This morning over at Americablog I read the following remarks in a post by John Aravosis:
Okay, the connection to Goldman is interesting. But I’d like to know a hell of a lot more about just who works at that port, and whose goods are going through that port – meaning, they’re not stopping Goldman’s imports, they’re stopping imports to businesses across America (and exports from business across America) right before Christmas, and during a Depression. And what’s worse, the unions seem, at best, divided on this action (which isn’t a good thing if it’s supposedly being done in support of the unions).
More from CNN:
In addition to Los Angeles, Oakland, and San Diego protesters planned to shut down ports in Portland, Oregon; Seattle and Tacoma, Washington, Vancouver, British Columbia and Anchorage, Alaska, according to the Occupy the Ports website.
Then there’s this:
“We are occupying the ports as part of a day of action, boycott and march for full legalization and good jobs for all to draw attention to and protest the criminal system of concentrated wealth that depends on local and global exploitation of working people, and the denial of workers’ rights to organize for decent pay, working conditions and benefits, in disregard for the environment and the health and safety of surrounding communities,” organizers said on their website.
Hmm. This is starting to sound more radical than I’m comfortable with, and that’s the first time I’ve felt this way throughout these many months. And according to the article, truckers, for example, are going to lose a day of pay because of this action. I’m sorry, but that bothers me right before Christmas and in the middle of a Depression.
I guess Mr. Arovosis thinks that if we just wave our fingers at corporations and politicians that are bought and paid for by the 1% they’ll listen, stop being so mean, and will give up on those massive profits and campaign contributions upon which they rely to get re-elected. One shudders to think what he would say about the Montgomery Bus Boycott our the way in which Egypt was shut down. “What about Christmas!” “Will you think of the children!” Fortunately he’s taken to task in the comments. As Harvey observes, capitalist markets only exist in the activity of exchange. They are organized around a circulatory system. So long as that circulatory system functions there is no incentive for the corporations and the politicians they own to make any concessions or changes. Wagging our fingers does nothing if it doesn’t interrupt that circulatory system.
December 13, 2011 at 3:18 pm
This is why I think a coordinated debt strike would be the ultimate weapon. It’s extremely difficult to pull off, and we shouldn’t sugar coat the giant financial risk that each individual would be taking if they choose to participate. But if we got enough people to coordinate (a difficult task in and of itself) it would really put the breaks on the flow of capital. The banks and congress would beg for mercy and do just about anything we demand just to get the flow of capital going again.
December 13, 2011 at 3:36 pm
Dr Sinthome this is a good remark although having watched Rob Zombie’s excellent HALLOWEEN 2 yesterday, which is about the failure of capitalism to manage affects, I am hopeful that a collective affect that might develop through Occupy, could end up causing these material changes.
December 13, 2011 at 3:53 pm
Right Thomas. If enough people sign off on such a thing what can they do? As usual, the ideological dimension of capitalism has things upside down, arguing that it’s the 1% that creates wealth. What has to be demonstrated is that it is the will of multitudes that creates wealth.
December 13, 2011 at 5:26 pm
…which is why everyone should read, talk about and spread Stengers’ and Pignarre’s ‘Capitalist Sorcery: Breaking the Spell’ which focuses explicitly on the ‘little hands’ that do the dirty work of capitalism while shrugging and saying with a sigh ‘this is our only choice’…
Also my recent post, riffing of your (Levi’s) earlier ‘terraism’ post looks specifically at the necessity of (material/objectual) deconstruction in making any kind of change possible at all (including the perpetuation of life, for example through digestion). This has weird implications for the ontological violence-non-violence debate. I suggest that the two are, ultimately, mutually interdependent (ah joyous paradox!) and quite necessary for anything resembling life to flourish.
December 14, 2011 at 4:00 am
There’s an interesting take on this from some people who work on the docks:
AN OPEN LETTER FROM AMERICA’S PORT TRUCK DRIVERS ON OCCUPY THE PORTS