Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Occupy Wall Street: The Most Important Thing in the World Now
I was honored to be invited to speak at Occupy Wall Street on Thursday night. Since amplification is (disgracefully) banned, and everything I say will have to be repeated by hundreds of people so others can hear (a k a “the human microphone”), what I actually say at Liberty Plaza will have to be very short. With that in mind, here is the longer, uncut version of the speech.
I love you.
And I didn’t just say that so that hundreds of you would shout “I love you” back, though that is obviously a bonus feature of the human microphone. Say unto others what you would have them say unto you, only way louder.
Yesterday, one of the speakers at the labor rally said: “We found each other.” That sentiment captures the beauty of what is being created here. A wide-open space (as well as an idea so big it can’t be contained by any space) for all the people who want a better world to find each other. We are so grateful.
If there is one thing I know, it is that the 1 percent loves a crisis. When people are panicked and desperate and no one seems to know what to do, that is the ideal time to push through their wish list of pro-corporate policies: privatizing education and social security, slashing public services, getting rid of the last constraints on corporate power. Amidst the economic crisis, this is happening the world over.
And there is only one thing that can block this tactic, and fortunately, it’s a very big thing: the 99 percent. And that 99 percent is taking to the streets from Madison to Madrid to say “No. We will not pay for your crisis.”
That slogan began in Italy in 2008. It ricocheted to Greece and France and Ireland and finally it has made its way to the square mile where the crisis began.
“Why are they protesting?” ask the baffled pundits on TV. Meanwhile, the rest of the world asks: “What took you so long?” “We’ve been wondering when you were going to show up.” And most of all: “Welcome.”
Many people have drawn parallels between Occupy Wall Street and the so-called anti-globalization protests that came to world attention in Seattle in 1999. That was the last time a global, youth-led, decentralized movement took direct aim at corporate power. And I am proud to have been part of what we called “the movement of movements.”
But there are important differences too. For instance, we chose summits as our targets: the World Trade Organization, the International Monetary Fund, the G8. Summits are transient by their nature, they only last a week. That made us transient too. We’d appear, grab world headlines, then disappear. And in the frenzy of hyper patriotism and militarism that followed the 9/11 attacks, it was easy to sweep us away completely, at least in North America.
Occupy Wall Street, on the other hand, has chosen a fixed target. And you have put no end date on your presence here. This is wise. Only when you stay put can you grow roots. This is crucial. It is a fact of the information age that too many movements spring up like beautiful flowers but quickly die off. It’s because they don’t have roots. And they don’t have long term plans for how they are going to sustain themselves. So when storms come, they get washed away.
Being horizontal and deeply democratic is wonderful. But these principles are compatible with the hard work of building structures and institutions that are sturdy enough to weather the storms ahead. I have great faith that this will happen.
Something else this movement is doing right: You have committed yourselves to non-violence. You have refused to give the media the images of broken windows and street fights it craves so desperately. And that tremendous discipline has meant that, again and again, the story has been the disgraceful and unprovoked police brutality. Which we saw more of just last night. Meanwhile, support for this movement grows and grows. More wisdom.
But the biggest difference a decade makes is that in 1999, we were taking on capitalism at the peak of a frenzied economic boom. Unemployment was low, stock portfolios were bulging. The media was drunk on easy money. Back then it was all about start-ups, not shutdowns.
We pointed out that the deregulation behind the frenzy came at a price. It was damaging to labor standards. It was damaging to environmental standards. Corporations were becoming more powerful than governments and that was damaging to our democracies. But to be honest with you, while the good times rolled, taking on an economic system based on greed was a tough sell, at least in rich countries.
Ten years later, it seems as if there aren’t any more rich countries. Just a whole lot of rich people. People who got rich looting the public wealth and exhausting natural resources around the world.
The point is, today everyone can see that the system is deeply unjust and careening out of control. Unfettered greed has trashed the global economy. And it is trashing the natural world as well. We are overfishing our oceans, polluting our water with fracking and deepwater drilling, turning to the dirtiest forms of energy on the planet, like the Alberta tar sands. And the atmosphere cannot absorb the amount of carbon we are putting into it, creating dangerous warming. The new normal is serial disasters: economic and ecological.
These are the facts on the ground. They are so blatant, so obvious, that it is a lot easier to connect with the public than it was in 1999, and to build the movement quickly.
We all know, or at least sense, that the world is upside down: we act as if there is no end to what is actually finite—fossil fuels and the atmospheric space to absorb their emissions. And we act as if there are strict and immovable limits to what is actually bountiful—the financial resources to build the kind of society we need.
The task of our time is to turn this around: to challenge this false scarcity. To insist that we can afford to build a decent, inclusive society—while at the same time, respect the real limits to what the earth can take.
What climate change means is that we have to do this on a deadline. This time our movement cannot get distracted, divided, burned out or swept away by events. This time we have to succeed. And I’m not talking about regulating the banks and increasing taxes on the rich, though that’s important.
I am talking about changing the underlying values that govern our society. That is hard to fit into a single media-friendly demand, and it’s also hard to figure out how to do it. But it is no less urgent for being difficult.
That is what I see happening in this square. In the way you are feeding each other, keeping each other warm, sharing information freely and proving health care, meditation classes and empowerment training. My favorite sign here says, “I care about you.” In a culture that trains people to avoid each other’s gaze, to say, “Let them die,” that is a deeply radical statement.
A few final thoughts. In this great struggle, here are some things that don’t matter.
§ What we wear.
§ Whether we shake our fists or make peace signs.
§ Whether we can fit our dreams for a better world into a media soundbite.
And here are a few things that do matter.
§ Our courage.
§ Our moral compass.
§ How we treat each other.
We have picked a fight with the most powerful economic and political forces on the planet. That’s frightening. And as this movement grows from strength to strength, it will get more frightening. Always be aware that there will be a temptation to shift to smaller targets—like, say, the person sitting next to you at this meeting. After all, that is a battle that’s easier to win.
Don’t give in to the temptation. I’m not saying don’t call each other on shit. But this time, let’s treat each other as if we plan to work side by side in struggle for many, many years to come. Because the task before will demand nothing less.
Let’s treat this beautiful movement as if it is most important thing in the world. Because it is. It really is.
- Posted in




335 Comments so far
Show Allthe people united will never be defeated....
¡Ya basta!
...peace...
Right, blackbird. And the next step is for us, the 99%, to all get behind a SINGLE established progressive political party that will give us a booming voice at the polls.
I suggest the Greens, since their principles agree with the occupiers, they are not too radical, and they do have a certain degree of national recognition.
http://socialistparty-usa.org/occupywallstreet.html
both the greens and the socialists have links on their webpages to the OSW demo. i'm sure their are others - however, i see the OSW differently, in this sense - it's revolutionary by design. it isn't necessarily about new political parties as much as it is about restructuring society (post revolution). there are going to be lots of folks trying to co-op the message. it's already happening - and if you go to the greens home page,
http://www.gp.org/index.php
you'll see a photo of greens participating in the demo. although i agree that we shouldn't support the dems. and even though i agree that we need a 3rd party; i can't really see how a 3rd party can be effective, unless they swooped into congress w/ over 100-200 seats. that would require a change of consciousness that at this point, seems unreasonable. we'll have to wait and see.
in the mean time, let's get out in the streets and draw more attention to the obvious and build it up to a general strike. the 99% are not represented in the status quo. also, i wanted to note that i'm very glad that CD has devoted so much time to this issue - i hope that as the general election unfolds that CD will continue to advocate for social change outside of the rigged political system.
...peace...
You were on it before I was...I agree.
elections... ho hum--that's black-box voting...but a general strike--that's something to call for, immediately, repeatedly, and take the time to explain it to people who have never heard of the idea. It is the ONE strategy that will bring the machine down within a very short time. We will have to build up to that, but the OWS movement is real beginning.
exactly.... it's time for americans to understand that mutual aid amongst desperate people can work. there are alternatives to the status quo. the general strike is a part of the solution.
...peace...
Boycott elections! As the Declaration of Independence says, governments derive their power from the consent of the governed. Stop consenting! The very act of voting is more than anything else a vote of confidence in the system. A principled and public elections boycott deprives the government of its right to claim legitimacy. Our mere participation in the electoral system amounts to consent to be governed by whoever "wins" the elections, and provides them with a reasonable claim to be legitimate holders of political power. Stop giving criminals reasonable claims to political legitimacy! The government, most notably the electoral system, is thoroughly corrupt from top to bottom. Participating in it is political self-sabotage. Voting is not an act of political self-empowerment - it is the ultimate expression of political impotence.
We all feel the futility you express. But your mental machinations lead you to your self imposed "ultimate expression of political impotence." Yes, yes, take the easy road. Do the Pontius Pilate cleanliness test. That's bound to lead to the salvation of the whole world (after a bit of cross-bearing, of course).
Naomi would never Boycott the vote.
Yep, the jeer leaders never quit... why don't they boycott elections and brag about it when there is nothing more the One Percent would love for this budding movement to do now is to pledge to not vote.
You don't have to vote for anyone or thing you don't want, in fact you can vote for one issue thats important but if none of the politicians suit your needs you can leave the space blank ( a no vote) or write yourself or whoever in and move on.
But saying you won't vote in a progressive setting is like waving the white flag for most of us who are ready to make change up to the last minute and ever after.
The big "legitimacy" in the American winner take all election system is who gets the most votes and that often depends on who owns the tabulating machines not if lots of progressives stay away. We need to vote harder, think harder and help one another harder.
I urge you to consider the historical evidence for the efficacy of elections boycotts.
See "You've Got to Stop Voting" http://fubarandgrill.org/node/1172. If you find fault in that historical account or with the argument that follows, by all means post your rebuttal there. But this, combined with the fact that the electoral system is totally rigged and corrupt, makes me think that voting, rather than not voting, is waving the white flag. You seem not to understand that voting, first and foremost, is a vote of confidence in the current system. As soon as you sign in at the poll you've endorsed the status quo. You don't even know if your vote is recorded and counted, or flipped, or deleted. In such a situation it is meaningless to say we need "to vote harder, think harder and help one another harder." We'll just keep getting more of the same. Isn't the Obama presidency proof enough of that?
Well General Strike definetly should be number one goal, throw our weight around.--------Voting radical or not voting at all is secondary to the General Strike, and is a toss up as to which is the more potent strategy.
glenn ford,
that's it in a nutshell (think tunisia and egypt here). our attention needs to be focused on the possibility of these demos evolving into a general strike (when we will have power to make demands).
as to the general election, it's secondary and is a distraction at this point. the primary process itself takes about 7-8 months. strategizing about alternatives to D's and R's can wait til next august. if we're lucky, by that time the unemployed - gauged at 9 %- (really closer to 15-20%) hopefully will have gotten on board w/ the demos.
there are b/w 15-20 million people living in the greater NYC metro, what exactly would 10% of 15 million people look like (1.5 million people). this is the type of vision that needs to be developed (outreach). during revolutionary times ideas spread quickly, we have to hope the the masses will embrace our program - services for the poor, anti war, pro environment.... instead of our opponent's argument (the teabaggers). the folks who will be arguing viciously for the free market and unknown/unattainable opportunities provided through those markets. and remember in the status quo, where elections have been fixed for sometime, many of the poor underclass identify themselves w/ the privileged (b/c of race) - they see an opportunity to game the system and profit and live happily, the rest be damned...ala herman cain.
well fuck them, we have to be more vigilant and persuasive...
we have to convince them (the folks who voted for j mccain) that communitarian principles are superior to the lies told by the right . we have to do this by example (which is what the 1st amendment grants us - the right of expression). if they want to beat us down in public so be it - they're still wrong on the issues.
we also have to maintain our strength at ongoing OWS demos (quite the challenge). but as others have noted - (considering our electoral process is a fraud, we're the epicenter of state sanctioned violence in the world and our consumption patterns are a primary factor in creating global warming ) - the stakes are too high to back down. we don't have a choice. or not, if you don't believe me, return that 'change we can believe in' 2012 email to obama along w/ a check.
it is a class war, it's been a class war in this country for sometime. the only strength we have now, this moment in history, is our raw numbers - the masses of disenfranchised americans (possibly the greatest numbers since the dirty thirties). let's use that to our advantage.
yes to occupied financial districts across america, yes to a general strike (when the poor working people join those w/ no security).
the people united will never be defeated....
¡Ya basta!
...peace...
OK js you asked for it.
Your "historical evidence", a writers opinion about Cuba and South Africa, is pretty weak to say as your link does that street protests never changed anything but not voting did.
We don't have Fidel in the mountains. I haven't decided how I will vote, so please don't vote and I have one less thing to think about and if you want change and think boycotting voting will do the trick be my guest and the super rich might as well give up trying to get you to not vote, unless your a Republican like they are now doing by making it harder for the poor and older folks to vote so you are doing them a favor which is your strategy too, to make voting not count and get that obstacle for complete control out of the way. So you have the same result as the Republican drive but for a different reason, but please don't vote, with your reasoning, you may deserve what you get but you won't be able to convince many folks who care about other people with your lazy idea.
If you think that voting is the only thing that legitimizes the system and therefore not voting will delegitimize the system you must have a very expensive lawyer.
But if this is your reasoning, nothing I can say or do can change your lazy mind.
As if the most right wing forces will not take advantage of people who are too lazy to vote smart and hard.
There are many things that you might want to vote on besides most politicians and you can write in your favorite hero or yourself or leave it blank which is recorded as a "No Vote" but that might be too hard for you.
So my rebuttal to you is stay away from the voting booth so at least you will be true to yourself.
Sure, I'll admit the historical evidence is weak. But there's not much of a track record to go on. But are you arguing that the elections boycotts were just coincidentally followed by (in S.Africa) free and open elections? That there really was no causal connection? You've got to be kidding. By contrast, as I tried to argue, street protests and especially routine voting, have been followed by a very demonstrable no change at all.
Most of your "rebuttal" is run-on sentences that just don't make sense. But your repeated charge of lazy this and lazy that I will reply to with this: The laziest most ineffective thing you can do is to participate in a demonstrably fraudulent electoral system while believing that you are somehow exercising political power. As the author of "You've Got to Stop Voting" said, you may as well flush your vote down a toilet as submit it in an official voting booth. Our electoral system is a fraud, and as long as you're willing to participate in it, you will be abdicating your real political power, which is to refuse to participate in a fraudulent, self-destructive system.
Also, you still seem to think I'm talking about apathetic non-voting, as opposed to an organized deliberate elections boycott. But that's like saying not going to work is the same thing as participating in a general strike. It's not a personal & private behavior, it's part of a coordinated social action. Think again!
It really bothers me to hear people talking about not voting!!! How can you do that? We need to vote NOW more than ever! Throughout this country, the same politicians who stacked the financial odds in favor of Wall Street and against the middle class, are now attempting to disenfranchise MILLIONS of voters by changing voter registration laws. They are refusing to allow soldiers fighting overseas (whether you agree w/ the wars, or not) the right to vote. In some states, if you haven't voted in the past year, you've lost your right to vote in the general election. They've wiped out the voting rights of a great number of minorities. Why would you NOT vote now? That's exactly what they want!!! THEY DON'T WANT YOU TO VOTE!!!! So what is the answer? VOTE!!! GET OUT THE VOTE. Don't allow them to take your vote. Don't allow them to frustrate you to the point of giving up your vote! The OWS movement is strong, and getting stronger every day. Don't weaken the movement by encouraging people to give up their vote!
Jim Glover, my rant wasn't geared toward you ... I agree with your sentiment. My statement is aimed at those who would give up their vote. Since they are trying so hard to ensure that millions are disenfranchised, giving up your vote is a gift to those who would rather you not have it to begin with. They win. Don't do it. VOTE.
hey, jskinner!
you say:
~ As the Declaration of Independence says, governments derive their power from the consent of the governed. ~
doesn't that sound good? too good? too good to be true?
it is...that sentence is a lie...
I know, I know...Thomas Jefferson wouldn't lie!
hmmm...he did...
governments derive their power from violent enforcement...
I agree with your position on voting...it is a cruel hoax...
Actually, it is not a lie. It's just that the power elite have always been very wary of the need to manufacture consent by controlling the electoral process.
As a resident of Pittsburgh who saw the quasi-military actions of the hordes of police who were brought here to subdue us G20 activists, I have seen that government derives its power from violent enforcement.
Like millions of us, I am watching and (soon here in Pgh) participating in Occupy (X). But we must remember that "they" own the police, the courts, the military, and of course all the money. They won't allow us peasants to thrive in dissent too long. I am dreading when they loose the terror on us.
Stiv:
A general strike would be a very effective way to send the message. I'm for it.
Being for a general strike is easy message talk, but having a job to strike is not so easy.
You're right, Jim. And if I had a mortgage and a family to support I'd think twice about joining in today. But if the spirit of discontent that we see at OWS grew exponentially to the point where it became mainstream, I'd probably go for it.
Of course the media and their masters will pull out all the stops to make sure that it doesn't go mainstream, but judging by the momentum that has developed since day one of OWS, that might be a possibility.
Though the coming of winter might prove to be a damper, there will be another spring (at least it's scheduled).
OK, you sound a little weary about the coming of spring so you should take more time before you decide.
Everybody knows it could get bloody too, but blood never stopped America before.
I, too, think a nice set of on-going General Strikes would be a good idea.
Elections never have been and never will be the cause of social and political change, At best they merely reflect change. Change happens outside of and prior to partisan electoral politics.
as demonstrated by the stolen election of 2000, which in my estimation should have been the raison d'etre for outright rebellion (extreme structural change) 10 years ago.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebellion
...peace...
Or, as demonstrated by the stolen election of 2004. Not to mention the stolen election of 1968 (stolen by means of the assassination of Robert Kennedy). Let's not forget the stolen election of 2008 (stolen by the Manchurian Candidacy of Barack Obama)....etc.etc.etc.
So, isn't it time to reflect the change that has, and is continuing to, happen(ed) - when is it OK to "reflect" that change in electoral politics? If not now, when? Oh, please tell us, what are the magic milestones that "change" must meet before we are allowed to reflect it at the polls ...
Whose "permission" must we seek to start reflecting that change? Yours?
Excellent question.
Perhaps we need a GAP -- Grand Alliance Party.
Two Americas:
"Elections never have been and never will be the cause of social and political change"
How can you know that social and political change via elections "never will be"?
The recent histories of Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador and Peru say your statement is not quite true.
That is an astounding - and disturbing - piece of psychoanalysis based on two essentially correct sentences by a previous poster.
Hero-4-PEACE sez: "Propaganda is only superficially about the actual words used, as its purpose is to manipulate our underlying beliefs and to establish and propagate viral and infectious memes."
***
I agree wholeheartedly.
iowablackbird:
If the majority agrees that the movement would be better served by the Socialist Party than the Greens, then let's have the Socialists. But by all means let's have a party - and only one.
"...that would require a change of consciousness..."
That might be just what we're seeing - the rage surfacing from the subconscious to the conscious.
I would never support having just one Political Party and you would find that idea rejected by any group of protesters that was not organized by one party.
Parties Suck... they just want to limit your actions and get your money.
But maybe that is what you want or just your "rage surfacing".
Jim Glover:
You don't like political parties, and especially all OWS people voting for the same one, so tell us please how you propose to change things.
Because I don't like political parties does not mean that I want to eliminate all parties or have only one party.
You don't know any more than me who the OWS will vote for.
At this point, I propose not going backwards, Do no harm is the best I can say against your regressive proposal of one party.
I do not vote for parties but you can.
The OWS are doing great now so join them if you think they need help.
While elections may play a part in solving the problem, it won't matter. Citizens United guarantees that any real threat to corporate power in electoral politics will be buried under a tsunami of cash and negative MSM coverage.
So please stop suffering from the delusion that elections matter.
It is precisely the elections that will be used to defang the movement, with cries, like yours, of "[My party is in line with OWS--!]"
No party, not "even" the greens, can claim OWS, though many, like you just did, will try.
Attempting to co-opt this movement will only ensure you are not part of it.
Good luck on seeing the bigger picture.
I thought that was strange too. Why are people already trying to steer protesters into the voting paradigm? This has to do more with lynching the landlord. Smash the State. Get those criminals out of office and into striped uniforms and behind bars. Eliminate $$ from the political process and then we can start to talk about whether or not voting matters.
Steering protesters into the voting paradigm is a way to oppose the movement while appearing to support it. This is what the Democratic party does, as well as the various liberal organizations such as moveon. We watched here as various authors sounded oh-so-radical as Madison unfolded while they waited for a chance to steer the uprising there into an absurd and certain to fail recall campaign.
Just confirmed on NPR where I just heard that "Obama is going to channel the frustration of OWS into his campaign".
raydelcamino:
And if the OWS demonstrators do not have a political base then Obama will quite likely channel the frustration to the Dims, just as he plans.
If you believe that, you're not paying attention. Obama is not going to channel any of what is fueling OWS. It is in part his betrayal of the masses of young people after his election that is responsible for the emergence of this movement.
I must beg to differ with you. Obama's name has not come up once that I have heard among anyone involved. These protests are linked to the other protests worldwide through one common factor: The transfer of accountable (and challengeable) power from governments to unaccountable (and unoticed) power of financial institutions (the Wall Streets of the World). Apparently angry RayCamino did not hear THAT story on NPR, just the imagined one that makes it seem to be Obama's fault. Go back to your Tea Party rally, you're missing your 10/6ths Tophat!
Cathy Mason:
What you say is true, except that I am paying attention.
I do not want to see the OWS people vote for Obama. Please reread what I said above.
I was at the OWS rally in my city yesterday, and an SEIU union member and someone from some liberal organization started getting very upset with me when I pointed out that the Democrats have done nothing for the people of this country. This SEIU woman was screaming about the Pakistanis hiding Bin Laden, but not a peep about Obama's escalation of the AfPak war.
___________________________________________________________-
They were blaming the Republicans for obstructing Obama's good intentions, and seemed to not even hear me when I pointed out that Obama took more Wall St money than McCain AND filled his administration with Wall Streeters. I gave up when I saw they were getting very upset.
_________________________________________________
A Ron Paul supporter who was ex-Army made an impassioned antiwar speech but I couldnt get close enough to hear much of it.
This is a bit off topic, but nobody at the OWS is telling you to vote. If a protestor did hold up sign to vote for something would you say that is proof that the movement has been hijacked by the political party people?
Why would anyone care if you don't Vote?
Two Americas:
In the last analysis, the alternative to the "voting paradigm" is violent revolution. The OWS demonstrations are a precursor to one or the other, or to a gradual fading away as the Madison demonstrations did.
The suggestion to adopt the "voting paradigm" is not in opposition the movement. It is a way of fortifying the movement, and insuring that it does not fade away.
No,No,No, you missed it big time, here is the acsending steps of dissent, 1)voting radical/not voting non-consent.------------- 2) Legal Protests.------------- 3) Civil Disobediance (OWS).---------------4) Armed insurrection.
ThisMachineKill...:
I thought these were supposed to be peaceful demonstrations, but if you're into lynching landlords and smashing states, please let us know when you're through so we can get on with this peaceful political process.
thepuffin:
"While elections may play a part in solving the problem"
...
"please stop suffering from the delusion that elections matter"
Please enlighten us: if elections don't matter, how can elections play a part in solving the problem?
I'm not suggesting that the Greens should claim OWS or co-opt it. I am suggesting that the Greens should make themselves available to the demonstrators as a party to represent OWS at elections.
OWS is a very political movement, and a political movement without a political party to provide services and candidates is not only at a great disadvantage, it is exhibiting suicidal tendencies.