Critics of Occupy Wall Street have said the fact that the movement has not run a political candidate indicates it is naïve and not serious.
The notion that economic inequality can be abolished through electoral action is attractive, particularly in a society that so fetishizes the act of voting. It also appeals to the highly personal way U.S. politics are framed. The corruption of the current system is embodied in individuals. Replace Obama et al. with more principled candidates, and, it seems, we would be on the way to a solution.
Over the past century, the workers of many countries have tried to transform their governments through electoral activity. Greece is a recent example: For decades, the Greek government has been dominated by the Panhellenic Socialist Movement party. The majority of the Hellenic Parliament is anti-capitalist, as is President Karolos Papoulias. Despite this, Greek workers have not gained power; in fact, the Greek working class is one of the most marginalized and exploited in the eurozone. The government is cutting social programs to the bone, leaving workers dependent on their employers to survive.
The Greek working class has clearly expressed its desire for socialism via the ballot, but it is no closer to achieving this aim. The election of socialist politicians has not transformed capitalism into socialism; rather, it has created a capitalist state full of impotent anti-capitalist functionaries.
The U.S. government, like the Greek government, has resisted fundamental change by channeling the energy of dissidents into pointless electoral activity. Reformism can create limited public improvements, but history has shown consistently that it is incapable of revolutionizing society.
“Time and time again the people were foolish enough to trust, believe and support with their last farthing aspiring politicians, only to find themselves betrayed and cheated,” wrote anarcho-communist Emma Goldman. “If voting changed anything, they’d make it illegal.”
Despite its flaws, the Occupy movement grasps that the causes of exploitation are systemic rather than personal. If Occupy Wall Street were to invest its hopes in Ron Paul or any candidate, it would quickly be absorbed into the existing system. As long as Occupy rejects this path, it will avoid being neutered of the traits that make it a threat to power.
Zac Smith is a journalism junior.
The Oklahoma Daily is pleased to provide you the opportunity to share your thoughts about this article. We encourage lively debate on the issues of the day, but we ask you refrain from using profanity or other offensive speech, engaging in personal attacks or name-calling, posting advertising, or straying from the topic at hand. To comment, you must be a registered user of OUDaily.com. Thanks for taking the time to offer your thoughts.
You must be logged in to leave a comment. Log in | Register
cacremin 5 months, 4 weeks ago
Thanks for this. The critics who chastise OWS for not taking their fight to the ballot box have fundamentally misunderstood the movement's message: every level of our government, and nearly every member in it, has been bought by a monied interest. Big money would be needed to compete in the electoral arena in the first place, and for a group that criticizes such tactics, engaging in them would be hypocritical.
alaskaairborne 5 months, 4 weeks ago
I think Occupy Wall Street has a valid message. And, I applaud recent decisions by organizers to avoid being co-opted by other political organizations which have failed to hold the system accountable.
However, I disagree with the notion (asserted in this column) that Occupy Wall Street should continue to deliberately avoid any engagement in the political process.
The movement itself is an inspiration which should remain focused around general ideas rather than any political ticket or platform. However, at some point, there needs to be some form of spin-off -- people involved in the movement, breaking away and using the energy surrounding this effort to push for fundamental changes through the electoral process.
Even if the problems are systematic, surrendering the mechanisms of power and control to monied interests and confining things to the public parks and sidewalks really doesn't make much sense to me. It is conceding the system to them when the movement's underlying message should be that the system belongs to the people.