This is a shockingly ignorant opinion piece.

As a Wesleyan student with many privileges (including race, class and gender privilege), I am disgusted by the assumptions in this article. You do not speak for me, Michael Steves. Unlike you, my goals in education are NOT to get a career and comfortable life, not to perpetuate the racist and elitist rhetoric of neoliberalism, but instead to learn about the history of colonial and corporate exploitation, in order to shift the entire trajectory of our world, one step at a time. Structural, transformative change, not comfort and career, are why I (and many others) are at this school. It is only because of your many unrecognized privileges that you can even think to make such a blanket assumption about your classmates. Shame.

“Can one claim to oppose capitalism while working on a MacBook Pro? Or while wearing a new flannel shirt from “evil corporations” like the Gap or Urban Outfitters?” Actually, YES, and not only in moderation! And if the author took the time to delve deeper into the intricacies of corporate commodity production, he would have realized that this argument has no merit. At this point in our lives, corporate products have been made inescapable and necessary in this country, and the lie that they are inevitable has been spread far and wide. Many socially conscious consumers buy these products with a heavy heart. Many who can afford NOT to buy the worst corporate products are people of higher class privilege, who can buy “green” products and “fair trade” goods, always more expensive, precisely because of corporate greed and a nation-state which facilitates it. So, next time you see a radical activist using a laptop, consider that they may be very conscious of the contradictions of their purchase, and are using the anger of that contradiction to fuel systemic change by finding innovative ways of using the system of capitalism against itself. Culture jamming, hacking, populist communication using social media, and many other powerful forms of resistance to capitalism have been formed this way.

“If one is a comfortable beneficiary of capitalism, it is silly and naive to claim that you want to bring the whole financial system down.” Actually, what is sillier and more naive is to assume that nobody in this country is willing to do anything not in their immediate interests. This is because, clearly, this author is completely blinded by a capitalist mentality. As a white man with privilege, I hope every day that my parents, my community, my culture will decline in its economic domination over so much life and land. I WANT TO HAVE LESS MONEY, AND I WANT THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN SYSTEMATICALLY DENIED MONEY TO HAVE MORE OF IT. And eventually, I want to see the abolition of money all together. It is time that people with economic privilege lose that privilege. It is time for us to begin to explore alternative economic structures, not rest on the inevitability of capitalism. It is time for us to actually believe that some people who have benefited from capitalist domination actually do regret, openly oppose, and work to reverse that benefit through anti-oppression principles. Believe it, Michael Steves, even if you clearly wish to avoid it.

“The Occupy Wall Street movement does not have a clean list of demands…” The author states this as if this point has any relevance to the unique nature of Occupy Wall St. Instead of the classic “liberal” gatherings with pre-articulated demands, the “radical” Occupy Wall St has decided it is not going to define the world that all of its participants want to live in before they arrive. Instead, people are going to define it for themselves. Like it or not, this is the MAJOR reason so many diverse groups have been inspired by this movement, because everyone has a place within it. And please, do not reduce the optimism of people who can actually envision a different world down to “fantasies out of the Soviet Communist handbook.” Not only are you erasing the many different perspectives of Occupy Wall St protesters, but you are reinforcing sensationalist Red Scare mentality on the noble virtue of transformative change. It is ignorant and unimaginative liberals like this author who are the problem, not those who can envision and demand world where equity truly exists.

“…flirting with the radical aspects of the Occupy Wall Street movement does nothing but undermine the aspects of the protests that could gain serious traction with mainstream America.” Has the author ever considered that part of the power of Occupy Wall St is in its ability to refuse to appeal to the “mainstream,” since it is the very values of the status quo, embodied by the mainstream, that they are protesting? Perhaps you need to refute the mainstream, in order to begin a shift away from it? None of these questions are considered here, and all of them are legitimate.

“To be honest, I will not go with the intention of rallying for the end of capitalism. I like the MacBook Pro I’m writing this article on and I want to make my way in a competitive work force and come out wealthy.” Grrrrrreat, Michael Steves! Ignore the centuries of oppression, genocide, ecocide, and exploitation that have been fueled the minds of capitalist white men just like you! Ignore the inherently elitist message behind your values, ignore the privilege imbued in your words. I hope you come out on top, just in time for the global capitalist market system to crash, and for those of us who learn to live outside the system to finally find ourselves at an advantage over those whose total existences are focused on earning wealth and not on human compassion and liberation.

“When protesters steal from nearby businesses and harass white-collar workers, they are merely contributing to the stereotype of young liberals as obnoxious rabble-rousers who fight the system as a fashion statement.” This is incredible ignorance. You have successfully conveyed this false stereotype, based on ZERO evidence. No thefts of local stores have happened from Occupy Wall St, and the fact that you perpetuate this myth means you are part of the media structure which seeks to demonize public protest based on rumor alone. The author here embodies the very elitist discrimination which is really at the root problem of his argument, not angsty radical kleptomaniacs.

The author clearly needs to base his next piece off of more than what his few friends say about why to attend Occupy Wall St. Has he been to any of the numerous Occupy Wesleyan meetings? Has he legitimately engaged with the broad and very serious discourse about systemic change, happening on campus right now? Has he interviewed a broad diversity of Occupy Wall St attendees, or been to the space itself to hear attendees speak for themselves? Clearly, no. But his writing serves to delegitimize the movement for systemic change, based off of irresponsible journalism cloaked in an air of privileged entitlement.

This is poor journalism at its most obvious, with wide-spread generalizations based off of nothing more than the author’s opinions and lack of legitimate research or interview. Try harder to sound less like Fox News next time, Michael Steves, and maybe the people you are writing to (these so-called irrational radicals) will in any way respect or listen to your critique.

Terrible piece. You are not only out of touch but you are sadly unimaginative. Just please don’t stand in the way as we try our best to engage with and reimagine a broken world.