The truth is there is no Occupy Movement. The word movement is a noun which in this context refers a group of people with a common ideology, especially a political or religious one or the organized action of such a group. There is no common ideology within the Occupation Movement. There are a few core beliefs, slogans, and practices which are commonly espoused by the occupations and I'd like to examine them in brief detail.
“We are the 99%”
This is a wonderful public relations slogan, but what does it mean? Who is this 1% we're supposed to be opposing? You'd think with such a pervasive slogan this would be a pretty easy question to answer. There actually is no consensus about these terms. As many conspiracy theorists, antisemites, and even the American Nazi Party (who are all active supporters of OWS by the way) would tell you it's the Jews. To me, it's anyone who's rich enough to influence politics or exploits the work of others. To others it's anyone who makes enough money to drive a nice car. To other conspiracy-theorists who have found a welcome home within the Occupation Movement it's the Illuminati, the Freemasons, or the alien lizard-people who genetically engineered humans as a slave race. How is one supposed to fight against an enemy when we can't even agree on who the enemy is?
Just as perplexing is the movement's inability to define who gets to be included in that 99%. Are police acting under the orders of the 1% on our side simply because they don't make as much as a CEO of Bank of America? Are police who assault my fellow protesters part of the 99%? Not in my book they aren't. They're welcome to defect, but as long as they have a badge and take orders from corporate owned politicians they're my enemy and I will never stand in solidarity with them. Do fascists get to be included? How about anti-choice activists? How about the homeless? What about the mentally ill and intoxicated? What about radicals and militants? The answers to these questions depends upon who you ask.
“This is a horizontal movement.”
True horizontal organization is a wonderful goal. Even with constant and conscious effort it will never be attained fully and the best we can hope for is constant improvement. I do not mean to slander those that are actively striving to make their occupations more horizontal on a daily basis. However, withing most occupations there are those who have gained institutional authority and have used it to canonize their own personal beliefs as Occupy dogma.
One of the most glaring examples of this is the systematic alienation and disenfranchisement of radical and militant voices within the Occupy Movement. They would like you to forget the fact that OWS was founded on radical principles and radical tactics. No permits were issued for Zuccotti Park on September 17, 2011. The methods of organizations decided upon drew upon anarchistic and radical traditions such as consensus, diversity of tactics, and support for autonomous action. I make no claim that every person who participated in an OWS general assembly was an anarchist, but to deny the profound influence of radical voices upon the formation of OWS is to deny reality.
The liberals laughed at the silly idealists in Zuccotti park until it started actually working. Then they came out of the woodwork in Manhattan and every other occupation. They brought with them proposals for participation in partisan politics. They brought proposals for turning occupations into 501(c) non-profit organizations. They brought Non-Violence declarations which forbade activities like unarresting fellow activists. In several cities these even included demands that all activists comply with police orders, outlawing civil disobedience. Never mind the fact that there was absolutely no need for such declarations as the only violence at hand was coming from the police.
The majority of occupations in this country have been taken over by liberal supporters of the status-quo who insist that if we just follow the failed example of American protest culture, which has been clearly rejected by our population as ineffective, pointless, and more-often than not simply a way of absolving liberal guilt. They will return to their nice homes and good jobs when the occupation strategy fails and they will do so with clear consciences because at at least they tried.
“This movement is transparent.”
This movement isn't very transparent. Unlike my qualms with Occupy's lack of horizontal nature, I don't think that the majority of this stems from people with ill intentions. It takes a lot of work and effort for anything to be transparent and quite frankly it just isn't getting done. I don't mean to excuse this lack of transparency and some of it does indeed stem from those who have acquired positions of power and want to keep their motivations, methods, and positions out of the spotlight.
Occupiers who actually participate in working groups are fond of deciding what actions to take, which tactics to use, and how to sell these ideas to their general assemblies. Unfortunately, transparency requires a certain level of bureaucracy.
In order for transparency to exist within a working group, for instance, many tasks are necessary. Minutes must be taken. These minutes must be accurate and reflect the differences of opinions within the working group and explain the concessions made in order for the working group to reach consensus. These minutes must then be made available to anyone inside and outside the occupation who wants to access them. They also need to be accessible both online and in print and should include translations, particularly into Spanish. Publishing them online either would require that each working group have both the technical expertise and the administrative access necessary to include them in the occupation's online presence. If this isn't the case then it requires that whatever working group is in charge of the occupation's online presence to have a large enough workforce that they can publish the minutes of every single working group, general assembly, and affinity groups meetings in a timely manner. This is an huge amount of work with very little glamor or publicity associated with it, so of course it isn't getting done.
Another key part of transparency is accountability. What is the point of transparency when no one is accountable for their actions and the results they produce? Knowing that a certain working group (or government agency for that matter) is doing things that we collectively don't support is pointless unless we have the power to fix it. As the Occupy Movement devolves into a giant self-congratulatory circle-jerk, accountability becomes the first casualty, followed shortly thereafter by the ability to be self-critical and learn from mistakes. When people are called out for disruptive and bizarre behaviors and blatant repetitive failures it is denounced as “personal attacks”. When one questions the decisions of self-appointed leaders or the existence of leaders in the first place, “personal attacks” suddenly become acceptable provided they are directed at those that dare to criticize “the movement”. If you want to see a perfect example of this look at the treatment of Occupy Los Angeles Anti-Social Media. Occupy has become 'The Party' and “Occupy über alles” the unspoken rallying cry of those who have adopted the word 'occupier' as their identity.
“This movement is inclusive.”
A brilliant analysis entitled “Three Complaints About OWS” was written by the Technology Operations Group at OWS and is available in it's entirety here. The article goes into great detail about how great this movement is at getting people to come to occupations and then walk away feeling alienated. At OWS people who were interested in getting involved in specific working groups were given emails to contact insiders within working groups. Some of these email accounts had accumulated upwards of ELEVEN THOUSAND unanswered emails. Strange rituals, tolerance for bizarre and disruptive behavior, and insider-jargon also help to alienate people who are actively trying to get involved. The article does a wonderful job of analyzing the ladder of engagement that has evolved in which all but “empowered insiders” and “disruptive newcomers” walk away from the movement wondering why they can't find a place. These are people who have skill-sets, time, and desire to contribute and we have done everything we can to make it as difficult as possible.
Antisemitism, transphobia, racism, heterosexism, xenophobia, and religious intolerance are also common place at most occupations. The Liberty Lamp and other radical groups have gone to great lengths documenting groups ranging from neo-nazis to UFO cult's attempts at infiltrating the Occupation Movement. More often than not these warnings have fallen on deaf ears. Leaders within Occupy Indianapolis have actually claimed that “race is a distraction” from the goals of Occupy. And we wonder why we're failing to engage minorities...
Occupy is a tactic, not the goal.
 |
| Occupy Oakland's Front Line #J28 |
The occupation movement is supposed to be a vehicle to achieve fundamental social change with specific attention to economic justice. If an occupation is not making advances towards these goals then it is at best irrelevant. The word 'occupy' attached to a noun does not indicate that it is effective. It does not indicate that it holds any particular values. It does not indicate that it deserves your support. People are buying into a “brand”. When something is evaluated on the basis of it's label rather than the quality of it's contents you are buying into a marketing strategy. It's only a matter of time before Monsanto starts an 'Occupy Agriculture' ad campaign and Coca-Cola starts an 'Occupy Thirst' ad campaign. Will you unquestioningly support these too?
0 Comments