Wednesday, November 16, 2011

On Robert Reich's Mario Savio Memorial Lecture

http://occupyca.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/ocal-15nov-aewzvvkcmaawkxl.jpg
Robert Reich’s Mario Savio Memorial Lecture drew a couple thousand people to the Savio steps last night — fewer than the numbers who had already been there for hours, for the General Assembly of Occupy Cal. When Clinton’s Labor Secretary arrived, old people were really psyched. And surely he said some things worth saying. He was right to note that “the days of apathy are over, folks,” though he was a couple of years behind the curve. A more attentive thinker would have noted that the walkouts, occupations, and police brutality that shuddered and shuttered his campus (and others) two years before were equally large, equally non-apathetic, and declared the exact same concerns. They were perhaps less to his taste then, before they had been validated by a swelling popular movement that provides not just context but a kind of ideological cover for professional ideologues; the sudden discovery of this new movement is in fact a sterling demonstration of cowardice and belatedness.

Here are just one or two Reichian comments worth remarking upon further. “I will believe that corporations are people when Georgia and Texas execute them,” he said, referring to the Citizen’s United decision affirming corporate personhood. It’s a good line, but I will believe corporations are people when damage to their windows is treated as commensurate with violence against people. Oh, wait. By which I mean, if Robert Reich truly wants to distinguish between corporations and people, he needs to recognize that one exists at the expense of the other, that it is already a violent relationship, and that the laws he upholds — the same laws that murder prisoners in the south — offer corporations protections at the expense of people from the front to the back of the law books. Until then, his witty comment is in fact trivial, and as well an insult to those affected by the thoroughgoing racism (among other things) of the legal institution tout court.

But surely Reich’s most troubling suggestion of the evening was that “Every social movement in the last half-century or more, it started with moral outrage…and the actual lessons, the specific demands for specific changes, came later.” The meaning, we fear, is clear enough. There must be specific demands for specific changes. That is the inevitable passage of your sense that something is wrong, deeply and absolutely wrong, with things as they are. This is just a phase, people. And I am here with my understanding, and my belated recognition, to validate you. And once this sense of outrage has passed — moral outrage mind you — and you are ready to see what kinda deal you can cut, we will have achieved a mature movement.

To which the only adequate response is, go fuck yourself, Robert Reich. The outrage may be “moral” but it is also personal, with that special feeling one has for cops that beat you and administrators who lie about that and everything else. It is also intellectual, based on a clear class analysis and a better understanding of the direction of the global capitalist economy that you seem to have, with your dogmatic presumption of some return to a mildly better degree of wealth inequality that should set things to right. Maybe you should specialize in moral outrage, Mr. Reich, since you don’t seem to have much of a handle on the actual situation.

And more importantly, the outrage isn’t going to pass away into a set of banal, kinder-gentler-capitalism policy prescriptions of the sort you have poured into a series of phenomenally boring books. It isn’t going to wait for the opportune moment to sell itself for some trinkets, a signed apology letter, and three new and perfectly lax regulating agencies. Bargain, bargain — that is Moses and the prophets to your type. The limits of your imagination, Former Secretary Reich, are shocking in their obviousness and in their closeness. We do not require your paternalistic validation nor your liberal blandishments, which pretend to support and even to shared outrage, while buttressing ceaselessly the very world we have set out to undo.

But we do need something from you. Sandwiches. We are going to be doing a lot of camping, a lot or marching, a lot of occupying, and a lot of fighting, and we are going to need sandwiches. Please make yourself useful.

Signed, a hungry comrade

31 comments:

  1. who the hell runs this blog? it is full of misinformation and totally trying to co-opt the Occupy Cal movement! How sad that this blog and twitter only focuses on personal negatives and your radical agenda, at the expense of supporting the success of a democratic movement and body. The GA will not be thwarted or manipulated by you. YOU DO NOT REPRESENT US and your unthinking politics will not co-opt our voices anymore. Students you read this blog need to know THIS DOES NOT REPRESENT the Occupy Cal Movement! You should place a disclaimer. sheesh

    ReplyDelete
  2. actually i'm sure this blog and the people running it have been far more active and for longer than the liberal trying to co opt the movement now.

    ReplyDelete
  3. without a doubt. "occupy cal" movement was started by the people who run this blog.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Methinks the anonymous commenter has things exactly backwards. This blog has been around since long before #Occupy was a meme in everyone's newsfeed; it goes back, in fact, as far as the so-called Student Movement goes, to 2009. In the good old days, merely to utter "occupation" was a scandal. This blog, and the broader work it helped along, is the reason there is an Occupy Cal. Occupy Cal ought to be issuign disclaimers saying that it does not represent us. Or, more helpfully still, that it does not represent, and is not in fact, a limit to the present movement.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "the liberal" nice try; ad homenim, inaccurate, and evidence of your desperation. The fact that you also think "liberal" constitutes a dirty word that self-evidently de-authoizes someone's opinion is also an attempt at censorship and a naive one at that. And, moreover, longevity is no guarantee of legitimacy; the very claim that this movement is simply coextensive with previous efforts is also a manipulation. THIS DOES NOT REPRESENT US. You need to clarify that, or else you are attempting a co-option, since you have a good deal of political opinions and reflections that have not been endorsed by the GA. As any good liberal would say "you have a right to your opinions"; but rights do not constitute representation, and YOU DO NOT REPRESENT US! And you should make that much clear at the top of your blog.

    ReplyDelete
  6. seems like a lot of these posters on either side care about getting "credit." For "starting" occupy or being responsible, or representing or whatever. This is an inclusive movement. Reclaim has been around for a while, and they mean well, even if they aren't exactly the same as occupy cal. It might not hurt to let folks no that, but I think the other poster is being to harsh!

    ReplyDelete
  7. these kind of negative attacks only undermine solidarity in the movement. the author of this clearly takes a lot of fun in making harsh attacks on reich. and why? because his joke about double standards for corporations don't go far enough, you call him capitalist and racist? vicious, catty ideological "purity" tests have no place in this movement, and I am ashamed of reclaim uc, who I have long respected, for posting this kind of counterproductive, divisive vitriol. if you don't like reich's tactics to fighting the 1%, then build yours.

    ReplyDelete
  8. agree with this totally!

    ReplyDelete
  9. I think it is worth having a discussion about. Maybe at the GA? This article and post from Adbusters http://www.adbusters.org/blogs/blackspot-blog/imitating-occupy.html also has some interesting discussion about this problem at Cal. Going to both sides in the comments too. I wonder if Occupy Cal is maybe gaining more success now because it is finally getting new people involved and not just pushing the singular ideas of the folks on this blog? Maybe it is time for change in the movement at Cal? At least time for a discussion about change internal to the movement.

    ReplyDelete
  10. There is no claim for originality or authenticity in pointing up the absurdity of the logic of co-extention, i.e. that this blog and Occupy Cal simply exist in the same world at the same time. By that logic--and considering the extreme brevity of Occupy Cal thus far in relation to, say, ReclaimUC, or the Student Movement, or whatever--the onus to differentiate would fall on Occupy Cal. But it's a stupid logic. No one here claims, nor has claimed, to represent Occupy Cal. We were posting on events in Tolman, for instance, back in September, when "occupation" was still a dirty word. No doubt the co-extension is not simple. But it is equally obviously the case. It's more than a little unclear, then, how exactly the blog's continuing to exist necessitates a public disclaimer that is less the mouthpiece of an international movement than our anonymous commenters. . .

    ReplyDelete
  11. just saying the student movement and struggle has been around for a few yeas now and it doesn't make sense to say the people of this blog are "co opting" the movement when they've been fighting this shit since before robert reich was ignoring it, occupying spaces and doing the exact same shit which was called "radical." anyway, fuck off, you don't represent anyone either. --signed, a rogue element

    ReplyDelete
  12. robert reich is a tool.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I don't think the other posters were ever claiming to represent anyone. Just that this blog is misrepresentation. I'm kind of mixed on reclaim uc in general reading it, but have been a big supporter of occupy cal so far. For me the distinction makes sense. I agree with the other poster that it should at least be up for discussion as to whether the movement is changing and needs to distance itself from past stuff. But i dont really know, reclaim has also done a lot of good work.

    ReplyDelete
  14. As a grad student at Cal who reads this blog and who has been somewhat active and also attended multiple GAs, I am really saddened by the tone of these posts and furthermore the attitudes/postings/facebooking/tweets by colleagues and fellow grad students who shamelessly aestheticize and personalize the student movement to their own ends and to bolster their own image (be it on social networking sites in the media or in representations to faculty).

    That being said, I do think Reclaim UC needs to be clear about their status as an "organization" since they have been a resource for organizers at UCB in the past. At a few points during the GA last night, the Reclaim bloggers presented differing (often more radical) positions than the General Assembly voted on--here I'm referencing specifically the first proposal to debate.

    I do hope that everyone comes tonight, and every night, to the GA and tries to work together and put their personal and political issues aside to remember what it is we are fighting for.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I'm confused, to problems come solutions. With no solutions, there will be no end to camping and eating sandwiches. So either the author of this blog post is admitting that there is no end, there is no solution necessary, that a solution is too kind and gentle and capitalist... or there's something I'm missing. You can be upset that Reich termed it "moral" rather than "personal" or "intellectual" outrage, but why chastise him and attack him for suggesting that we will find solutions to problems rather than just sitting around eating sandwiches?

    ReplyDelete
  16. seriously what is wrong with criticizing robert reich, he was on the clinton administration-- aka the 1% if i ever saw it! (though i hate that 99% analysis, it lacks "thought") just because this blog's writers have a lot of readers because it has been writing about the student movement for a long time doesn't mean it has some kind of responsibility to advocate any views but their own. there are going to be a multiplicity of views within the occupy cal movement, merging with OWS, nearby occupies, and those who have been involved in the student occupation movement since 2009 who laid the groundwork, theoretically, materially, historically. that's not "taking credit" it just means that its ridiculous to call people who have been doing that work for the past few years the ones who are coopting anything.

    ReplyDelete
  17. This blog has never claimed to speak on behalf of Occupy Cal, only the General Assembly can do that. And as far as I can tell, no one person here is the General Assembly either.

    If readers think people aren't critical of electoral politics and the two-party system within the Occupy Cal coalition, they're sadly mistaken.

    If you want to defend Robert Reich and his views, and continue to demonize political criticism of the Democratic Party and its politicians, feel free to start your own blog and rally your own supporters.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Reclaim UC has no interest in "representing" Occupy Cal, nor has it ever implied anything of the sort. Reclaim UC is not an organization; it is a collectively-run blog. It emerged during fall 2009 in the context of the anti-privatization uprising and folks from the collective have been publishing on and participating in actions since then. As a collective whose members are plugged into a variety of other groupings and sites of struggle, Reclaim UC doesn't represent a single political viewpoint. We've posted statements in support of all sorts of tactics and strategies, from the UAW elections to hunger strikes to occupations to student conduct hearings. But in general we tend to be most interested in anticapitalist positions and direct action. Thus, the above take on Robert Reich, which was written by a friend of the collective. Hope that clears up some of the confusion.

    ReplyDelete
  19. the "collective" line is a little odd. And removing posts that identified your members and another that linked to other blogs critical of your project smacks of both fear and censorship to me. You are definitely hiding and maybe with good reason given UCPD... but still removing posts is lame. You are right though, the burden falls on the Occupy Cal GA to publicly dissociate themselves from you not the other way around.

    ReplyDelete
  20. @bkslim:

    No, it's not odd. You've never heard of a collective blog? Other blogs can say whatever the fuck they want. As far as I know, no links have been deleted from the comments. But we will delete any posts that name individuals, whether or not they're part of this collective, because that's some sketchy shit. People can and will be fucked with not only UCPD, as you mention, but also the administration at large the Office of Student Conduct, with which many of us unfortunately have personal experience.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Here's a thought: if, as this post suggests, you do not welcome Prof. Reich's views in this movement, which message does it send to the large group of students and community members - I would bet a majority of the Nov.9th and 15th participants - who are leaning much more towards the liberal than radical end of the spectrum? Are they also not welcome? I appreciate your work trying to radicalize the movement, but I frankly don't think the tone of posts like this is going to cut it.

    ReplyDelete
  22. WTF? Reich SUPPORTS the movement, and has for many years. One of the comments above damns him for being a part of the Clinton admin - do you know that he was overruled and often ignored by Clinton and crew? Try looking at what Reich has actually been saying for the last 20 years rather than attributing things he didn't say to him and imagining what his evil capitalist mind must have been thinking. Reflexively hating him for not parroting your preferred vocabulary smacks of dogmatism and a form of elitism - is it because he is older, because he's a professor, because he used to be in government, or because he's not as tall as you that he doesn't deserve to be a member of your club?

    ReplyDelete
  23. Way to be unnecessarily divisive with this post, undermining the premise of the Occupy movement in the first place.

    Pat yourself on the back as much as you want for the polarizing, unwelcoming protests of the past. The fact of the matter is: There were at least 4 times as many people last night on Sproul as I have ever seen in any protest in the last 4 years. Part of the reason is that the protests of the past weren't as welcoming and accessible to the more moderate student population. This time, it's different. People felt welcome. People felt a need to go out there and support. Attitudes like yours diminish those sentiments that have been so constructive for the movement.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Totally agree with Mickey! It felt super open and receptive!

    ReplyDelete
  25. the tactics of occupation have simply come into wider acceptance, it is an idea who's time has come.. what was seen as "radical" a year ago is now being talked about on every street corner. Nothing starts out big, including the occupy movement. But as cal students people should be proud that such occupations took place before it was a popular tactic, helping that tactic eventually make its way into larger forums. the students protests of 2009 also felt super open and receptive to me, and i am someone who often feels excluded from spaces.

    ReplyDelete
  26. to the person who suggested that the person who wrote this post hates robert reich because he's short:

    you're a fucking idiot.

    ReplyDelete
  27. if you had been paying attention to Rob Reich and what he's been writing for years...
    then you'd know that your criticism of him is unwarranted

    ReplyDelete
  28. Tony Judt (not my favorite) on Robert Reich
    The Wrecking Ball of Innovation
    http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2007/dec/06/the-wrecking-ball-of-innovation/?pagination=false

    "In his version of our present dilemmas no one is to blame. “As citizens, we may feel that inequality on this scale cannot possibly be good for a democracy…. But the super-rich are not at fault.” “Have top executives become greedier?” No. “Have corporate boards grown less responsible?” No. “Are investors more docile?” “There’s no evidence to support any of these theories.” Corporations aren’t behaving very socially responsibly, as Reich documents. But that isn’t their job. We shouldn’t expect investors or consumers or companies to serve the common good. They are just seeking the best deal. Economics isn’t about ethics. As the British Prime Minister Harold Macmillan once observed, “If people want morality, let them get it from their archbishops.”

    In Reich’s account, there are no “malefactors of great wealth.”2 Indeed, he contemptuously dismisses any explanation that rests on human choice or will or class interest or even economic ideas. All such explanations, in his words, “collapse in the face of the facts.” The changes recorded in his book apparently just “happened,” in a subjectless illustration of the creative destruction inherent in the capitalist dynamic: Schumpeter-lite, as it were. If anything, Reich is a technological determinist. New “technologies have empowered consumers and investors to get better and better deals.” These deals have “sucked…social values… out of the system…. The story of what transpired has no heroes or villains.”

    ReplyDelete
  29. Here's Reich answering a question at Occupy Los Angeles:

    "In my opinion, will Obama ever fulfill the promises he made to us in 2008? The answer is this: President Obama, if he is faced with a strong and articulate and powerful progressive movement, President Obama will go along."

