial institutions like Fannie Mae and Freddie, but the liberal democrats." --- It is to laugh. Money controls both the Democrats and the Republicans, playing off so called liberal Democrats against Conservatives is setting up a red herring, they are both in it together, and the conflict is theater. The real divide is between those with differing degrees of wealth. The bankers on Wall Street are hand in glove with both the Democrats, the Republicans, and the conservatives, whichever political expression they may take.

Jerry West October 22, 2011 8:08 pm (Pacific time)

Worth a read:

http://www.vanityfair.com/society/features/2011/05/top-one-percent-201105.print

** Americans have been watching protests against oppressive regimes that concentrate massive wealth in the hands of an elite few. Yet in our own democracy, 1 percent of the people take nearly a quarter of the nation’s income—an inequality even the wealthy will come to regret. **

DJ: Excellent referral, Jerry. No reader should miss it. Stiglitz also said:

"The rich don’t need to rely on government for parks or education or medical care or personal security—they can buy all these things for themselves. In the process, they become more distant from ordinary people, losing whatever empathy they may once have had. They also worry about strong government—one that could use its powers to adjust the balance, take some of their wealth, and invest it for the common good. The top 1 percent may complain about the kind of government we have in America, but in truth they like it just fine: too gridlocked to re-distribute, too divided to do anything but lower taxes.”

Anonymous October 22, 2011 9:25 am (Pacific time)

Jerry, George Lakeoff has it incorrect, it is not conservatives that control the bankers on Wall Street, or other large financial institutions like Fannie Mae and Freddie, but the liberal democrats. I dare say, look at the evidence: Who gets the biggest political doanations and who sits on the different "boards" of these outfits? Who has the longest history of writing legislation deal with them, etc.? It's the democrats. In terms of the OWS goal, well what is it? There are many different factions all opining for different things. Those who want the destruction of capitalism probably have no idea what capitalism is. Then those who want redistribution of assets, well when has that ever worked? The revolution of 2011 actually started in 2009, led by the formation of the Tea Party. The massive change of power during the 2010 elections (please note the change in state legislatures)was just the opening salvo, it is still happening, and will continue beyond the 2012 elections. As far as the OWS, there are some wonderful people and ideas, which are actually part of what the Tea Party people have been pining for. It is the far left radicals which will cancel out any good that may come out of this. They are getting plenty of press, but it is getting more negative as time goes by. Once again, it is the liberal democrats that have been filling their wallets on Wall Street with my and your tax money. Show evidence to the contrary, but be prepared to compare, for that is why we need to be intellectually honest about this matter if we hope to make things more equitable for all. I suggest that one should, if a student, to stay in school, and train yourself for the job market and what it values. According to some liberals, my wife and I have an income that makes us rich. Well we are typical middleclass folks who work hard, but I assure you with four children and where we live, making over $250,000 is not rich. How many of these OWS have even ever had a job, I wonder?

Anonymous October 21, 2011 9:29 am (Pacific time)

Anonymous October 20, 2011 6:27 pm (Pacific time)

Occupiers of Whatever, I have bad news for you: Billionaires make their billions by selling stuff for [example] $49.95 with a two-year contract to "occupiers" like you. If you have a smart phone/pad, are sleeping in an REI tent, wear Nike/Adidas/Reebok, shop at Trader's Joe, drink Starbucks (organic) coffee, occasionally eat at McDonald's, or bought a new hybrid with "cash for clunkers," you are part of the problem. You buy their stuff. That's how they got rich. You wanted the new iPhone with the latest apps preloaded. You signed up for guaranteed college loans to pay for a degree in "liberal studies." You can't wait to update your Facebook page or Tweet with your latest exploits. You love stuff. Admit it. Greed isn't only for the rich. We live in a cage we built for ourselves out of the stuff we bought, usually on credit. (Nice sleeping bag, by the way). If the OWS is about the "re-founding" of America, then that should be interesting to see unfold, but pretty doubtful the OWS will have any impact. For example, the hypocrisy by someone who has authored considerable over sight legislation of Wall Street Banks is really quite illuminating on who is controlling the OWS: "Barney Frank supports protests, raises Wall St. cash!" "The Massachusetts Democrat headed to New York hoping to raise tens of thousands of dollars Thursday at a fundraiser at the home of Charles Myers, a senior investment banking adviser at Evercore Partners. Myers is one of several Wall Street execs listed on the invite soliciting up to $2,500 from attendees for Frank’s reelection committee, according to a copy obtained by POLITICO. Frank, the co-author of the sweeping financial regulatory reform bill signed into law last year, said in a recent interview with POLITICO that he didn’t see any conflict between supporting the protests and taking financial services money." Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/66412.html#ixzz1bNCKMpA2

Jerry West October 20, 2011 2:43 pm (Pacific time)

Worth considering from George Lakoff: "Two Moral Framing Systems in Politics

Conservatives have figured out their moral basis and you see it on Wall Street: It includes: The primacy of self-interest. Individual 
responsibility, but not social responsibility. Hierarchical authority based on wealth or other forms of power. A moral hierarchy of who is 
"deserving," defined by success. And the highest principle is the primacy of this moral system itself, which goes beyond Wall Street and 
the economy to other arenas: family life, social life, religion, foreign policy, and especially government. Conservative "democracy" is seen as a
 system of governance and elections that fits this model.....

