So again, I straddle two worlds and two worlds that are so incredibly complex in their own rights, and yet so even more profoundly complex when facing each other. A political party and the anti-politics of Occupy... or wait, occupy as anti-political? Isn't it hyper political, even while denouncing the political system and its own roles in it? Wow, who knows, so really this being said, anything I say further will probably really make no sense, as Occupy really makes no sense (and by no sense, I mean this in the most endearing Daoist view of "the way", of something as being undefinable, unknowable, of simply being without being, doing without doing. No one can define what "it" is, other than that "it"' being thousands of people acting uniformly separate. Thus, comparing a political party to Occupy is a non-starter...
I do however, want to bring to light some observations of mine during the back and forth of both worlds. I want to take a second here to think about the people. Now I haven't done any real analysis or questioning of individuals in either place. But as a participant observer, one can start to pull out sentences, themes, patterns, and structures that seem rather evident.
Tonight a comment was made about pushing, making quota, and getting to a place where one could "pay the rent" within an implication of ideology and principles taking a back seat. I thought it worth exploring the concept of compromise that most everyone is forced into to survive our daily lives. I mean, here I am, I don't pay rent. I bounce around between several living scenarios, and am really just paying for food and transport. I am afforded this luxury for two reasons, because I am willing to live a stabilized transient life style, and because I have found sympathetic people that will let me stay with them. Most people - and I'm sure me longer term - are not willing to live this type of lifestyle by choice. So we have to work, find a means of income.
What I find interesting, in a very limited observers role thus far, is that the two places that I am intertwined have such very similar interests, yet are still worlds apart. At Occupy Wall St. we are currently having a very principled debate over taking money from rich corporately engaged funders. Most every voice in the movement that I'm hearing is against it - on principle. Yet if the political organization I am working for was offered this money up front, they would jump on it. As was said to me at work, money is politics, money is the way you vote in our current system. This concept is such a stark contrast to Occupy, a place that seems to be so categorically opposed to money in politics (though again, what is ever concrete in occupy?). The difference is usage of the system, and a principled disengagement from it. The political party uses it to enact change. Raising the minimum wage, anti-fracking, clean elections, no corporate personhood, health care for all, all issues occupy speaks to as well. But Occupy isn't writing legislation, lobbying congress, or offering a specific stance. Or is it? (Occupy the SEC, Albany millionaires tax, Occupy Nashville's three demands, etc). Oh wait, so you mean to tell me that Occupy is politically engaged? Wait so how grey did our grey area just get? This is getting complicated.
But anyway, I'm rambling a bit. So back to work. How is my coworker so wholly capable of making a career out of critiquing the very political apparatus that takes private funds, while simultaneously purporting to believe, and push through a fundraising job, that money is votes? She fights the system within the system, hypocritical or not, through generally accepting that to be the way it is or has to be. Ask for money to get money for a political campaign to get money out of politics..........
Yeah, I suppose we all should be confused. And then of course there is occupy. Asking for nothing, demanding zilch, but drawing a whole lot of attention. Everybody knows Occupy, few know the party I work for. One is getting specific things done within the system, the other causing a ruckus and making waves that may ripple the entire pool - based perhaps soling on principle? Wow, tough game to play. For me though, it's always been about principles. How does one take money, even ask for money, so that a system that you fundamentally oppose can perpetuate itself in an effort to eradicate its perpetuity? Sigh.... but what can II do? I am like everyone else trapped in our social structures, limited by my own agency. It's a job, and I need a job so I can keep eating, sleeping, and occupying. Ugh... I'll never understand it. Principally unprincipled. How has the world come to this subtle balance between being and being. I really wish there was a way to figure it out!
I do however, want to bring to light some observations of mine during the back and forth of both worlds. I want to take a second here to think about the people. Now I haven't done any real analysis or questioning of individuals in either place. But as a participant observer, one can start to pull out sentences, themes, patterns, and structures that seem rather evident.
Tonight a comment was made about pushing, making quota, and getting to a place where one could "pay the rent" within an implication of ideology and principles taking a back seat. I thought it worth exploring the concept of compromise that most everyone is forced into to survive our daily lives. I mean, here I am, I don't pay rent. I bounce around between several living scenarios, and am really just paying for food and transport. I am afforded this luxury for two reasons, because I am willing to live a stabilized transient life style, and because I have found sympathetic people that will let me stay with them. Most people - and I'm sure me longer term - are not willing to live this type of lifestyle by choice. So we have to work, find a means of income.
What I find interesting, in a very limited observers role thus far, is that the two places that I am intertwined have such very similar interests, yet are still worlds apart. At Occupy Wall St. we are currently having a very principled debate over taking money from rich corporately engaged funders. Most every voice in the movement that I'm hearing is against it - on principle. Yet if the political organization I am working for was offered this money up front, they would jump on it. As was said to me at work, money is politics, money is the way you vote in our current system. This concept is such a stark contrast to Occupy, a place that seems to be so categorically opposed to money in politics (though again, what is ever concrete in occupy?). The difference is usage of the system, and a principled disengagement from it. The political party uses it to enact change. Raising the minimum wage, anti-fracking, clean elections, no corporate personhood, health care for all, all issues occupy speaks to as well. But Occupy isn't writing legislation, lobbying congress, or offering a specific stance. Or is it? (Occupy the SEC, Albany millionaires tax, Occupy Nashville's three demands, etc). Oh wait, so you mean to tell me that Occupy is politically engaged? Wait so how grey did our grey area just get? This is getting complicated.
But anyway, I'm rambling a bit. So back to work. How is my coworker so wholly capable of making a career out of critiquing the very political apparatus that takes private funds, while simultaneously purporting to believe, and push through a fundraising job, that money is votes? She fights the system within the system, hypocritical or not, through generally accepting that to be the way it is or has to be. Ask for money to get money for a political campaign to get money out of politics..........
Yeah, I suppose we all should be confused. And then of course there is occupy. Asking for nothing, demanding zilch, but drawing a whole lot of attention. Everybody knows Occupy, few know the party I work for. One is getting specific things done within the system, the other causing a ruckus and making waves that may ripple the entire pool - based perhaps soling on principle? Wow, tough game to play. For me though, it's always been about principles. How does one take money, even ask for money, so that a system that you fundamentally oppose can perpetuate itself in an effort to eradicate its perpetuity? Sigh.... but what can II do? I am like everyone else trapped in our social structures, limited by my own agency. It's a job, and I need a job so I can keep eating, sleeping, and occupying. Ugh... I'll never understand it. Principally unprincipled. How has the world come to this subtle balance between being and being. I really wish there was a way to figure it out!
No comments:
Post a Comment