    Clearly, Reich is either fooling himself, or consciously attempting to pull the wool over the eyes of others.

    His speech at Cal can be viewed as laying the groundwork for funneling the OWS movement into support for the re-election of Obama and other bought-and-paid-for Democratic Party politicians.

    (I liked the above blog post in general, but not sure why it's necessary--or if it's helpful--to add stuff like "go fuck yourself Robert Reich".)

    ReplyDelete
  30. I think Reich's position, while definitely not at odds with the occupation movement, still finds itself thinking in terms of regulating capital and minimizing its evils. Reclaim is right to point this out. However, as such, while Reich is not a radical, he should be brought in as an ally. Instead of rejecting his sympathetic position, I think it should be embraced for what it is and allowed to contribute to the struggle at this point.

    The ironic and stylised rejection of Reich teaches us an important lesson of reclaim misrecognition of our moment in the struggle and of their own position. Rejection of moderate allies happens when revolutionaries are ready and willing to mount a direct attack on power such that moderates are justly understood as being in the way. Reclaim are not revolutionaries, nor our struggle reached the moment of a direct attack (as in Tunisia, Egypt etc).

    The misrecognition of their position leads to the self-congratulating rhetoric that takes credit for the current occupations. Here we see how their so-called collective rhetoric makes room for the logic of ownership: we started this movement, others learned from us, etc. Why would reclaim deteriorate to making claims of precedence as if the occupation is a patent they invented?

    Claiming to be the authors of the occupation seem to contradict the collective nature of the struggle. Not only that the occupation tactic is a result of previous collectives struggles all over the world, the success of the current occupations stems from the intersections of global events that rewrote and qualitatively changed the very nature of our occupations. Without Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Syria, the belated OWS movement, and not least important the continuation of the economic crisis in the US and Europe, the current form and legitimacy of our occupations would be unthinkable. These events qualitatively changed the meaning of our struggle; we may call it occupation, but it has little to do with the older form. Given this collective and decentered global effort, why would reclaim promote an uncritical direct causality between 2009 and 2011? Perhaps reclaim will be arrogant enough to say that our 2009 occupation spurred the Tunisian and Egyptian revolutions? Surely in the “age of facebook,” such an idiotic claim might well find its way here.

    As for admin lying to us, surely the faculty members in reclaim are no less liars; while they are sympathetic to the occupation they are still invested in forms of academic privilege, cliquish publications, ladder steps, 140K-250K salaries etc which might well remain even after we have lowered tuition and abolished debt. In this regard, reclaim faculty are as moderate as Reich. Is reclaim students willing to reject and ridicule the moderates faculty in their midst?

    It is important to understand the real position of reclaim in our current moment. Since the US is not ready to mount an attack on power as they do in the Arab world, the ultimate struggle for life and death is blocked. As a result, we see reclaim’s tendency towards the aestheticization of the struggle. Since they are not ready yet (or ever will be) to mount a direct attack, they fall back on stylised language, and staged encounters that will never exceed the “radical” gesture of breaking windows. In regards to violence, it will probably be occupy Oakland that might bring us closer to a life and death encounter.

    Reclaim is an important element in the struggle. This post is not meant to denounce them but to make visible what they themselves cannot.

    ReplyDelete
  31. @Anonymous:

    I'm going to take the fact that you think Reclaim UC is made up of faculty members as a pretty clear sign that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

    Reclaim UC doesn't want to take credit for anything. Nor does it claim to "represent" any official group. Reclaim UC is a collective blog that posts stuff, nothing more, nothing less (well, we also use Twitter and occasionally Facebook, but the blog is the focus). Mostly we like anticapitalist stuff (thus, the above critique of Robert Reich's neoliberal politics), but we also like other stuff sometimes. When things happen that we don't like, sometimes we write critical stuff about it and post it on our blog. Or sometimes people who we know don't like something and write stuff and send it to us and we post it.

    I don't get why this is so hard to understand.

    ReplyDelete