The reason for my reluctance is I haven’t actually seen a statement from them saying that they are anti-business. Yes, many have intimated that Greenpeace is anti-business, but that’s their opinion. (And if you follow Greenpeace’s actions, you’d be hard pressed to regard them as pro-business.) If you read this blog regularly, or have read any of my books, you know that I prefer to have a lot more foundation for my conclusions than just the opinions of others. I saw that foundation today.

In an October 19, 2011 Greenpeace blog post titled “Greenpeace Supports Occupy Wall Street Peaceful Protests,” by Mr. Phil Radford, the executive director of Greenpeace USA, he states that his organization stands behind the Occupy Wall Street (OWS) movement. Although OWS has no stated objectives, it seems clear that the OWS is clearly anti-business or anti-corporate and, perhaps in a larger sense, even anti-capitalist. In fact in his post Mr. Radford says:

What I hear are people – first Americans and now across the globe – saying to multinational corporations: “You’re paying out bonuses while jobs are an endangered species. You’ve taken the American Dream – for the first time in generations might leave our kids a worse life and a worse world to live in. You own the courts and have corrupted our Congress, so we’re here at your doorstep.”

Let’s set aside that the paragraph is poorly written as well as the fact that his assertions are a matter of opinion and therefore debatable. He offers no facts. Still it’s clear that the sentiments he expresses in that paragraph are anti-business, and they set the theme for his entire post.

But I thought Greenpeace was supposed to be an environmental organization. Why are they weakening their position as “environmental experts” and throwing in with the anti-business crowd?

Is this a “Duh?” moment? Are you thinking me “slow on the uptake.” No, it’s not a “Duh” moment. Yes, there was gambling going on at Rick’s Café Americain.

Of course I’ve suspected that Greenpeace are “anti-business wolves in environmentalist sheeps clothing,” but before saying so, I wanted to wait until they admitted it.

Now, they have.

Some of his points I agree with, others I don’t. And the one I don’t agree with the most is the advocation of establishing a system of “just” capitalism. Although it sounds great at first blush, the idea gives me pause. I gives me pause because it raises two questions.

The first question is “When creating such a system, what do we define as ‘just’ ?”

Part of the beauty of capitalism is that it has a democratic element automatically built into it. That democratic element is that it is the market that gets to decide what is beneficial to its participants and what is not beneficial. The economic votes cast in the marketplace determine what is “just.” Although many will debate as to how “free” that democracy actually is in a capitalistic society, or how “just” its product, the fact remains that the system has historically been the most effective in the spread of prosperity and an improved standard of living worldwide.

The second question is “When that system is designed, who decides what is ‘just’ ?”

At about 4 minutes and 50 seconds in the interview, Dr. Chopra addresses this questions and reveals that he is presently talking to some Wall Street firms about creating such a system. He says that he has gotten a “response from some really big players on Wall Street who see this as an opportunity to create a new capitalistic society which is based on social and economic justice.” I literally laughed out loud, very loudly, when I heard this part. I thought “Can he be serious?” My laughter was so raucous because it is against these very players that the Occupy Wall Street crowd is protesting. How will a new capitalistic society constructed by these players satisfy those currently “manning the barricades”? This is essence of the danger I’m pointing out.

In creating a new capitalistic system that is dependent upon the designs of a select few, no matter who they may be, there will also be disagreements with the selection of those select few, and even with those who do the selecting itself. When the decisions aren’t being made by millions of economic votes, using the “invisible hand,” the “visible hand” will only invite corruption, mismanagement, and discord. We’ve seen this in history far too many times.

No, Dr. Chopra, don’t force us to relive the mistakes history has already made. Justice is desirable, but only when it is established by the many and not by a selected few.

As first reported by CNN Money yesterday, and per U.S. Trademark Office filings, Occupy Wall Street, AKA Friends of Liberty Park, an unincorporated association located at 10 Spring Street, Suite 1, in New York, New York, filed for a federal trademark on the words “Occupy Wall Street.” (And, by the way, the trademark application says “No claim is made to the exclusive right to use ‘Wall Street’ apart from the mark as shown,” i.e. Occupy Wall Street. Gee, thanks.)

To search for the trademark application yourself just click here and enter “Occupy Wall Street” in the search box. When you do, you’ll see that there are two applications. One from the “movement,” whoever that actually may be, and one from what is apparently an unrelated party.

The movement, the Friends of Liberty Park, according to the CNN Money article filed the trademark application on October 24, 2011 at 3:54 PM while the other party filed on the same day at 6:41 PM (both Eastern time, I presume). The rule is that the first filer, generally, gets the trademark. Thus, the movement had the idea, first, to exploit the trademark. Exploitation = capitalism. Way to go, comrades.

And they’ll probably get the mark, too. Although, I’m not sure how a mark is awarded to an unincorporated entity (and I thought this was supposed to be a loose, “grassroots movement,” anyway), but we’ll let the lawyers sort that one out. Capitalism, yes. This is further evidenced by the fact that the trademark application says that the mark is to be used on periodicals, newsletters, gym bags, tote bags, t-shirts, sweatshirts, headgear, jackets for children, and in entertainment services. How chic. I can’t wait for the OWS logo to show up on bags at my gym, or to see it emblazoned on purses making their way up Park Avenue. All in all, this whole move seems like good old fashioned, naked, “I can’t wait to sell out,” American capitalism.

I wish them the best of luck in their merchandising efforts and since the ticker symbol “OWS” is available, I just hope that they’ll give me a shout before they go public.

But let’s just throw out that little semantical problem. Let’s just imagine that they succeed with some sort of abolishment of capitalism which I gather is the overall message of the crowd. What then?

I’m certain that those currently engaged in the protest would be immersed in some sort of nirvana given such imaginings. But what about the rest of us?

All of these things, at least the versions that are worth having, come from capitalism.

Ask yourself how all these things would affect your children should Occupy Wall Street not fail.

Ask the Chinese how well that communist thing worked out for them and why now at least half of their economic system is based on capitalism.

Ask the Russians . . . well, you know where I’m heading.

Disorganization and a chaotic system are two things that characterize Occupy Wall Street. And if they were somehow able to succeed and bring these characteristics to society-at-large, well then, we’d need a lot more help than we do now.

Human relations drive activism, not, as some have observed, Facebook. Perhaps that’s why there are the questions about non-focused objectives on the part of Occupy Wall Street and its offshoots.

US Uncut, which was modeled after UK Uncut, is anti-capitalist in nature, but strategically they set the target of their protest as specific corporations, e.g. Bank of America among others. Occupy Wall Street, on the other hand, set the target of their protest, I think, as just capitalism in general. (I say “I think” because their strategy was largely indiscernible.)

Audiences have more trouble relating to general concepts than they do with specifics, and it is in that way that US Uncut may be more strategically successful than Occupy Wall Street.