On Sunday, Occupy Wall Street protesters gave a warm welcome to Alex Callinicos, a professor of European Studies at King’s College in London. Callinicos, a self-proclaimed Marxist, was apparently proud to share his message and his beliefs with his Occupy audience. The professor has a deep history in touting communism. He wrote a book called “The Anti-Capitalist Manifesto” and he is the editor of “International Socialism.”
“I am a Marxist,” he declared boldly. He then continued on to answer one of the burning questions many want to know: Will the movement become violent? His answer was less than comforting. The New York Post explains: Asked if the upcoming revolution can be non-violent, he parroted the party line of the demonstrators, who call themselves the 99 percent of Americans lined up against the “1 percent’’ with power and money. He said violence could be avoided only if the “1 percent accept the decisions of the 99 percent,’’ which he predicted would (might) never happen. [Emphasis added] So if this account is accurate, Callinicos certainly doesn’t seem to be advocating for peace and non-violence at all costs. His answer, rather than focusing on conditions and demands, leaves the door open for violent action.
[[[ *** RESPONSE *** ]]]
Financial Violence and Economic Violence via sequestration of wealth is being done when someone freezes or starves to death. Withholding and sequestration of wealth CAUSES DEATHS and is violence though ‘indirect violence’. Surely more lives would be saved by the sacrifice of even 1 1%ter? Is saving a few thousand by the dismantling of 1 person not correct?
In fact that same 1 person could be allowed to retain several million out of the several 10s of billions he has. He still lives extremely well, but the difference is that 10s of tousands could live quality lives. Is this so violent? Is this so wrong? What kind of violence is the main issue. At gunpoint to sign a cheque? Bashing in their heads or the random shooting is meaningless of course. Robbery is inequitable overall.
Throwing of pies though making a strong message are meaningless otherwise as well. Conversely plutocrats are unconscionable figures in any case which easily justify all of the above. So try the legal method like this guy is warning about first. Who knows the plutocrats might take their own initiative to help by donations, but as anger grows for every one else who dies from so many reasons every day while plutocrats live in extreme luxury, that violence could be indeed the only way to get that 1% to re-distribute that wealth.