I saw this article on Huffington Post, which frames OWS as a movement seeking to "save capitalism." I was at once struck by the co-option of the OWS movement.
I don't think OWS is trying to save or not save capitalism. People aren't out there protesting to save or not save capitalism. They are protesting to have a better quality of life. They are protesting to have a better, not perfect, but better country in which they live. Whether that's under capitalism or not is entirely besides the point.
Some have already paid the price for that dream. More, if the movement continues, will also pay the price. That's the price of movements. Its not something that should be endorsed or accepted- not ever. But, it is a part of them. The powerful do not give up power easily.
This is the part that struck me:
Kristof says that what Occupy Wall Street represents is "a chance to save capitalism from crony capitalists" and an entrenched system of "government-backed featherbed[ding]" that amounts to "socialism for tycoons and capitalism for the rest of us." As Kristof notes, he's seen this before: Years of covering the '90s-era Asian financial crisis brought Kristof face-to-face with the same critique. It's now unspooling in the United States and having its own deleterious effects, such as the near-intractable income inequality that was, at long last, reported on fully this week (perhaps thanks to the presence of the Occupiers themselves).
Kristof's right to suggest that the Occupiers aren't "half-naked Communists aiming to bring down the American economic system." This isn't the "Project Mayhem" of Chuck Palahniuk novels -- we're talking about a movement that's spurring people to move their money from "too big to fail" banks into credit unions. That's not exactly "smash the system." That's more like a group of people seeking out a means to maximize their power within the system, or using consumer choice to preserve, enhance and improve the best parts of the system. As Matt Taibbi notes in a fitting companion piece to Kristof's, "These people aren't protesting money. They're not protesting banking. They're protesting corruption on Wall Street.
Huffington Post Link
This is a form of co-optation.
I doubt many people out there in the streets or who support OWS are thinking, 'I am doing this to save capitalism." Whether capitalism is saved or not, I would imagine is besides the point. The point right now for most, if I had to guess, is that "we are suffering, and the suffering needs to stop."
When I read the stories on Tumblr about the 99%, I am not reading stories about "saving capitalism." Is that what you get from this:
We are the 99 The Percent
"Saving capitalism" is a very Democratic frame that's been around since FDR. "Capitalism can survive as long as its well-regulated and controlled" is the Liberal mantra. But have the last 80 years suggested that we can control capitalism? These are questions. Not answers. My guess is no- its not controllable. But, that's a debate that one can reasonable have.
However, that's precisely the debate that the above article seems to be trying to cut us off from having. It calls the heart of American capitalism out as "socialist" (Only evil things can be "real socialism," and only good things come from "real capitalism"). This is an interesting view. One might even call it naive. It ignores the nature of capitalism- for there to be winners, capitalism requires that there must be losers.
Indeed, if you ever get to take an antitrust law course (which covers monopolies), you would discover winners and losers is not only the natural state of capitalism, its something that will drive companies to compete until capitalism eliminates all competition and shifts all risk to customers. This is true even without any government influence. I know some will say, "that's not real capitalism." But it is capitalism in its purist form. And the result of government trying to regulate capitalism has not exactly had the desired effect.
So, beyond the fairy tale version of capitalism, there are the internal contradictions that are intended to be there rather than are there by accident or because of "evil socialism." The whole point of capitalism- for some to win, others must lose and to take risks no matter what the societal costs, which includes passing off risk. These are natural to capitalism rather than the product of some evil placed onto capitalism by socialism. Socialism has its flaws,but causing capitalist to want to win at all cost is not one of them.
The underlying assumption- that one can avoid losers- is the naive way in which debates are cut off. If they are complaining about capitalism, of course they want to save it!
"Well, of course, we can all win." But, the stories above are asking a deeper question- can we? Were we really winning before 2008?
I don't have all the answers here. I just don't like the co-option that assumes the answer.