Thursday, September 29, 2011

Wm. Hogeland — “Occupy Wall Street” and the History of Democratic Finance Protest


Given some of my key subjects, I can’t help but be interested in the “occupy” movement that, at the moment, has a few hundred protesters more or less living in Zuccotti Park near the New York Stock Exchange in lower Manhattan, and is apparently starting to engage in similar protests in other cities. You can’t find out much about this action via “mainstream media,” and even much of the left media, such as it is, has been critical in some cases, and outright dismissive in others, regarding the movement’s evident formlessness and absence of specific goals.

That absence is pretty much undeniable. Still, in Salon, Glenn Greenwald has shrewdly criticized liberal-Democrat scorn for Occupy Wall Street. On the other hand, Mother Jones criticizes the movement on bases other than those that Greenwald attacks. . . .

But I write about the deep, founding roots of rowdy, American populist protest and insurrection, often visionary and even utopian, yet informed and practical too, specifically over money and the purpose and nature of public and private finance. And despite my pop-narrative books on the subject, and despite my articles here, and in such place as Newdeal20.org (articles picked up by AlterNet, Huffington, Salon, Naked Capitalism, and others), key indicators of my relative impact (like royalty statements!) give me a sneaking suspicion that most people still don’t connect the American founding period with a rugged drive on the part of ordinary people for equal access to the tools of economic development and against the hegemony of the high-finance, inside-government elites who signed the Declaration and framed the Constitution and made us a nation.

Sometimes people even ascribe democratic ideas to the famous upscale American Revolutionaries, who to a man actually hated democracy and popular finance. Paine, the exception, was ultimately rebuked and scorned by all of the others...
Read the whole post at Hysteriography, “Occupy Wall Street” and the History of Democratic Finance Protest by William Hogeland.

Hogeland is a historian who writes about US economic history. If you are not familiar with his posts on the formation of the US economic and financial system, which were reposted at New Deal 2.o some time ago, I suggest catching up on them at his site, or at the New Deal 2.0 archive where they are conveniently collected.

6 comments:

Mario said...

interesting.

but what does this mean?


Sometimes people even ascribe democratic ideas to the famous upscale American Revolutionaries, who to a man actually hated democracy and popular finance.


I don't think that's a sentence. Is he saying that the American revolutionaries hated democracy and popular finance?

most people still don’t connect the American founding period with a rugged drive on the part of ordinary people for equal access to the tools of economic development and against the hegemony of the high-finance, inside-government elites who signed the Declaration and framed the Constitution and made us a nation.

so he's saying the "founding fathers" were an elite class then eh? Yes it is true. Washington was quite rich (married into it) and Jefferson well..we've all been to Monticello, etc., etc. What about Franklin? I am not sure about this but I do agree to some extent.

Tom Hickey said...

Mario, read Hogeland's articles on the early days I linked to above at New Deal. He lays out how and why the US became a republic rather than a democracy, and who was involved. The Founding Fathers were the ruling elite of the time.

Mario said...

fascinating. I've heard the argument before and of course know they were quite wealthy...perhaps even more relatively speaking than today's wealthiest?

When I have time I'll check it out. I'm interested in the topic.

but still can you decipher those sentences? I can't.

Tom Hickey said...

What he is saying is that there were two types of American revolutionaries. The first was for democratic populism. These were the "little people," in Alan Simpson's terminology. The second was the propertied class, to which the Founding Fathers belonged. They established a republic rather than a democracy and then suppressed genuine democracy.

Mario said...

interesting. sounds more likely.

And they did switch it from the pursuit of life, liberty, and HAPPINESS to the pursuit of life, liberty, and PROPERTY...hmmmm why do that little adjustment there eh?!!?

Tom Hickey said...

The switched it the other way as a sop to the democrats. That was about all they gave them.