Leaked Footage of the Incredibly Horrible Police Action Against OWS Last Year

My dear Colleagues,

I just had one of the most shocking experiences in my life, at age 96.
When the police broke up the Occupy Wall Street demonstration on the 15th of November 2011, the participants in the protest could not take any photos, all their equipment was destroyed, and all journalists were barred. What I just saw was 15 minutes of video taken by the police. Unbelievable. You must find a way to see it.
Beating up people who hardly showed any physical resistance. Grabbing children from their parents. Six policemen beating down one desperate, decent human being.
Everyone must see this film somehow. It is the most shameful of events in our own country, rivaling beatings during the Jim Crow era. Outright beating people who had done nothing wrong in any way. The world must see this, period.
I did learn that you can view it on YouTube here:
I urge you to view the video, which was done with police cameras and not released until yesterday. It also probably is only a small part of what they filmed, so you can imagine what they left out.
Do let me know if you follow through, and express your opinion.

Gayatri Spivak in @OccupyTheory’s Journal, Tidal

Dear Colleagues,

My assistant is very active with the Occupy Wall Street movement and has called my attention to an interesting article in the new issue of the Occupy Theory journal, Tidal, which I would like to share with you. The article, written by Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak and entitled “What Is To Be Done?”, gives a full background and understanding of some of the issues that OWS has focused on, and highlights some potential avenues for change. Please find the article embedded below with permission from OccupyTheory, and you can find the entire publication here.

Your comments, as always, are appreciated.


Sidney and assistant Tim

The Difference Between Capital and Capitalism: The Emergence of Social Capital & Public Capital

The 21st century is witnessing an epochal change, something to be noted in the emergence of two economic poles—one dominated by Western capitalism and the other in the process of forming an association of former colonial countries in various levels and forms of economic development.   Socio-economic changes have taken place in history similarly, but not with such an explosive and defining character.  As an exception, capitalist colonial domination was part of its industrialization impinging on resources and cheap labor for greater personal gain.


There are now three forms of capital accumulation: privately owned industry, stocks, enterprises and financial capital; socially owned government accumulation utilized for industrial development, infrastructure, and forms of social obligations; and social security trust funds belonging to retired workers.


Economic growth differs under the control of private and social forms of capital. The former is concerned with private individual accumulation. The latter is concerned with economic growth and improvement of the conditions of the working population, which creates the wealth in industrialized society.


On the other hand, the public form of capital belongs to the people who have paid in during their productive years to support retirement and is a form of accumulation from their earnings placed in trust with the government for administration. In China, for the past few years, this form of capital has been loaned and safely invested, with the proceeds added back to the accumulation of retirees. In the United States, since the Clinton Administration, over a trillion dollars of public capital has been “borrowed” by the government with IOUs that have not been paid nor has the government paid any interest.


The emergence of social capital reflects a major change in society, just as the emergence of private capital posited the change from feudalism to capitalism as an economic system and basis of social relations. The growth of social capital is inevitable as private capital ceases to expand domestic growth and job creation in developed Western countries, which comprise one third of the world’s population and where labor has succeeded through historic struggles to increase wages and living standards. Hence, industrial growth in developed countries has diminished or ceased. Investments have shifted to former colonial countries, including China, for the past thirty years, with incredible rates of accumulation reflected in the highest earnings of Wall Street despite the 2008 economic crisis, which ended for private capital in mid-2009 but persists in its fourth year with fifteen million still jobless and 17% poverty stricken.


At the turn of the century an organization was formed by Brazil, Russia, India and China, under the name BRIC and renamed BRICS after South Africa joined in 2005, with the intention of economic development without foreign private capital controls to counteract the negative effect of the Western capital invasion. This is indicative of the creation of a bipolar economic world. BRIC plans a worldwide meeting next year to organize trade and investment stimulating national economic growth with little emphasis on the military other than defense.


The epochal change we now witness diminishes the dominance of private capital and opens the road to structuring harmonious societies that combine private and social capital to maintain and accelerate industrial development destined to create social security and sustain the working population, which, in any event, is the prime source of national wealth.


Wealth itself was generated by labor time in all forms of industrial production of commodities and salable structures, which ultimately exchange into the money form of accumulation in the marketplace leaving it to private finance to determine the direction of economic growth and avoid the consequences of economic crisis. A number of instances of government use of social capital in China are: loans to private corporations for the development of high-tech, the direct financing of necessary industries with low capital gains that assist major industrial and human needs such as energy, increased food production at affordable prices, increased minimum wages at a rate of 10% per annum until 2015 aimed at enhancing consumption to compensate for the loss of foreign exports amd the enlargement of infrastructure and social services in the fields of education, health, and other social necessities.


One must acknowledge the fact that it is capitalism that developed industrial production, which is the basis for creating a society of plenty that could take care of all its population and eliminate exploitation. Long before capitalism, under tribal communal society, there was no exploitation of man by man.   Elders ran a collective society, which lived off nature’s own production with little input of human labor other than gathering.  That changed when some clever individuals learned how to use the forces of nature itself to increase nature’s own production.  They ultimately enslaved others, creating class-dominated society.  This continued for centuries, developing into control of extended agriculture terrain and animal husbandry which became the main means for human sustenance and growth—this, under feudal serfdom.  


During the feudal era, private ownership in many forms developed in early stages where individuals produced desirable items as commodities and ultimately exchanged them for money. Individual production flourished and created a mass market.   Some clever individuals set up facilities inviting producers into a “factory” where they sold their products to the owners devoting sales time to additional production for mass marketing.  This relationship between owner and producers changed into another form of remuneration—that is, wages based on the total labor-time in the production process. This was the beginning of the capitalist wage-labor industrial system, which then went through a number of changes ultimately culminating in mass production and monopolization. Today the further development of high-tech, which reduces the direct labor time content, is taking place in undeveloped countries with cheap labor to the neglect of increasing production in the home countries where their capital base had originated. Thus, the wage-labor form of exploitation became the basis of industrialization and economic growth.  


Adam Smith, in his “Wealth of Nations” did not deal with the exploitation developed with factory industrial production nor did he recognize the danger of economic crisis resulting from relative overproduction affecting market conditions. Troubled by the tendency towards crisis, he wrote a second book in which he expressed the feeling that “an invisible hand” corrects the economic crises in the system with no indication of relative overproduction and market disruption.


The quantification of labor-time is basically the value of a commodity because the monetary payment to the laborer is only a part of the values created.  The total labor-time is realized in the market in the form of money, and that is where the accumulation of wealth begins, since the money becomes a form of capital and can be re-injected into a growing economy and increase private wealth accumulation in the marketplace.   It was not until 1857 when Karl Marx published his first volume of Capital establishing Classical Economics which clearly indicated the source of wealth in labor time and the tendency of interruption of the process in periodic relative overproduction relieved by shutdowns and economic crises. Thirty years later, British economists supplanted this with Neo-Classical Economics, which posited the market exchange as the source of wealth. The market is merely the area into which the inherent wealth in the commodity is exchanged for its value in money resulting in capital accumulation.


Capitalists compete but also monopolize, circumvent competition, control prices and wage-labor relationships.  Monopolization leads to a higher level of capital investment magnifying exploitation.  Ultimately, financial capital dominates the system and withdraws support for industrial capital in countries with high labor costs. The USA is an example for the last 30 years. Today there is not enough industry to absorb the available work force without expansion, which must take place with government loans and assistance. Finance capital investment in low labor cost countries generally includes high tech which adds profit by engaging a smaller labor force.


The present economic crisis in the USA is an excellent example of the fact that the capitalist class itself has split into two functions—financial and industrial—with finance, the dominant factor, resulting in a cessation of industrial growth, neglect of existing industries and the continuation of an economic crisis for workers and the middle class. Investments overseas have created more profits in 2010 than in the history of Capitalism.   True, industrial capital seeks a profit and wealth accumulation, but at least jobs are created contributing to national economic development and adding to the level of consumption. 

