Sunday, July 12, 2015

the poor will not rise up...,


NYTimes |  Insofar as individualization has taken hold in the United States, the prospects for collective action on behalf of the poor are dim, at best.

Collective action on behalf of the poor requires a shared belief in the obligation of the state to secure the well-being of the citizenry. That belief has been undermined by what Beck calls the “insourcing” of risk, transferring obligations from the state to the individual. This reallocation of responsibility has been studied from various angles.

In his book “The Great Risk Shift,” Jacob Hacker, a political scientist at Yale, joins the argument by documenting the economic pressures on individuals resulting from the widespread erosion of social insurance. “For decades, Americans and their government upheld a powerful set of ideals that combined a commitment to economic security with a faith in economic opportunity,” Hacker writes. “Today that message is starkly different: You are on your own.”

Collective social action, in turn, has been supplanted by a different kind of revolt. David A. Snow , professor of sociology at the University of California, Irvine, noted that the top priorities of the specific movements associated with individualization – “the feminist movement, lesbian-gay-bisexual-transgender movements, the black power movement, the disability rights movement, and, most recently, the fat-acceptance movement” – do not lend themselves to broad economic demands on behalf of the less well off.

Instead, Snow wrote in a chapter of the 2013 book “The Future of Social Movement Research,”
concern with distributional inequities and injustices tends to take a back seat to procedural issues and injustices bearing on rights and associated matters of inclusion and exclusion and to group reputational issues.
The most recent example of the populace’s rising up to substantially change the course of legislation was not in support of raising the minimum wage or of making the tax system more progressive. It was the enormous and successful outcry – three million emails to Congress, a petition with 4.5 million signatures, 2.4 million tweets and 10 million calls to members of Congress — over the attempted enactment of the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) in 2012. Supporters of the net neutrality movement saw free or low-cost access to music and video resources on the Internet threatened by the measure. Their complaints, backed by tech firms whose profits depend on open access to the Internet — Google, Facebook, eBay, Twitter etc. – defeated the bill backed by their commercial adversaries, the music, motion picture and cable industries.

Compare the SOPA protest to the sole organized attempt to challenge the flow of wealth to the top 1 percent and the profits funneled to the finance industry: Occupy Wall Street, which collapsed in less than a year, despite intensive, generally favorable media coverage.

12 comments:

Ed Dunn said...

Love how NYT narrates how Occupy Wall Street was a failure when it actually branched out to greater need for activism among those who felt entitled to white privilege but their 401k and home values stated differently. NYT had it in for Occupy since the beginning stating the group was founded or have roots in anti-Semitic sentiments blaming certain people in Wall Street and has been biased in their reporting from day one. Not that I'm taking any sides but just pointing out how the NYT just want to narrate the outcome their way.

Ed Dunn said...

To expand further, Occupy was probably a "pop-up" or a "flash" movement which is what it should be, not some long standing organization like COINTEL victims claiming they fighting the power for 50 past years...

CNu said...

Occupy and Anonymous are 4GW modes of resistance that can only be disrupted if their underlying communication infrastructures are cut off or seriously infiltrated. Like hydras, those underlying communication and coordination infrastructures keep moving and spawning additional new heads. Meanwhile, the man keeps getting his castle-defence command, communication, and control infrastructures very publicly pr0bed and 0wned.

Constructive_Feedback said...

Brother Ed:

With your permission I would like to make use of the "Occupy Democrats" organization as an extension of the "Occupy Movement".

As you know, first hand in Atlanta we had an "Occupy Movement". It fused together the "Progressive Establishment", the "Black Civil Rights Establishment" and the activist communities.
It only ran into trouble when Atlanta Mayor Reed became the target because they started interrupting the business operations of Atlanta with their near daily street marches in downtown.
Reed, who once connected with them because he did the 'Sit In At Howard U" (protesting Republican Lee Attwater" giving a chair on the board of regents). When Mayor Reed started ENFORCING THE LAW (no urban camping) this caused a splinter with Occupy Atlanta and several notable civil rights progressives who had been fighting to "keep the Black streak of mayors" alive - began attacking him as a "Corporate Shill"

Today "Occupy Democrats" are being propagated on FaceBook as the voice of the "We Are In The White House Negroes" - who feel EVERY INJURY THAT OBAMA SUFFERS.

I say that this IS the "Occupy Movement" unmasked because NO original "Occupy Wall Street" operative has called out the "Occupy Democrats".

WITH THIS AS A BASIS FOR MY ARGUMENTS, BROTHER ED - I Must ask you:

HOW DOES the NY Times argue "No One Will Help The Poor" - WHEN THESE FORCES ARE IN BED WITH THE POLITICAL OPERATIVES THAT "THE URBAN POOR" have been voting for for decades, to channel their hopes into POLITICAL POWER??

You argue about contradiction between "Activism" and "Retirement Savings".
I called out the fact that the original Occupy took in "Multi-Millionaire" celebs (Jay-Z, Jon Legend, Lynne Redgrave) BECAUSE - just as with Progressives and Obama - they valued OFFICIAL AFFIRMATION OF THEIR CAUSE (Marketing) in exchange for the PASSOVER that they operated - NEVER attacking the rich progressives or Obama Power as "The 1%" or "The Monied Establishment" BECAUSE they ultimately valued THEM AS TOOLS TO ADVANCE PROGRESSIVISM into a greater entrenchment status.

When you see Black people on FB using "Occupy Democrats" as their voice and they focus on OBAMA'S SUCCESS AGAINST THE WHITE RIGHT WING - but never speak of the CONDITION OF THE BLACK COMMUNITY where Progressive forces dominate - I DO NOT SEE "PROGRESSIVE BIAS".

Instead I see that the "We Are In The White House Negro" can be tricked into APPLAUDING his present under-developed condition If given the proper inducement.

Constructive_Feedback said...

The ONLY logical question that one should ask is:

HAVE THE INVESTMENTS THAT "THE POOR" HAVE FUSED THEIR HOPES FOR ELEVATION SUFFICIENTLY PAID OFF?


HAVE THEIR HANDLERS BEING TRANSPARENT ENOUGH TO CLAIM THAT THEY CARE FOR THE POOR - AS EVIDENT BY THE NEW FOUND SKILL IN THE POOR TO "MAKE THEIR OWN 'BREAST EXAMS', DETERMINE THEY ARE NOT SUFFICIENTLY BEING DEVELOPED - AND CHOOSE, BASED UPON THEIR NEW COMPETENCIES TO BREAK RANKS FROM THEIR HANDLERS?

CNu said...

lol, my question is why don't the tards have their own austere, abstinent, punitive 4GW C3I infrastructure. oops, oh wait, they do, but it takes the form of these eschatological winged-monkeys out of south Kansas City http://subrealism.blogspot.com/2015/07/evangelicals-are-engaged-in-spiritual.html

John Kurman said...

Individualization is critical to the panoptic scheme. Foucault: "In a disciplinary regime, individualization is descending: as power becomes more anonymous and functional, those on whom it is exercised tend to be more strongly individualized; it is exercised by surveillance rather than ceremonies". Sovereignty and independence of the individual, prized within liberal democracies, suits power quite nicely by isolating people from one another.

ken said...

Of course you're right here, this is only a partisan group, uninterested in any methods or ideas outside of democrat party thinking. I took interest at the article's puzzlement:

"Compare the SOPA protest to the sole organized attempt to challenge the flow of wealth to the top 1 percent and the profits funneled to the finance industry: Occupy Wall Street, which collapsed in less than a year, despite intensive, generally favorable media coverage."

Had they understood the polls about the press they would get why this shouldn't have been a surprise at all.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/157589/distrust-media-hits-new-high.aspx

The trust of the press has remained relatively constant among democrats while tanking with republicans and independents. And then it goes further to note that basically only republicans and to a lesser degree independents are only paying attention to the news, while the democrats aren't. So here's a group of devout democrats trying to muster up more democrat participation who aren't even willing to watch the news. Meanwhile the democrat press broadcasts is favorable coverage of the event to republicans who don't agree or believe them. And they wonder why it collapsed.

And we know of course if we were to take a microphone through the crowd of the 99% movement we would find half not really having an idea what their protesting about or what policy changes would make them consider their protest effective.

The protest movement was probably a nice little party for many, but when serious talk like this guy attempts, only can bring candidates up through the democrat party.

http://occupywallst.org/

MW: The only way to remove the power of corporations in our society would be to create a social movement capable of winning elections. As movements and as activists, we have avoided the only solution, which is: we have to build social movements that can also function as political parties. This is a need that we do not want to hear. We think we can just organize large protests and get really angry. Occupy Wall Street was a once in a lifetime event and it did not work because we were chasing a false theory of how social change happens. We believe, or wanted to believe, that a large number of people going to the streets can cause changes in their governments, but when we achieved a historical social movement, we realized this story of change is not true. Now it is clear that the only way to win power is to create a hybrid between a social movement and a political party. Something that does not have leaders, but has spokespeople and an organizational structure that lasts more than six months.

Constructive_Feedback said...

My Good Man, CNu

FOCUS.

I posted a commentary about "The Least Of These". I argued that the evidence of the veracity of their INVESTMENTS IN HOPED FOR DEVELOPMENT should be appraised in the form - NOT of their "BEING IN RECEIPT OF" the accouterments that make up our 'Standard Of Living', but instead, we should inspect THEIR skills of DISCERNMENT by which they are made equipped, like any investor - to have their investment vehicle to SWIM OR CUT BAIT. (In other words increased SELF AWARENESS).

You replied to my statement with a counter that redirected the discussion toward the "Conserve Tards".

I believe that this is an evasion.

In the community that I am most interested in helping them to build up STRUCTURES OF GOVERNANCE - it is an unchallenged FACT that the "Secular Progressives" hold dominate sway.

I did not attack these operatives. I ONLY demanded that they PROVE that their agenda is beyond political opportunism by SHOWING EVIDENCE OF MAKING their flock into "THE UNLEAST OF THESE".

Please help me out and detail why the logical volley away from "Building Organic Competencies WITHIN The People" is to look at what the "Conserve Tards" are doing across a state line?

Dale Asberry said...

Ok, Caps Lock Boy, what in f*ck makes you think that you are in a position to say "focus"? ...especially in a shebeen where you are a visitor?

CNu said...

Ruthless Feed-wrangling at its finest https://btx3.wordpress.com/2015/07/09/jenny-horne-brings-down-the-flag-in-south-carolina/#comment-13106

CNu said...

Bro. Feed,

Have you read E. Franklin Frazier's awesome classic Black Bourgeoisie? First published in 1955, it spells out exactly why the "structures of governance" and "organic competencies" did not exist at that time, and, sixty years later, why they don't exist today. Once you read this book, I suspect your entire oeuvre (focused in a partisan straw man and offering no viable alternatives) will come to a grinding halt.

At that point, you can focus on the real problem accounting for the lack of organic competencies and structures of governance.

The MSM Is Accidentally On-Purpose Throwing In The Towel On Biden

kunstler  |    “Biden’s most important achievements may be that he rescued the presidency from Trump, resumed a more traditional style of...