Louis Proyect: The Unrepentant Marxist

August 20, 2012

Brother Can You Spare a Dollar?

Filed under: Film,financial crisis,Occupy Wall Street — louisproyect @ 4:16 pm

“Brother Can You Spare a Dollar?” opened two nights ago at the Quad Cinema in NYC and can best be described as a close relative of Michael Moore’s “Capitalism, a Love Story”. As was the case with Moore’s documentary, the dominant message is that the government should address the Great Recession of today just as it did during the Great Depression of the 1930s. Moore’s film ended on the rather foolish note that Obama would become the FDR of today, while director Thom Hoffman ends “Brother Can You Spare a Dollar?” with a nod toward the Occupy Movement. That’s progress on the political front to say the least.

Although I can recommend the film, there are some caveats. To begin with, it is politically unsophisticated. Except for Columbia University’s Alan Brinkley, an excellent FDR scholar who has examined the New Deal critically, Hoffman’s interviewees are exclusively ordinary people who either lived through the depression as very young people or who are confronting the current crisis as Occupy activists or as vulnerable college graduates entering a brutal job market. One group is identified as “professional women” from Long Island who will remind you of the cast of a Bravo cable TV reality show.

Ultimately its provenance is what makes the film interesting, at least to me (who else matters?). Without pretending that he is some kind of expert on economics or political science, director Thom Hoffman, who narrates the film and appears on-screen frequently, comes across as a next-door neighbor in Long Island, where most of the documentary was shot. While his focus was on his interviewees and their stories about trying to survive in Hard Times, my interest was primarily sustained by the phenomenon of what appeared to be an average middle-class American committing a sizable amount of time and money to examining capitalist crisis.

Thom Hoffman’s close associate Ray Adell was one of the people interviewed in the film who lived through the depression, as well as its associate producer. He has been involved in radio and film production for over 50 years, including a radio program called “About Long Island” developed for Northrup/Grumman, a major manufacturer of military aircraft. Another credit was making instructional films for the U.S. Navy, produced by Sperry Gyroscope. All this is unlikely preparation for a documentary on the evils of a system based on private property. Since Thom Hoffman was Production Manager for Ray Adell, you have to assume that he was working on the same kinds of projects. Their willingness today to critically examine the system that has left millions without jobs and without homes is something to behold even if they stop short of coming to the kinds of radical conclusions of my readers.

Now that I am retired I have more time to meet with people during the week. A couple of weeks ago I had lunch with a young man studying economics from a Marxist perspective and willing to put up with the ardors of graduate school and landing a position in a field notoriously hostile to radicals.

We chatted a bit about his parents who live and work in New York. He described his mother’s conversion to Judaism decades ago as a reaction to racist violence in Louisiana, her native state. While I am not quite sure what her exact motivations were, she was at least someone struggling to live a moral life in an immoral society in a way that she saw fit.

While adhering to liberal beliefs her entire adult life, she took an abrupt shift to the left in 2008 when the financial system collapsed. Just as Thom Hoffman decided to make a film about the crisis, she decided to look for a political alternative to the two-party system that was responsible for so much suffering. Ultimately she joined the Green Party in New York but drifted away because it seemed ineffective and because one meeting appeared dominated by Trotskyist windbags as her son put it.

I considered writing a longish post on this but have decided for the time being to only make a brief observation as follows:

There are literally millions of people like Thom Hoffman and my friend’s mother out there who are desperately looking for a political vehicle. And most certainly the Occupy Movement inspired them, including the young aspiring economist who did statistical studies on foreclosures for Occupy Wall Street.

I have no idea what happened to the Occupy Movement but want to offer a proposal for what could have sustained it, even if it amounts to nothing more than an intellectual exercise. After the cops had evicted the last activist from the last occupied public space, it would have been a perfect time to convene a national conference somewhere in the Midwest that featured plenary sessions with some of the best-known figures on the left from Ralph Nader to Chris Hedges, from Barbara Ehrenreich to Boots Riley. Some of the money that had found its way into the movement’s coffers should have paid for ads in the N.Y. Times, the Nation Magazine and Rolling Stone. The conference should have had workshops on foreclosures, debt, unemployment, etc.

The main goal of the conference would have been to form a party calling itself the Occupy Party that ran a candidate in the 2012 election—Boots Riley would have been perfect. Activists would have worked to get ballot status in all fifty states. Money raised at the conference in a closing plenary session would have funded a national office that could have maintained a database of members and kept them informed of what the movement was doing nationally through both electronic and print communications. Membership would cost $20 annually and be free for the unemployed and the poor.

Given the tremendous support that the Occupy movement received from the American people and given its willingness to confront the one percent whichever party it was identified with, this would have been the next logical step for the American left presenting in an embryonic form what the Syriza Party in Greece represents.

For most people outside of the ideologically committed Marxist or anarchist, politics means electoral politics. The key to an organization like Syriza, or for that matter Eugene V. Debs’s Socialist Party, is its ability to fight on Election Day as well as every other day of the year. Just look at the relationship between the Christian right or the Tea Party and the Republicans to see how the class enemy does it. In contrast to the Republicans, the Democrats are much more committed to strangling any grass roots movement supposedly on its side.

I am not close enough to the Occupy Movement to figure out whether this was feasible or not. I have my doubts that it was since it there was an unfortunate fetish over public spaces, even though a good part of the movement has now begun to organize around foreclosures, an issue that will remain outstanding given the White House’s treachery:

After inheriting the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, President Obama poured vast amounts of money into efforts to stabilize the financial system, rescue the auto industry and revive the economy.

