The case for making a storm in the ports

[PETRUS]

A Salon writer claims it doesn't hurt the 1 percent. Here's how he's wrong

<snip>

I think this is a good thing, when put in proper perspective. Andrew Leonard’s argument is a common one: While protest is fine in theory, the cost of this particular protest is too onerous. But in an economy where every shock to the system disproportionately hurts the working class — first, last and worst — vulnerable workers will always serve as an effective human shield for the Goldman Sachs of the world, who will always be too big to fail. And if we wait for the magical silver bullet, and we do nothing until we find it, nothing will change. No target will ever be the right and perfect one, no action will ever specifically and exclusively target the 1 percent, and so we will take no action at all.

<snip>

Which brings us back to the root problems that require more radical solutions. The port was the target in Oakland, after all, because it’s a public agency, owned and run by the city of Oakland and required by its charter to be run for the benefit of the city of Oakland at large. But, in practice, it isn’t, and in this sense, it’s a perfect symbol for the public subsidies to private industry that we all pay for, but from which only the 1 percent actually benefit.

While the infrastructure that makes the port’s activities possible – the railroads and freeways and utility grids – were all built by enormous public investment, and while the land was taken by eminent domain (in many cases, from disadvantaged African-American homeowners and businesspeople, in the days when Oakland was strictly segregated), very little of the enormous wealth passing through the port ever finds its way to Oakland’s impoverished schools, for example.


http://www.salon.com/2011/12/14/the_case_for_making_a_storm_in_the_ports/singleton

More at the link.

[xchrom]

1. Du rec. Nt

[Fire Walk With Me]

2. K&R. I noted in the LA times yesterday or the day before

that their story about the port shutdown included a statement from the owners of one of the terminals targeted by #Occupy; they were confused because they always treat their workers well and blah blah...and on the Editorial page, someone wrote that the same owner hires non-union workers to drive down worker wages and rights, IIRC. And then went on to wonder why the actions were taken, seeing as they did not shut down the terminals all day long, etc.

I remarked to myself that because we got someone talking about it, is reason enough. Now port workers and Goldman Sachs are part of the great conversation.

[nadinbrzezinski]

3. As the PIO put it

"our workers are part of the 99% who they claim to defend. They are hard workers who only are trying to make a living."

Yes, that is pretty close.

The fact that the port chose to use the language of occupy tells you the power already.

[boston bean]

4. good point!

[Boston_Chemist]

5. Targeting commerce is hitting them where it hurts.

It is easy to do this in underdeveloped countries, where there is often a single road connecting 2 major cities. In the USA, the only thing that is equivalent to this (and that I can think of) are these shipping ports. They are a key component of the economy, and they are also one that ideally vulnerable to pro-labor strategies.

These strategies ought to work, I think, given the centralized nature of these transportation hubs. This also means that there will be a de-facto criminalization of any such activities, with specifically targeted laws to follow not much later.