Monday, October 17, 2011

A Thought About the "Occupy Wall Street Movement"


1) Capitalist and Communist Culture Are the Same At This Historical Moment:.

Consider the following observation of Ratzinger-Benedict XVI on Communism and Capitalism:

“The essential problem of our times, for Europe and for the world, is that although the fallacy of the communist economy has been recognized – so much so that former communists have unhesitatingly become economic liberals – the moral and religious question that it used to address has been almost totally repressed. The unresolved issue of Marxism lives on: the crumbling of man’s original uncertainties about God, himself, and the universe. The decline of a moral conscience grounded in absolute values is still our problem today. Left untreated, it could lead to the self-destruction of the European conscience, which we must begin to consider as a real danger – above and beyond the decline predicted by Spengler” [“who believed that he had identified a natural law for the great moments in cultural history: first came the birth of a culture, then its gradual rise, flourishing, slow decline, aging, and death. Spengler argued his thesis with ample documentation, culled from the history of cultures that demonstrated the law of the natural life cycle. His thesis was that the West would come to an end, and that it was rushing heedlessly toward its demise, despite every effort to stop it. Europe could of course bequeath its gifts to a new emerging culture – following the example set by previous cultures during their decline – but as a historical subject its life cycle had effectively ended.”[1]] [2]

2) The Revolution of 1962: Gerard DeGroot: “1968 When the Social Revolution Fell Apart.”

HISTORY OFTEN provides an excuse for a party. In Europe and America, romantics are celebrating 1968. It seems that every hotel in Paris is booked for this month’s festivities – even the Ritz. Anniversaries have a way of cleansing the past of unpleasantness.

But what was 1968? In New York, Chicago, Mexico City, Berlin, Paris and London, young people rose up in protest against the social and political confines of the time. The ubiquity of revolt encouraged illusions of righteous solidarity.

In truth, instead of being the time when “the movement” came together, 1968 was the year it flew apart, its pieces scattering in weird directions. The year was more a death rattle than a glorious birth. If we must celebrate, let’s honor a different year, say, 1964. On Dec. 2 that year, Mario Savio stood on the steps of Sproul Hall at the University of California, Berkeley, and gave the best speech ever uttered by any ’60s radical.

“There’s a time,” he shouted, “when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart, that you can’t take part. You can’t even tacitly take part. And you’ve got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels, upon the levers, upon all the apparatus – and you’ve got to make it stop. And you’ve got to indicate to the people who run it … that unless you’re free, the machine will be prevented from working at all.”

Those early 1960s radicals revolted against the tyranny of conformity. In an essay, Savio had complained that “America is becoming ever more the utopia of sterilized, automated contentment. The ‘futures’ and ‘careers’ for which American students now prepare are for the most part intellectual and moral wastelands.” He essentially questioned the worth of 20 different brands of deodorant if the freedom to shape one’s life had disappeared.

Futility

When I ask my students today to read Savio, they invariably agree with him. They admit that they live in a world of “sterilized, automated contentment” in which meaningful choices are few. But they also see no point in revolt since, unlike Savio, they have decided that fighting the system is inevitably futile. It’s so much easier to stick their headphones in their ears and retreat from the world.

We tend to forget just how liberal those early student radicals were. The word liberal comes from the Latin root liber, which means free. That’s all the students wanted. They weren’t Marxists, or even socialists. They were simply liberals who wanted to put their country back in touch with the ideals of the American Revolution.

To back up a bit, in 1962, the Port Huron Statement, the founding document of the Students for a Democratic Society, proclaimed: “We regard men as infinitely precious and possessed of unfulfilled capacities for reason, freedom and love.” On the subject of youthful alienation, the document maintained: “Loneliness, estrangement, isolation describe the vast distance between man and man today. These dominant tendencies cannot be overcome by better personnel management, nor by improved gadgets, but only when a love of man overcomes the idolatrous worship of things by man.”

Backfiring

Unfortunately, in the supercharged climate of the 1960s, the call for freedom and love sounded dangerous. The SDS was labeled un-American, when in fact it was quintessentially American. By 1965, frustration was already apparent. A disillusioned Carl Oglesby, SDS president, admitted that, to some, his campaign might seem unpatriotic. “To [them] I say, don’t blame me for that! Blame those who mouthed my liberal values and broke my American heart.”