But he tried to finesse the cleanup of the housing crash, rejecting unpopular proposals for a broad bailout of homeowners facing foreclosure in favor of a limited aid program — and a bet that a recovering economy would take care of the rest.

During his first two years in office, Mr. Obama and his advisers repeatedly affirmed this carefully calibrated strategy, leaving unspent hundreds of billions of dollars that Congress had allocated to buy mortgage loans, even as millions of people lost their homes and the economic recovery stalled somewhere between crisis and prosperity.

The nation’s painfully slow pace of growth is now the primary threat to Mr. Obama’s bid for a second term, and some economists and political allies say the cautious response to the housing crisis was the administration’s most significant mistake. The bailouts of banks and automakers are now widely regarded as crucial steps in arresting the recession, while the depressed housing market remains a millstone.

Read full NY Times article


  1. “vulnerable college graduates”

    I feel so bad for these poor souls. I’ll make sure to tell the legless beggar on the street to save a few Baht to send their way. Come on. Only 21 per cent of people in America go to college. These are the cream of the crop. Too bad if the petit bourgeoisie doesn’t have room to accomedate them. Then they’ll have to join us workers in the fitlhy factories or in the shit service industry working part time at McDonalds. Then they’ll be able to join a real struggle that can actually bring about a real social change.

    But no. To them, and to a guy like you with a life spent in academia and various white collar shindigs, that’s the ultimate shame and they’ll have no part of it. After all, they paid their dues to enter the middle class and they want their come uppance!

    That’s why they are more of probable base of reaction than progress.

    Oh and by the way I checked the statistics of your country and a majority of workers, and even a majority of the population as a whole does no participate in voting and hasn’t for many decades. Especially so for black people and ex convicts which are concentrated heavily in the working class. So the formula that “politics means electoral politics” is just plane wrong. Even if they did have those illusions it’d be necessary to dispell them.

    Occupy shock the foundation exactly because it WAS NOT another electoral dead end like the Green Party or any of the professional left wing “illuminaries” you mentioned. It was real action in the street. And of course that’s where you get stuff that amounts to more than “a ton of theory”.Have you given up on this perspective in your old age? I hear that reformism increases as one becomes closer to death and wants to see “real progress” in their lifetime. What a wretched fate.

    Comment by Beer — August 21, 2012 @ 7:02 am

  2. Beer, you need medication for anger management.

    Comment by louisproyect — August 21, 2012 @ 12:37 pm

  3. The election cycle in the United States seems to have a powerful narcotic effect even on non-participants–maybe especially on them.

    You can buy overpriced sneakers made in foreign sweatshops, drink beer, and jump up and down yelling like an idiot–you can slather yourself in useless creams and unguents and adorn yourself in an endless variety of cheap costumes assembled abroad by sweated labor–but you will never play pro football or compete in the Olympics–or sashay down a runway wearing high heels, a swimsuit, a sash, and a rhinestone tiara (and what pervert thought that up anyway, one wonders).

    You can cast a nearly meaningless vote in a national election, but you cannot affect the choices presented or influence the policies that get implemented.

    You are nevertheless able to buy as much crap (cheap or expensive) as you can afford. Thanks to corn syrup, you can always consume as much sugar as you can take. If you’re really special, you can shop at Whole Foods and strike a blow for progress.

    What a system. It reminds me of an old Russian’s fond memory of Stalinism–“It wasn’t so bad. You could always get as drunk as you wanted to be.”

    Comment by Joe Vaughan — August 21, 2012 @ 2:12 pm

  4. Given the tremendous support that the Occupy movement received from the American people and given its willingness to confront the one percent whichever party it was identified with, this would have been the next logical step for the American left presenting in an embryonic form what the Syriza Party in Greece represents.

    What a strange reading of events drawing exactly the wrong lesson from Greece. The reason SYRIZA has promise is that it is the fruit of years of acute struggle, including the Occupy-movement-like “movement of the squares” built on claiming public spaces, in the context of an economy on a sharper edge than the US economy, amidst a population with a more developed political consciousness, on a stage of heightened class struggle. To suggest that building that kind of election-focused party in the US seems to me to utterly miss the point in this country with a completely different situation and history. What Occupy has been doing, on the other hand, is engaging in teaching basic lessons around solidarity, autonomy, class, and vision.

    We don’t need an electoral formation. We need to be challenging the consciousness that elections bring solutions and make a more radical — revolutionary — break from the traditions that have flumoxed and destroyed the American left for decades. Talking about participating in elections before the left is actually in any kind of position to challenge existing paradigms of state power strike me as a supreme waste of time.

    The election cycle in the United States seems to have a powerful narcotic effect even on non-participants–maybe especially on them.


    Comment by ish — August 21, 2012 @ 3:17 pm

  5. “Buddy, can you spare a buck?” would have been a better title for this.

    Comment by uh...clem — August 23, 2012 @ 5:24 am

  6. […] August 2012, I had expressed hopes that something like this would have been possible in the United States but unfortunately there […]

    Pingback by Where did Podemos come from? Where is it going? — December 11, 2014 @ 6:55 pm

  7. […] August 2012, I had expressed hopes that something like this would have been possible in the United States but unfortunately there […]

    Pingback by The Rise of Podemos » CounterPunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names — December 12, 2014 @ 9:50 am

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: