... until you send a big horde of cops in here to disperse us, or you crack and give up all your power."
"The fact that we don't have any leadership or plans is a strength!"
I'm not asking for a Lenin or a Che to take control of "Occupy Wall Street" but could we have a serious conversation about how just camping out in a park and getting harassed by the cops constitutes a genuine rebellion?
Could somebody explain to me just HOW it is a sign of strength to have nothing more than a list of complaints and a vague demand for "justice" and nothing else?
Seriously. Is the sit-in supposed to gradually spread until there are millions of people sitting in the downtown cores of US-American cities? Really? Is that it?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
This reminds me of the annual 'student day of action' in my undergrad where the student union would hand out placards and leaflets and stand on the steps and rail against proposed tuition hikes and such. Then everyone would go home and return to class the next day. I would say, "look, if you want to make a real protest about tuition hikes, you need to organise something really substantive, like a mass refusal to pay."
The Hedges article reveals these occupations have evolved an internal structure that facilitates dialogue and decision making. If you look at the websites for the Canadian occupation planning, there is also a basic structure at work and forming. I'm sure more than a few people have thought about what happens next and with an internal organising, they have a system for raising ideas and acting on them.
I think at this point the key is simply mobilising those "millions...to sit in downtown cores" and stay there. Without that critical mass of support, any future action will fizzle. The process of getting those millions into the streets is one thing, but within that process the decision making mechanisms that will lead to future decisions on action are also being hammered out.
Any mass social movement, uprising, or what have you bumbles and fumbles through its early stages. However, if they can keep up the momentum until networks and ideas start to set, this could extend well beyond sitting in the park.
Boris,
Oh, I agree that it was pretty remarkable, the organization that Hedges described.
But here's where I'm coming from: Last fall I moved and as I was putting my books and magazines back on the shelves I started reading my old Z Magazines.
There were articles about how the Left was going to stop Clinton's bombing of Kosovo. There were articles about how we were going to stop bush II from invading Afghanistan and Iraq.
Then I remembered the "New Politics Initiative" and the "Days of Action" against Mike Harris.
All of this "activism" tends to culminate in sitting or standing outside somewhere for a while, in the vague hope that this protest will really, really accomplish something.
I hope it'll be different this time too, but I'm not holding my breath.
Agreed. What I'm hoping, and I think there are indications in the demographics of the occupations and other supporters, is that this movement transcends the traditional "left" pedigree of protest actions.
If you look at solidarity websites like this, http://wearethe99percent.tumblr.com/
there's testimonials from a cross-section of society and are not your stereotypical lefty protesters. Which, to be frank, needs to happen because as long as the protesters are painted in the media as black-hoodied window smashers or dread-locked bongo players, no protest will get enough popular traction to make a difference.
In Canada I think the universal round-up at the G8/20 struck a cord with many, and the direct challenge target of the Wall Streets of the world during a financial crisis has much broader appeal because everyone is impacted. There's at least potential for this to move beyond what we've seen in the past.
John Robb has some analysis too:
http://globalguerrillas.typepad.com/globalguerrillas/2011/10/occupy-insert-your-city-here-making-capitalisms-crisis-reality.html
Boris,
Well, demographically, there's been a generational thing of two (make that three) generations that have been stiffed.
That isn't going to change.
Then there are baby-boomers and retirees who are losing their pensions.
There are environmentalists from all over and everywhere.
But I find the self-congratulatory articles about how OWS is this tidal wave of social change and protest to be ominous because so far, I don't think it's warranted and we're just setting ourselves up for a fall.
I've been dissatisfied for years now.
Which is not to say that i'll miss the Toronto thing on the 15th.
I agree with you, Thwap, that just sitting and standing around saying we want some vague 'something else' is not likely to get anywhere. The thing is that some of the things that need to happen to make these protesters taken seriously are not that easy to accomplish. There need to be large, and I mean LARGE, scale consumer boycotts, millions of people have to not turn up for work for long periods of time, ports need to be shut down. Society has to stop. And something has to be in place first to keep people sheltered and fed and safe. There needs to be a real movement of mutual support and aid that operates outside of our whole consumer society. Honestly, I think there are movements in society now that are on this track, environmentalists, eco-villages, the food security movement, young people setting up co-operative farms.
I watched the Arab Spring with much hope, and then came the English Summer, and OWS is now being called American Autumn. I said months ago, though, it will be a Canadian Winter.
So have some of you lost your nerve? Prefer to just write about popular revolution and hide behind your "Nom de Plume. Chris Hedges said it quite simply last week. "You are either a rebel or a slave".
karen,
You're absolutely right. It will take millions (in countries with tens of millions [Canada] and hundreds of millions [USA] to peacefully, but determinedly, shut down huge swaths of the economy, while at the same time maintaining essential services.
But I believe before any of that is possible, those millions need to know that there's a future beyond the next meeting.
At the very least, there have to be some achievable demands that are really "non-negotiable," such as forgiveness of student debts, a more steeply progressive tax structure, or a massive increase in family allowances, ... something that we could compel the gov't and its masters to concede, and thereby demonstrate the power of collective action.
Mark,
Evidently the entire point has gone right over your head.
It's not about whether we should risk protesting. It's about whether the protesting is going to achieve anything or not.
I have for years articulated a strategy of practical revolution through the electoral process, utilizing a constitutional amendment that cuts at the very heart of capitalist power, and which is argued for via classic liberal principles.
I don't know where you get the idea that I'm standing at the rear of the crowd bravely shouting "Charge" while intending to flee should things not go well. I don't know where you get that at all.
This thread is truly interesting. I'd point to the grape boycott which Cesar Chavez started. It took a while to develop momentum.
But, in the end, it was quite successful. I have no crystal ball. But my hunch is that these folks will not be turned aside.
Owen,
Well, the economic failure of neoliberalism isn't going anywhere. Nor is Obama's craven servitude to Wall Street.
For that reason, OWS (or at least the anger it represents) isn't going anywhere.
Thought of you when I read this, Thwap.
Treatise on Living for the Occupy Wall Street Generations
Alison,
It's an important read. I wonder if it's all too neat though.
20,000 (or 2,000 said the NYT, but i've also seen protesters honestly mis-count attendance at their own rallies) occupied Wall Street in 1979 to stop investment in nuclear power, and then Wall Street stopped investing in nuclear power.
Presto.
Except that the writer admits that the Three Mile Island disaster and the billions of dollars also happened that year.
Protesters schooled in the awesome discipline of non-violence, quietly going limp awaken the sympathy of a nation, while those ignorant kids who struggle lose the public's support? Whatever.
It's an important perspective but some of the writer's hobby-horses got me hackles up.
Post a Comment