Frustration led inevitably to desperation. Thwarted at every turn, student radicals turned increasingly to violence. Theory provided justification: Violence, it was claimed, would expose the authoritarian nature of the establishment. In fact, violence destroyed the purity of the student revolt by opening it up to those who couldn’t give a fig for freedom but loved the sound of breaking glass. Violence also gave every nihilist desperado the chance to be a star on the 5 o’clock news. For the “establishment,” the turn to violence was a godsend. Rebellious students could now be easily dismissed. Their misbehavior became justification for ever more repressive measures. Meanwhile, the silent majority cheered the authoritarian backlash.

By 1968, the jig was up: The revolt had been taken over by a group of lunatics in thrall to mayhem and in love with their own television image. The great irony of the ’60s is that a movement that started out as a worthy attempt to revive liberalism ended up as an agent in its destruction. Gerard DeGroot is a professor of history at the University of St. Andrews in Scotland. This article appeared in The Christian Science Monitor.

HISTORY OFTEN provides an excuse for a party. In Europe and America, romantics are celebrating 1968. It seems that every hotel in Paris is booked for this month’s festivities – even the Ritz. Anniversaries have a way of cleansing the past of unpleasantness.

But what was 1968? In New York, Chicago, Mexico City, Berlin, Paris and London, young people rose up in protest against the social and political confines of the time. The ubiquity of revolt encouraged illusions of righteous solidarity.

In truth, instead of being the time when “the movement” came together, 1968 was the year it flew apart, its pieces scattering in weird directions. The year was more a death rattle than a glorious birth. If we must celebrate, let’s honor a different year, say, 1964. On Dec. 2 that year, Mario Savio stood on the steps of Sproul Hall at the University of California, Berkeley, and gave the best speech ever uttered by any ’60s radical.

“There’s a time,” he shouted, “when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart, that you can’t take part. You can’t even tacitly take part. And you’ve got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels, upon the levers, upon all the apparatus – and you’ve got to make it stop. And you’ve got to indicate to the people who run it … that unless you’re free, the machine will be prevented from working at all.”

Those early 1960s radicals revolted against the tyranny of conformity. In an essay, Savio had complained that “America is becoming ever more the utopia of sterilized, automated contentment. The ‘futures’ and ‘careers’ for which American students now prepare are for the most part intellectual and moral wastelands.” He essentially questioned the worth of 20 different brands of deodorant if the freedom to shape one’s life had disappeared.

Futility

When I ask my students today to read Savio, they invariably agree with him. They admit that they live in a world of “sterilized, automated contentment” in which meaningful choices are few. But they also see no point in revolt since, unlike Savio, they have decided that fighting the system is inevitably futile. It’s so much easier to stick their headphones in their ears and retreat from the world.

We tend to forget just how liberal those early student radicals were. The word liberal comes from the Latin root liber, which means free. That’s all the students wanted. They weren’t Marxists, or even socialists. They were simply liberals who wanted to put their country back in touch with the ideals of the American Revolution.

To back up a bit, in 1962, the Port Huron Statement, the founding document of the Students for a Democratic Society, proclaimed: “We regard men as infinitely precious and possessed of unfulfilled capacities for reason, freedom and love.” On the subject of youthful alienation, the document maintained: “Loneliness, estrangement, isolation describe the vast distance between man and man today. These dominant tendencies cannot be overcome by better personnel management, nor by improved gadgets, but only when a love of man overcomes the idolatrous worship of things by man.”

Backfiring

Unfortunately, in the supercharged climate of the 1960s, the call for freedom and love sounded dangerous. The SDS was labeled un-American, when in fact it was quintessentially American. By 1965, frustration was already apparent. A disillusioned Carl Oglesby, SDS president, admitted that, to some, his campaign might seem unpatriotic. “To [them] I say, don’t blame me for that! Blame those who mouthed my liberal values and broke my American heart.”

Frustration led inevitably to desperation. Thwarted at every turn, student radicals turned increasingly to violence. Theory provided justification: Violence, it was claimed, would expose the authoritarian nature of the establishment. In fact, violence destroyed the purity of the student revolt by opening it up to those who couldn’t give a fig for freedom but loved the sound of breaking glass. Violence also gave every nihilist desperado the chance to be a star on the 5 o’clock news. For the “establishment,” the turn to violence was a godsend. Rebellious students could now be easily dismissed. Their misbehavior became justification for ever more repressive measures. Meanwhile, the silent majority cheered the authoritarian backlash.

