Adbusters

#OCCUPY Harvard

Serious rumblings in the aristocratic heartland.

After 70 students staged a walk-out of Gregory Mankiw’s infamous Econ 10 last week, graduate and undergraduate students from all departments have now escalated the struggle. Yesterday students moved into the campus’s cherished Harvard Yard. By midnight, 500+ battled through police and security to set up an encampment, and now the eyes of the nation are having a double-take. There are serious rumblings in the aristocratic heartland.

Harvard University is a jewel in the crown of America's economic armature, and its economics department has been a platform for years of an ongoing power struggle waged by an unburdened elite. The university's top professors and deans, from Mankiw to Dr. Martin Feldstein to Dr. Lawrence Summers, were architects of the 2008 collapse and key authorities in the intellectual campaign for systemic deregulation.

If an occupation can happen at Harvard, it can happen anywhere. Now is the time for a global walk-out. Download a poster of the True Cost Economics Manifesto at kickitover.org and pin it up in the corridor of your department. Let's start an all out meme war against our neoclassical profs and begin the task of ushering in a new bionomic, psychonomic, ecological economics paradigm.

-Nathan Crompton and Darren Fleet

Adbusters 111 Cover

On Newsstands December 3

At last we’re in Winter. It’s the year 2047. A worn scrapbook from the future arrives in your lap. It offers a stunning global vision, a warning to the next generations, a repository of practical wisdom, and an invaluable roadmap which you need to navigate the dark times, and the opportunities, which lie ahead.

Subscribe to Adbusters Magazine

149 comments on the article “#OCCUPY Harvard”

Displaying 1 - 10 of 149

Page 1 of 15

Anonymous

Harvard students are either the children of the 1% or future 1%ers themselves. The fact that they are "occupying" anything is a poor reflection on this "movement."

Anonymous

Harvard students are either the children of the 1% or future 1%ers themselves. The fact that they are "occupying" anything is a poor reflection on this "movement."

Anonymous

You're assuming that someone in the top 1% of income earners can't identify with people in the bottom 99% of income earners. You're essentially arguing that ALL people are ONLY motivated by their personal self-interests.

Anonymous

You're assuming that someone in the top 1% of income earners can't identify with people in the bottom 99% of income earners. You're essentially arguing that ALL people are ONLY motivated by their personal self-interests.

Anonymous

Isn't that the whole point of OWS? That the 1% are greedy, emotionless, evil money-grabbers, who don't care a single whit about anybody but themselves?

Or, is that just the ones who don't agree with you?

If the 1% can claim to be part of OWS, then OWS is meaningless and the so-called "revolution" that you claim to be engaged in is a joke. Is that the case?

A little consistency, that's all I'm asking for here...

Anonymous

Isn't that the whole point of OWS? That the 1% are greedy, emotionless, evil money-grabbers, who don't care a single whit about anybody but themselves?

Or, is that just the ones who don't agree with you?

If the 1% can claim to be part of OWS, then OWS is meaningless and the so-called "revolution" that you claim to be engaged in is a joke. Is that the case?

A little consistency, that's all I'm asking for here...

Anonymous

No. OWS is, at its core, not so much about income inequality, as it is about the extremely wealthy's disproportionate access to representation in government... a problem that has escalated, and will continue to do so, as a result of Citizens United. It's about corporations being granted rights (i.e. unlimited, free, political speech) that should be reserved for natural persons. That's why the movement began by occupying Wall Street. If it were about hating the wealthy, perhaps it would have begun by occupying Greenwich, CT. OWS is all about fighting for "One Man, One Vote".

Anonymous

No. OWS is, at its core, not so much about income inequality, as it is about the extremely wealthy's disproportionate access to representation in government... a problem that has escalated, and will continue to do so, as a result of Citizens United. It's about corporations being granted rights (i.e. unlimited, free, political speech) that should be reserved for natural persons. That's why the movement began by occupying Wall Street. If it were about hating the wealthy, perhaps it would have begun by occupying Greenwich, CT. OWS is all about fighting for "One Man, One Vote".

Pages

Add a new comment

Comments are closed.