Financial capital has dominated the capitalist system in the United States since the election of Regan in 1980, abandoning national industrial growth.  In a historical sense, it has lost its right to run society. In fact, the Glass-Steagle Act, which regulated finance capital, was eliminated before the turn of the century. It is the real enemy to change, standing in the way of mass industrial development in total disregard of human conditions. Interestingly, financial capital itself in Western Europe is in trouble.  On the contrary, the German capitalist class is an exception in its sense of history and its adaptation to change. When it took political power in the early 1870’s, it established the Welfare State to protect itself by sharing a portion of private accumulation through government-administered services to working people under capitalism. It has maintained a multi-party political system, representing various economic sectors.   Furthermore, in sensing world changes among former under-developed countries, they have established relationships with economically-emerging countries, especially with China, welcoming Chinese capital investments in their own country and establishing extensive high-tech mutual trade relations.


The German capitalist class recognizes the development of a bipolar world and is adjusting itself to participate in the changing international economic relations. Germany recognizes the growth potential of the BRICS organization, and will undoubtedly relate to the growth of former undeveloped countries as they foster economic unity, working with each other peacefully in trade and investment.  Hence, Germany will join in the second pole of a bipolar world that is growing, notwithstanding denigration in the Western press.


Obviously, the world is changing in a positive direction. The only thing that would stop it is a war.  There is only one country conducting military maneuvers and occupations on a global scale.  Sorrowfully, it is the USA which is losing support of Western European nations as exemplified in the so-called NATO bombing in Libya which left the USA holding 75% of the bag and, more recently, the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan by France. The New York Times and many others have expressed criticism of our military actions: just think about how federal money (which is social capital), now spent for destruction, could be used to revive industries and create jobs, which will then reduce the denigration of life in a humanist approach to improving living standards.  Such a saving of capital by the federal government, as a result of reducing the Pentagon budget and the conduct of wars, can become accumulated social capital to be deployed in high-tech as well as protecting the country, its terrain, services, and people. Private capital can still be involved profitably, along with social capital and grow the economy to take care of the whole population.


In fact, Karl Marx observed, after noting class differences in France, “the Bourgeoisie will continue for a long time after the establishment of a socialist economy”, appreciating the creativity of private capital. The Chinese put it a different way: “the creation of a Harmonious Society” combining private capital with government social capital in economic growth for the sake of improving the condition of the entire population. Hence, one might say that the continued growth of industries will depend upon national economic planning rather than individual capitalist enterprises and politics.  This is an economy buttressed with government and private finance guided by a national growth plan. Furthermore, government-financed loans to private enterprises, oftentimes in joint-ventures, solidifies growth and achieves the national plan; but this could not happen with the dominance of private capital since the plan would have to be based on national requirement rather than private interests with necessary compromises but socially and financially successful.


China is on that road, though it faces many contradictions in a society still plagued by feudal relations and the contradiction of wage-labor relationships with an overall vision of building the first high-tech industrial economy in the world under national planning. Do they have problems?   More contradictions than any other country ever—because their population is fraught with multiple human natures reflecting productive relationships of different eras being molded into harmony, a process which is not an easy task. We are now observing higher levels of contradiction in the development of democracy in China which ultimately, based on the majority, would be the wage working sector as it develops a massive unity supporting a government that continues to develop the country without private capital domination. We should take our hats off to the successful Chinese leadership especially under Hu Jintao and Wen Jiabao, the former concentrating on guiding peaceful foreign relationships and the latter dealing with domestic questions, and both, leading the development of the next five-year plan which never has, nor will include the development of armed forces other than defensive necessities, because everybody knows where the threat comes from…and it is not the European countries.      


By 2016 China has projected that their national production will equal that of the USA and then, surpass it.  When one considers the fact that the Chinese are spending 90 billion USD per year for defensive military, one cannot help but realize how much social capital, that would be consumed in building offensive military forces, is being saved and used for socially productive purposes.   This is a good example of why they were able to grow so rapidly and became the second largest economy in the world and destined to become the largest by mid-century, by tripling production to satisfy their population of 1.3 billion and growing. One must note this is the development of a harmonious society—by combining the use of private and social capital to achieve a centralized national plan.


Capital and Capitalism as categories are now historically different. “Capitalism” as a system developed capital as a form of money hoard used for continued exploitation and private accumulation. Accumulation of capital has divided into two forms with different social content. The Chinese modification welcomes private capital investment in its multi-capital system to function together with social capital as part of, but not in control of, the overall national plan.  Thus, social capital is now invested by the Chinese government as well as foreign and Chinese capitalists to grow industry and distribution throughout the system. That is a new production and distribution relationship and an historic contribution to humanity. It is notable that only 18% of the offsprings of Chinese Capitalist parents have expressed a desire to take over and operate their parents’ companies. The rest choose other careers.


In the last analysis, based on its ability to produce, this structure of capital investment will ultimately lead into a kind of high-level tribal existence, sans class aspects, with productive output reaching a level filling the needs of all.  Let us call THAT Communism! “Socialism” is a historically necessary transitional stage to the ultimate state.To quote Karl Marx, the essence of socialism is reflected in his words: “from each according to ABILITY, to each according to CONTRIBUTION”. 


This Marxist conception of economic and social development was based upon the bourgeoisie continuing and even growing, within a harmonious society and overall economic plans not in the hands of but requiring, private capitalists who must adjust to the laws of humanistic social development as the objective of industrialization.   Beyond that, Marx described the ultimate productive and social relations as “from each according to ABILITY, to each according to NEED”—which might be called a humanity and planet protecting industrial system without class antagonisms.


In the turn of the 21st century we are witnessing a movement in that direction, essentially an economic development to achieve humanism and social justice—an idea first created by Jesus and followed throughout centuries of religious sentiment, which, in the latter part of the 18th century in England, saw the first expression of the idea of socialism when religious movements (not the religious institutions) demanded of the new government that they add “a bit of socialism” giving the vote to men (today we include women).  


The lesson is—“capital” itself is not the enemy.   Capital now exists in two forms—private and social.  Private capital is welcomed since it carries with it knowledge of industrialization that is the heart of building a society under present forces of production.  Therefore, the real lesson is building industries with full advantage of ability for NATIONAL development.  Private accumulation is respected, provided it obeys the law and stays subordinate to a new form of democratic political structure yet in the making.   Private capital accumulation must be guided and combined in a new socio-economic relationship; otherwise we will have nothing but continuing economic crisis and the kind of anti-social decline we are witnessing today. 


In the vernacular -Bless Occupy Wall Street- as Jesus the humanist might have done, having given his life to eliminate man’s inhumanity to man.  Historic change has created a positive direction for economic and social development, applying the humanism of religious sentiments with the addition of Marx’s economic vision so that politics will follow the social needs of humanity for true economic and political democracy and freedom.


Sidney J. Gluck

E-mail: sjgluck@aol.com

Copyright March 15, 2012
Edited September 10th, 2012


Issues Confront the Macroeconomy

Dear Colleagues,

The big difference between the economic structure in the Western capitalist nations (the US in particular) and that of China’s economic structure is in planning national development.  They are engaged at the moment in shaping the next five-year plan, which has just begun, and are dealing with the macro-economy, which establishes the major goals and the economic planning for industrial growth and the advancement of living conditions of the people in the undeveloped areas (which happen to represent two-thirds of their land area and population).  They are even considering slowing up the rate of growth of the economy from the annual 9 percent of a phenomenal thirty years since a major problem is the development of industrial laborers’ skills and experience, which would guarantee accomplishment, considering 7 ½ percent annual in the coming few years.

The Beijing Review of February 24th, which we just received, has an article on issues confronting the macro-economy presenting ten areas of concern which give an indication of their consideration of economic functions and planned accomplishments to resolve human problems.  We particularly note concern with income distribution, which not only seeks to improve the living standards of working people but shows a concern with the distribution of wealth in the private sector, which requires special attention to maintain harmonious relations between economic groups and national obligations of the wealthy without denying the existence of private corporate and business activity that are part of industrial growth at the base of national development and elimination of feudal backwardness.  One big problem that they will be facing is training wage labor in the building of industrial enterprise as a determining factor in the rate of growth.

We hope this article gives you insights into the manner in which the economic questions are dealt with from a developing socialist point of view.  We also want to warn not to take the specific developments in China as a model of socialist development.  Must bear in mind that each country will have a range of developmental necessities that reflect the national history, culture, the level of economic development, and social relations.


Sidney Gluck

Click HERE to view “Issues Confront the Macroeconomy” at http://www.bjreview.com.cn/business/txt/2011-02/18/content_332685.htm

Insight On World Agricultural Production And Relation To Prices And Inflation

Dear Colleagues,

In my request for help on a paper on inflation, which I have been preparing for China, I appreciate a good number of responses.  To give you an example of some of the contents, I am attaching a story from the Christian Science Monitor on Africa as a growing source of agricultural products, which happen to be one of the disturbing factors creating inflation in China because of rising prices of foodstuffs.  This is a part of the information that will be sent to China shortly, and I would like to share it with you.


Sidney Gluck

Click HERE to view “Is Africa Selling The Farm?” at http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Global-Issues/2011/0206/Hunger-and-food-security-Is-Africa-selling-the-farm

China’s Development As An Economic Power

Dear Colleagues,

Despite the rise of inflation in China, their overall development is full steam ahead.  The overall picture is described in an article in the January 27th, 2011 issue of Beijing Review titled “Back on Solid Ground”.  You might find this highly informative.

My own estimate, since Hu Jintao’s assumption of leadership, is that they do not exaggerate either their successes or their problems.

A major problem is to harness inflation, which essentially is a relationship between the income of laborers and the rise in prices; while they have increased a minimum wage, it does balance the increased costs of imports, which is a much more difficult condition to rebalance.  I will probably have more to share with you from the study of how China can deal with inflation in ways not possible under capitalism’s primacy of privatization.


Sidney Gluck

Click HERE to view “Back On Solid Ground” at http://www.bjreview.com.cn/quotes/txt/2011-01/26/content_328301.htm

The Difference Between The Economic Structures Of China And The US

Dear colleagues,

There are discussions and negotiations going on between the US and China as a result of the US superpower turning on the military developments on both sides, even though China, in its planned economy, has maintained a purely defensive budget to protect its territory and now appears to be expanding its defenses to include the China Seas.  This has been provoked by free movements of military naval ships in the waters, which includes getting Vietnam to allow all ships to stop in their ports.

The development of a bi-polar world in this century is inevitable because of the rise of China as an economic power and not in the direction of emulating superpower, which includes massive military arms and aggression.  China never sent a soldier out of its country in five thousand years (with two weeks of exception in 1957 which were withdrawn under the direction of the UN).  The main difference between the two countries lies in their economic structuring.  In the United States, it all depends on investments based upon profitability for individual capitalist enterprises.  On the other hand, in China, the economic development of the country is based upon a national plan, in 5-year divisions, and overrides all investments and social expenditures.  These really are two kinds of economies.  One, in fact, has made the military a major factor in its own productivity while neglecting industrial development for its citizens.  In China, it is quite the opposite and will continue to be that way in the hopes that the current conference that is taking place, which was projected by the April 2nd, 2010 annual budget of the Pentagon, will be harnessed and bring sensibility and diplomacy to US-China relations, notwithstanding national differences.

The President of China is, at this moment, in conference with President Obama (we believe in order to develop diplomatic arrangements to deal with economic differences and avoid military conflict).  In this regard, we have just received the Beijing Review, which contains two articles that will clearly introduce you to China’s economic plans.  The subjects are “Mapping A Steady Course” and “A New Way To Trade”.  We are sending you copies and would appreciate you comments.


Sidney Gluck

Click HERE to view “A New Way To Trade” at http://www.bjreview.com.cn/business/txt/2010-12/17/content_319913.htm

Click HERE to view “Mapping A Steady Course” at  http://www.bjreview.com.cn/Cover_Story_Series/2010-12/20/content_321756.htm

The Emerging Difference Between US Superpower and China’s Economic Power In A Bipolar World

Dear Colleagues,

We all know that the relationship between China and the US is key to the development of a bipolar economic world system in the 21st century and that the US and China are the main centers of the opposing poles.  Historically, the US, as an economic superpower, has dominated world development.  China, in the last thirty years, has demonstrated a rate of economic growth never achieved by a capitalist country, even though it remains two-thirds underdeveloped.

The difference is not one of “superpowership”.  A superpower is both economic and military. In their domestic and foreign policies, the US and China differ.  The US has been in two major world wars, three major Asian wars, and is in the process of developing a military alliance in the Southeast Pacific and China Sea region whereas China is concentrating on economic relations and on boosting economic cooperation to the benefit of developing countries as well as the Western capitalist countries in Europe.  China has joined with Brazil, Russia, and India in an organization called BRIC for friendly and economic association.  The Premier of China has visited the European nations recently and last week was in India (following President Obama’s visit a few weeks ago).

As for the Korean situation, the United States has a military alliance with South Korea.  Furthermore, the real difference between North and South Korea, which is being avoided by South Korea and the US, is the settling of the boundary between North and South, which is the cause of the tensions since the 1950s (particularly the islands in the undecided border areas between South and North).  No doubt North Korea has been influenced by China not to react to the military maneuvers as we learned from the press this week.

The difference between the US and China’s foreign policy are the military alliances and the program of the US pentagon, which appears to be usurping the primacy of presidential control of foreign policy.  China’s approach is not one of a developing superpower since there is no threat of military occupation or confrontation.  It is a historic character of China for over thousands of years.  It therefore functions in international relations without a military threat.  A good example of their foreign policy techniques can be found in an article on Eurasian exchanges from the Beijing Review of late October which we attach.  We welcome exchanges on the subject since we are planning an extended piece on the question of superpower and US and China foreign policies.  We always appreciate your comments and are particularly interested in developing understanding of the difference between the two poles.


Sidney Gluck

Click HERE to view “Eurasian Exchanges” at http://www.bjreview.com.cn/world/txt/2010-10/18/content_304357.htm


Economic Warfare: The US Dollar

Dear Colleagues,

I have just caught up with an article on the currency conflict between the US and China.  It actually appeared in the Beijing Review early in November just before the G20 Summit in Seoul on November 11th.  It lays out the battle from the Chinese point-of-view (which apparently the G20 acceded to).

The currency question is not the basic one since the question of trade is the real issue.  Therefore, the RMB relationships to major currencies are not the determining factor.  It actually gives four diagrams of the Yuan’s central parity to the currencies of the US dollar, the EU Euro, the Japanese Yen, and the British pound, which visually indicate that only the US dollar has dropped in parity whereas the other three major currencies have all gained from June 21 through October 26.  It also makes a comparison of the trade surplus of China and the history of trade surplus of the USA. We are most impressed with the third alternative calling for international negotiations at which “the Chinese government could agree to increase the flexibility of the exchange rate regime but maintain control over the pace of the Yuan appreciation” (again, diplomacy as distinct from economic warfare).  It is unfortunate that the economic war being pressed by the USA obfuscates the real facts of currency relations.  We hope this article will fill that gap for us.


Sidney J. Gluck

Click HERE to view “Battling Over Currencies” at http://www.bjreview.com.cn/quotes/txt/2010-11/01/content_311735.htm