By 1968, the jig was up: The revolt had been taken over by a group of lunatics in thrall to mayhem and in love with their own television image. The great irony of the ’60s is that a movement that started out as a worthy attempt to revive liberalism ended up as an agent in its destruction. Gerard DeGroot is a professor of history at the University of St. Andrews in Scotland. This article appeared in The Christian Science Monitor.

Thursday, May 15, 2008.

3) Occupy Wall Street Protest Goes Global: October 2011

Occupy Wall Street protest goes global

Tens of thousands gathered in cities across the world on Saturday in protest marches modeled on New York's "Occupy Wall Street" movement and sit-ins that began months ago in Spain.

Tens of thousands gathered in cities across the world Saturday in protest marches modeled on New York's "Occupy Wall Street" movement and sit-ins that began months ago in Spain.

Media reported that more than 150,000 people from across Italy took to the streets in Rome, encouraged by Spain's "Indignados" movement of mostly young people, who began protesting in May against high unemployment and inequality.

Tax office and defense-ministry buildings in Rome were targeted with explosive devices and smoke bombs, media reported. A group of masked people also broke into archaeological sites near the Colosseum.

In other parts of the city, teenagers reportedly smashed shop windows.

At least 70 people — including 30 police officers — were injured in Rome, according to a La7 broadcaster, in heavy clashes between anarchists, who barricaded themselves behind rubbish bins, and police armed with water cannons.

Police said around 5,000 people took part in a march on the European Central Bank building in the German financial hub of Frankfurt to protest capitalist excesses and the power of banks.

In Berlin, more than 5,000 people marched on the office of Chancellor Angela Merkel, according to police estimates. Anti-globalization group Attac claimed it had mustered 40,000 demonstrators across Germany.

In London, protesters — including WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange — took part in "OccupyLSX," a collective protesting at the London Stock Exchange that had more than 15,000 fans on Facebook and some 5,000 confirmed attendees.

"Why are we paying for a crisis the banks caused?" asked Laura Taylor, a supporter of OccupyLSX. "More than a million people have lost their jobs and tens of thousands of homes have been repossessed, while small businesses are struggling to survive."

The Guardian reported that thousands of protesters had gathered in London's financial district, where police in riot gear were applying so-called "kettling" crowd-containment measures.

In Brussels, thousands joined a protest march, the Belga news agency reported, adding that a "small group" of smartly dressed people led a counterprotest at the start of the march.

Hundreds also gathered across Austria. In Prague, about 200 Czech demonstrators marched past the stock exchange.

In South Africa, protests took place in major cities including Johannesburg, Durban and Cape Town, organized by Operation Ubuntu, which calls itself a "leaderless resistance movement," formed in sympathy with the Occupy Wall Street protests.

Earlier, hundreds of Australians gathered in Sydney's business district to protest "corporate greed" — falling short of the thousands that organizers had hoped for.

Around 100 people also took to the streets of Tokyo, according to Kyodo News agency, while the Japan Times reported that some 300 people demonstrated against a range of issues, including the handling of this year's nuclear disaster.

Thousands of demonstrators protesting corporate greed filled New York's Times Square on Saturday night, mixing with gawkers, Broadway showgoers, tourists and police to create a chaotic scene in the midst of Manhattan.

The demonstrators had marched north through Manhattan from Washington Square Park earlier in the afternoon. Earlier, demonstrators from the Occupy Wall Street encampment in New York City paraded to a Chase bank branch, banging drums, blowing horns and carrying signs decrying corporate greed.

Marchers throughout the country emulated them in protests that ranged from about 50 people in Jackson, Miss., to about 2,000 in the larger city of Pittsburgh.

Elsewhere in the U.S., nearly 1,500 gathered Saturday for a march past banks in downtown Orlando, Fla.

In Denver, about 1,000 people came to a rally in downtown Denver to support the movement.