The alternative view of democracy is progressive: Democracy starts with citizens caring about one another and acting responsibly on that sense 
of care, taking responsibility both for oneself and for one's family, community, country, people in general, and the planet. The role of 
government is to protect and empower all citizens equally via The Public: public infrastructure, laws and enforcement, health, education, 
scientific research, protection, public lands, transportation, resources, art and culture, trade policies, safety nets, and on and on. 
Nobody makes it one their own. If you got wealthy, you depended on The Public, and you have a responsibility to contribute significantly to The
 Public so that others can benefit in the future. Moreover, the wealthy depend on those who work, and who deserve a fair return for their 
contribution to our national life. Corporations exist to make life better for most people. Their reason for existing is as public as it is 
private.

A disproportionate distribution of wealth robs most citizens of access to the resources controlled by the wealthy. Immense wealth is a thief. 
It takes resources from the rest of the population - the best places to live, the best food, the best educations, the best health facilities, 
access to the best in nature and culture, the best professionals, and on and on. Resources are limited, and great wealth greatly limits access 
to resources for most people.

It appears to me that OWS has a progressive moral vision and view of democracy, and that what it is protesting is the disastrous effects that
 have come from operating with a conservative moral, economic, and political worldview. I see OWS as primarily a moral movement, seeking 
economic and political changes to carry out that moral movement - 
whatever those particular changes might be."

"http://www.readersupportednews.org/opinion2/275-42/7970-a-framing-memo-for-occupy-wall-street"

Jerry West October 20, 2011 2:34 pm (Pacific time)

Whether I agree with them or not, anarchist are not necessarily anti-American, nor is anti-free enterprise, the call for radical redistribution of wealth, civil disobedience or violence. The WSJ or any other special interest group does not have a valid claim on what is American and what is not. Using the anti-American card is an admission that one is afraid to debate the issues for what they are. One could just as easily, and just as bogus, make a case that the Tea Party is anti-American.

Jerry West October 20, 2011 12:13 pm (Pacific time)

Whether it has staying power or not remains to be seen, same for the Tea Party. I know that the Vietnam protests impacted the war, that it took several years is not remarkable. Those protests spread to the military and by 1970 military morale was dropping, the effectiveness of the troops was in doubt, and we were facing a real crisis in the defense department. Saw it first hand. And, whether or not agendas address positive change or not is a value judgment. Americans have a lot of different conflicting values. What may happen is that one side or the other will decide it needs the vote generating potential of the OWS movement and try to co-opt it and channel it. As it stands neither side which is really one side doing the bidding of big business, can deliver the reforms that the OWS movement wants, no more than they can deliver everything some of the TP wants.

Anonymous October 20, 2011 11:44 am (Pacific time)

It appears this OWS movement is starting to have exposed the anarchists, and other anti-American and anti-Free Enterprise people. Poll by nationally known democrat

strategist: "One-Third of OWS Protesters Support Violence, Not Average Americans. Up until now we’ve been relying mainly on the incoherent ramblings of

Occupy Wall Street activists to get an idea of what’s driving the movement. But Democratic pollster Douglas Schoen finally gives us some statistical insight

into what OWS actually believes, with a must-read column today in the Wall Street Journal.

Schoen’s polling firm interviewed 200 activists in Zuccotti Park last week:

Our research shows clearly that the movement doesn’t represent unemployed America and is not ideologically diverse. Rather, it comprises an unrepresentative

segment of the electorate that believes in radical redistribution of wealth, civil disobedience and, in some instances, violence. Half (52 percent) have

participated in a political movement before, virtually all (98 percent) say they would support civil disobedience to achieve their goals, and nearly one-

third (31 percent) would support violence to advance their agenda." http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/10/18/poll-ows-protesters-violence/

DJ: Wall Street Journal--now there's an unbiased, objective source LOL

Sounds like the founding of America, to me. Willing to support civil disobedience and violence to advance an agenda.

What the OWS movement is about is the re-founding of America.

Anonymous October 19, 2011 5:59 pm (Pacific time)

I guess my point is do you think there is "staying power" in the current movement, or if it's temporary, a flash in the pan so to speak? I recall the big protests in the 60's and early 70's, and though they said it impacted the Vietnam war, it still took several years for us to pull our troops out. Considering that we have such a divisive congress, and a political campaign season that has started already, possibly the OWS will get lost in the background noise of the above campaign. It takes congressional legislation to get things changed on a more permanent level, and it appears the OWS is being co-opted by agendas' that really have nothing to do with positive change. I guess we'll see as time goes by.

Jerry West October 19, 2011 1:40 pm (Pacific time)

Anonymous, what is your point?

Anonymous October 19, 2011 9:04 am (Pacific time)

Jerry have you seen any recent estimates of the number of the participants in the different OWS locations around the country? I wonder how the different sites breakdown in terms of interest groups, even homeless/transients? Are these crowds growing, staying about the same, or diminishing? Anyone out there know? Years ago I went to a Macy's parade in NY City and there were hundreds of thousands of people. I know here in Portland Oregon people who have businesses near the OWS location, as well as those who commute in the area have become somewhat miffed about reduced business and obstruction of their rights to have their routine right of way delayed, even stopped where they have to re-route their travel.

[Return to Top]

Quick Links

DINING

MUST SEE SALEM

AUCTIONS - APPRAISALS

CONSTRUCTION SERVICES

ONLINE SHOPPING

Advertise with Salem-News