4) Whittaker Chambers former Communist, convert to the central reality of God, Senior Editor of Time Magazine in 1948 and principal witness in the spy trial of Alger Hiss:

“As I continued to pray raggedly… What I had been fell from me like dirty rags. The rags that fell from me were not only Communism. What fell was the whole web of the materialist modern mind - the luminous shroud which it has spun about the spirit of man, paralyzing in the name of rationalism the instinct of his soul for god, denying in the name of knowledge the reality of the soul and its birthright in that mystery on which mere knowledge falters and shatters at every step. If I had rejected only Communism, I would have rejected only one political expression of the modern mind, the most logical because the most brutal in enforcing the myth of man’s material perfectibility, the most persuasive because the least hypocritical in announcing its prpose and forcibly removing the obstacles to it. If I had rejected only Communism, I should have changed my faith; I would not have changed the force that made it possible. I should have remained within that modern intellectual mood which gives birth to Communism, and denies the soul in the name of the mind, and the soul’s salvation in suffering in the name of man’s salvation here and now. What I sensed without being able to phrase it was what has since been phrased with the simplicity of an axiom: ‘Man cannot organize the world for himself without God, without God man can only organize the world against man.’ The gas ovens of Buchenwald and the Communist execution cellars exist first within our minds.”[3]

The Problem: Today, as never before, the human person is trapped in an acquisitive inward turn to self, aided and abetted by a cyber technology that has mesmerized him in a fictitious virtual replacement of reality. Consider the observation of Benedict XVI on October 9 in a Carthusian monastery in Italy:

“Technical progress, especially in the area of transport and communications, has made human life more comfortable but also more keyed up, at times even frenetic. Cities are almost always noisy, silence is rarely to be found in them because there is always background noise, in some areas even at night. In recent decades, moreover, the development of the media has spread and extended a phenomenon that had already been outlined in the 1960s: virtuality risks predominating over reality. Unbeknownst to them, people are increasingly becoming immersed in a virtual dimension because of the audiovisual messages that accompany their life from morning to night.

“The youngest, born into this condition, seem to want to fill every empty moment with music and images, out of fear of feeling this very emptiness. This is a trend that has always existed, especially among the young and in the more developed urban contexts but today it has reached a level such as to give rise to talk about anthropological mutation. Some people are no longer able to remain for long periods in silence and solitude.

“I chose to mention this socio-cultural condition because it highlights the specific charism of the Charterhouse as a precious gift for the Church and for the world, a gift that contains a deep message for our life and for the whole of humanity. I shall sum it up like this: by withdrawing into silence and solitude, human beings, so to speak, “expose” themselves to reality in their nakedness, to that apparent “void”, which I mentioned at the outset, in order to experience instead Fullness, the presence of God, of the most real Reality that exists and that lies beyond the tangible dimension. He is a perceptible presence in every creature: in the air that we breathe, in the light that we see and that warms us, in the grass, in stones.... God, Creator omnium, [the Creator of all], passes through all things but is beyond them and for this very reason is the foundation of them all.


Blogger's Commentary


What is going on world-wide? Perhaps the beginning of a revolt against a materialist atheism powered by a capitalist economic methodology that has the trappings of religious tolerance. But there really is no freedom since it has been lost internally. It is valuable to requote Benedict's words just mentioned above:

"In recent decades, moreover, the development of the media has spread and extended a phenomenon that had already been outlined in the 1960s: virtuality risks predominating over reality. Unbeknownst to them, people are increasingly becoming immersed in a virtual dimension because of the audiovisual messages that accompany their life from morning to night.

“The youngest, born into this condition, seem to want to fill every empty moment with music and images, out of fear of feeling this very emptiness. This is a trend that has always existed, especially among the young and in the more developed urban contexts but today it has reached a level such as to give rise to talk about anthropological mutation. Some people are no longer able to remain for long periods in silence and solitude.

Hence, I continue, the Wall Street Protest could be a very good thing, provided that it be illustrated and educated as to what exactly is the force powering it. Otherwise, it will be corrupted by its own exaltation of the self – as DeGroot described the SDS of 1962 degenerating into the nihilism of 1968 and beyond spawning contraception, abortion, euthanasia, divorce, abandoning marriage altogether, gay marriage, in vitro fertilization, etc. In a word, it needs Christian formation and the practice of prayer and sacrifice for the development of the human person made in the image of God. It is the image of God that is tending to emerge with these thrusts toward freedom, but it can easily be infected with lazy selfishness that in its frustration will turn to violence, further corrupting itself and the very abuse it wants to heal.



[1] J. Ratzinger, M. Pera “Without Roots,” Basic Books (2006) 67.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Whittaker Chambers, “Witness,” Regnery Gateway (1952) 82-83.

No comments: