Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Should the Occupiers Stay or Go?
The Occupy movements have largely become dramas revolving around the excellent question posed by The Clash: Should I stay or should I go? It’s become a story about a place. Some, like London (Ontario) are gone. Others, like London (England) are on notice. Occupy Wall St. is gone but it’s back, in a different form. We’ll know about Occupy Toronto, apparently, tomorrow. But it’s possible that this is the wrong question. Let me offer another view based on a recent visit to Madrid.
Occupiers in Madrid's Puerta del Sol earlier this year. The 15-M movement has since fanned out across the country.The 15-M movement began there last May 15. It wasn’t an occupation. It was a protest held in Puerta del Sol square over the economic crisis that became an overnight occupation. Then it was dismantled by authorities, then it turned into a see-saw conflict over whether they would stay or go. A month later, when they finally went, it was by choice. One veteran of 15-M (there are no leaders) said: “It was a strategic move that led to the survival of the movement.” Almost happenstantially they had evolved another preference: to fan out into districts of the city (and elsewhere in Spain) and conduct regular meetings with local residents. These then forwarded proposals to a weekly “assembly” held in the square.
If you wander around Occupy sites, like St. Paul’s Cathedral in London, England, as I did this week, you often see signs saying, Join Us. It’s hard to imagine many of the people who pass by and warily eye the huddled tents, doing so. The Madrid option in a way is the opposite. It’s: Join Them. Go into your neighborhood, try and talk with your neighbors, different as they may be from you. Listen to them as they talk to you and each other.
This is different from a campaign to simply carry the Occupy message (99 per cent versus 1 per cent, etc.) out to “the people.” Some organizers of the Occupy movements, wrote the New York Times, are heading in that direction: “trying to broaden their influence . . . by deepening their involvement in community groups.” The media critic Danny Schecter took a similar tack, urging the movement to use “ads in newspapers, PSAs and even political infomercials on cable TV” in order “to penetrate deeper into small towns, the suburbs . . .” etc.
But there’s a difference between trying to make a point (Schecter and the organizers quoted by the Times) and trying to engender a social phenomenon (15-M). It’s the difference between trying to win an argument, and focusing on the process of discussion itself, in the hope that something transformative might emerge. “We are going to create a new social category,” says one 15-M participant, the aim of which is not to convince people to vote a certain way or embrace particular views: “It is simply a widening of the political landscape.” It’s a goal that sounds simultaneously modest and arrogant.
But the alternate goal for Occupiers: persuading people to see what you already know to be true, à la Schecter and others, is also arrogant. On my way back from St. Paul’s, just before crossing the Millennium Bridge over the Thames, I saw the Salvation Army’s grand London headquarters. Along its front is written: Jesus said I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will have the light of life. Similar approach, I’d say.
A new layer of political process wasn’t 15-M’s agenda at the start. It began as a lashing out in anger and perplexity — in indignation — against the costs of the crisis and the inadequate response. It came to what you could call its democratic emphasis gradually; the stress on process emerged from the process. It was never called an Occupy movement, so it had the advantage that its very name didn’t press it to stay right there, where it was born.
To some extent, everyone has to find their own way in these matters. I was also in Tunis recently, talking to a veteran foe of the former dictatorship there, when a protest march called Occupy Tunis, steamed by. He shook his head. “The Occupy movements in the West say they got the idea from us. Now it comes back here. I thought we already occupied Tunis . . .”
- Posted in
84 Comments so far
Show All"The 15-M movement began" as "a protest held in Puerta del Sol square over the economic crisis that became an overnight occupation." And that crisis remains with us due to the fact that is has not been resolved: "The cost to insure eurozone debt against default soared to record highs for most of the leading economies amid growing fears over the single currency. The jump in credit default swap prices on Tuesday came as the extra cost to swap euros for dollars jumped to highs last seen in December 2008 when many markets had seized up in the wake of the collapse of Lehman Brothers."
By David Oakley and Keyur Patel
Published November 16 2011 FT
"Processed protest can be seen in its most caricatured form in the Spanish Indignados movement. Their manual, titled How to Cook a Non-Violent Revolution, contains an organisational chart that is so intricate it would make the most bureaucratic bureaucrat proud. It describes the importance of having a Communication Commission to interact with the media and an Outreach Commission to engage with other assemblies and institutions. The Group Dynamics Commission is a heavy-duty body responsible for dreaming up new rules that assist ‘the consolidation of a group consciousness’. It ‘prepares the methodology to be followed in assemblies’ and draws up ‘moderation arrangements, floor times and systems for taking the floor’. The Respect Commission is charged with ‘conveying the importance of a respectful campground atmosphere’. There are literally more than a dozen other commissions and workgroups to oversee the governance of the Occupy camp in Spain." ~ Frank Furedi
See: http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/11556/
“The Occupy movements in the West say they got the idea from us. Now it comes back here. I thought we already occupied Tunis . . .”
As a friend of mine's sign reads at the Los Angeles City Hall Occupation:
Occupy Everywhere - Wait a minute, We already do...
Rick Salutin writes a timely piece. He suggests that "OCCUPY" may not be the right name or technique for the movement. I would argue that it IS the right name and it has been branded. It would be foolish to change the name now that it is embedded in the minds of Americans. Since OCCUPY is an idea and not a place, there is no need to change it. The place's that OCCUPY used in it's beginnings served their purpose very well. THE QUESTION IS WHERE DOES THE MOVEMENT GO FROM HERE? I would suggest that phase two should be to go to college campuses over the Winter to explain more fully the DECENTRALIZED PROCESS of change and why, ONLY IT, will be successful. The DECENTRALIZED PROCESS is tailored to achieving successful change in the 21st Century. The PROCESS cannot be co-opted or successfully infiltrated by ives or isms precisely because it is so widely decentralized. Each community with an Occupy presence will operate locally and result in different outcomes locally, and that is it's strength. Since the OCCUPY MOVEMENT HAS SEEMINGLY ADOPTED THE VISION OF REPLACING THE CURRENT SYSTEM, rather than confronting it, the base needs to be expanded to achieve that end. To achieve that end, the writing of a NEW CONSTITUTION, incorporating the best of the existing Constitution, and then including much needed proposals for change, debating the changes widely, then adopting the change and incorporating the changes until the NEW CONSTITUTION more suitable for 21st Century living is completed and adopted. By including the widest possible participation through the decentralized Occupy Movement the participants become stakeholders in the NEW CONSTITUTION, thereby guaranteeing it's adoption. The OCCUPY role now is to Occupy the Minds of people to bring about the desired changes.
Great post. I've written about all the things you've mentioned over the past 5 or 6 years and fully agree. We need a new constitution, and the Occupy movement will bring us there, I predict within months not years.
The nation is too divided, politically, to adopt a new constitution. What's wrong with using the original one? If we actually abide by it, and not reinterpret it as we are doing now, we can use it properly. Adopting a new one is impossible in today's politically polarized atmosphere, and you should recognize that. Ever hear of Red States versus Blue States?
The nation is not divided in the way you think. "Red state versus blue state" is not only a propaganda creation of mass media, it could only seem to exist - ironically - because of flaws in the existing constitution. The "red state versus blue state" myth is part of a divide and conquer effort.
Everything is impossible in today's polarized political atmosphere. That is intentional, that is the way it is rigged. So, we get rid of today's politically polarized atmosphere.
Stone - I couldn't agree with you more regarding "the base needs to be expanded to achieve that end. To achieve that end, the writing of a NEW CONSTITUTION, incorporating the best of the existing Constitution, and then including much needed proposals for change, debating the changes widely, then adopting the change and incorporating the changes until the NEW CONSTITUTION more suitable for 21st Century living is completed and adopted."
This proposal, not a new one actually, would be a monumental challenge for those of us courageous and enlightened enough to attempt it. A fruitless undertaking in today’s structure. In 1926 F. Scott Fitzgerald wrote in his novel ‘The Rich Boy’, and I quote, "Let me tell you about the very rich. They are different from you and me. They possess and enjoy early, and it does something to them, makes them soft where we are hard, and cynical where we are trustful, in a way that, unless you were born rich, it is very difficult to understand. They think, deep in their hearts, that they are better than we are because we had to discover the compensations and refuges of life for ourselves. Even when they enter deep into our world or sink below us, they still think that they are better than we are. They are different."
Please dwell on the three words at the end of the quote… “They” are not "different" by measure of altruistic virtue - rather they move to cause division among people – to distract so as focus becomes blurred always sufficient enough for an instrument such as the US Constitution becomes “Their” tool to further and accomplish their dark ends and as power flows from the barrel of a gun… well you get my meaning. One must severely restrict actions conducted by the rich. As microbes mutate to combat attack so the rich will act to prevent equality among all from reality. Outside of the event of complete breakdown nothing meaningful and I mean TRULY meaningful would ever be allowed to occur. The word “born” also occurs in Fitzgerald’s quote – consider this - weeds adapt to insecticide - their roots run deep and even if by uprooting them all they managed to disappear - their absence would be brief - for nature protects their seed.
"Join Them. Go into your neighborhood, try and talk with your neighbors, different as they may be from you. Listen to them as they talk to you and each other."
In the Bay Area, even as the tent cities are being evicted in Oakland and Berkeley, and maybe SF, actual demonstrations are continuing to spread into all the little suburbs. *That* is what's important, that spread, not a particular form like the tents.
Yesterday the middle class suburb of Walnut Creek had a rousing demonstration downtown with good support from the people passing by, a combination of union demonstrators, and older folks reviving their protest styles from the 1960's. Without tents or drums (but with lots of signs, and some guitars), it went well!
Later in the day, the working class suburb of Martinez had a good turnout with union people pitching in. It's this sort of increased participation that gets us home, not a single strategy like the tent camp in Oakland.
Adjust, spread, and then adjust and spread again ...
"But the alternate goal for Occupiers: persuading people to see what you already know to be true, à la Schecter and others, is also arrogant."
What? To say that one has an important, truthful insight is not that same as saying that one has ALL truth, that "I am the light of the world." This is a straw man. I don't hear any of the occupiers saying that they "are the light of the world." I only hear them trying to awaken others to a reality that there is now a hegemony of the corporate/wealthy elite in the world today. Getting to a tipping point of awareness is what every social movement is about.
C'mon CD. You can do better than this.
Yeah, those stupid "know it alls" who protested for women's suffrage, for civil rights, ending Viet Nam, etc. where so tiresome! This is the same argument brought against MLK to which he responded so eloquently in "Letter from a Birmingham Jail." When Thurgood Marshall eviscerated King for being too "uppity," he too held up the same false dichotomy. My point is that we need a multi-pronged approach, not a one size fits all strategy. It does us no good to criticize the occupiers as "arrogant."
I agree Pinchy
It's really not about arrogance, but about an organizing approach that meets people where they are and presents Occupy ideas in the context of the interests and beliefs of the individuals being organized. The approach is bottom up rather than top down.
You: "Hell, nobody here was criticizing Occupy people as being supposedly arrogant."
Salutin: "But the alternate goal for Occupiers: persuading people to see what you already know to be true ... is also arrogant."
Frankly, I think the author of this article is being arrogant, telling the Occupiers how they should conduct themselves, while denigrating those who tell others how they should conduct themselves, and with a gratuitous and irrelevant swipe at Jesus for good measure.
The Occupiers are doing a fine job of making the corruption of our leaders visible to all. Rick Salutin has a lot to learn from them.
Saying the GOAL is arrogant is not saying the people who espouse that goal are arrogant.
In my experience talking with people who are currently opposed to OWS, it does no good to preach or to act as if you have all the answers. The fact is that we DON'T have all the answers. Listening has always been the best way to get people's attention.
BTW, I don't believe Jesus really said that about "being the Light." Others put those words in his mouth.
I think you're spot on regarding this weak-kneed article that has all the sharpness of oatmeal. Phil Ochs nailed guys like this to the cross 40+ years ago with his song "Love Me, I'm a Liberal" - status quo arm chair liberals (reading their NY Times fishwrap) trying to drag down any revolutionary action as being too harsh. This nation is in the corrupt state that it is exactly because of compromised and toothless approaches like Salutin's.
Ochs on Liberals:
"Ten degrees to the left of center in good times, ten degrees to the right if it affects them personally."
Ochs opening lyrics:
I cried when they shot Medgar Evers
Tears ran down my spine
I cried when they shot Mr. Kennedy
As though I'd lost a father of mine
But Malcolm X got what was coming
He got what he asked for this time
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal
FWIW, I also was bothered by a certain reactionary overtone that tryingtostaypositive addresses.
It's not overwhelming, and I do appreciate that this article is a "thinking out loud", "work-in-progress" rumination in which Salutin is sharing impressions in order to encourage readers to think about the issues he raises.
Still, I find some of his idiosyncratic responses unfortunate at best. He suggests that there's a quality to the physical presence and Occupy encampments themselves that is inherently "icky", or off-putting, to ordinary (decent) people.
And, to my mind more insidiously, his dubious reference to the tendentious, preachy Salvation Army sign and expressed distaste for the quasi-confrontational "Join Us!" plea evokes the traditional criticism of, and aversion to, even peaceful public "in your face" protest on the theory that it evidences a gratuitous, self-indulgent, "uppity" sanctimoniousness that undermines its ostensible purpose of gaining public sympathy and support.
Like tryingtostaypositive, when reading the piece-- even before I checked out the comments-- it flashed upon me that this was reminiscent of the resentment met by Freedom Riders and other civil rights activists who invaded Southern states during late 50s and 60s.
As I heard directly from one such activist's first-hand account, she frequently ran into locals unwilling or unable to discuss the merits of segregation and racist bigotry; they only wanted to vent their outrage and indignation at the supposed high-handed arrogance of strangers taking it upon themselves to come around and lecture them about their sins and shortcomings instead of staying home and cleaning up their own none-too-pristine nest.
This actually bears out Salutin's suggestion that indeed, implicitly challenging, disruptive public assembly and proselytistic protest can backfire or engender hostility and resistance. So be it. Yes, it's something that needs to be taken into account.
But what sticks in my craw is the distinct implication that this is an either/or phenomenon, and that there's something fundamentally wrong, or at least uncool, about the Occupy/mass protest approach. Again, it's not Salutin's main point or theme-- but I got the sense that at least a sub-moral to his story is that one catches more flies with honey than with shit.
To me, it's more of a yin/yang or complementary phenomenon. And the "out there" component ought to be as valued, supported, and reinforced as the "reaching out" component-- appreciated as a "keel", "rudder", or "anchor", not as a disagreeable flaw or drag on the movement.
"To me, it's more of a yin/yang or complementary phenomenon. And the "out there" component ought to be as valued, supported, and reinforced as the "reaching out" component-- appreciated as a "keel", "rudder", or "anchor", not as a disagreeable flaw or drag on the movement."
it's more complex than an instant first impression. perhaps the 99% are not unified and that creates a lot of confusion. statistically the occupations (occupants) represent a fraction of a fraction of the general public (cheers to the dept of propaganda).
polling suggests many americans support the general argument of the occupiers - but nevertheless, many americans struggling above the poverty level are very self conscious of their status and will be as unwilling to commit to the cause of a just rebellion - as the 1% (or 15% who do their bidding).
"evokes the traditional criticism of, and aversion to, even peaceful public "in your face" protest on the theory that it evidences a gratuitous, self-indulgent, "uppity" sanctimoniousness that undermines its ostensible purpose of gaining public sympathy and support."
i hope you've made your annual contribution to NPR. thanks for your posts.
...peace...
The difference between OWS and the Salvation Army is that the Army uses the money and goods donated to it to help those who need help, whereas OWS doesn't. Big difference.
Allow me to turn this hilariously silly praise for the evangelical Salvation Army in order to take a cheap shot at the OWS movement on its head.
The "big difference" is that the OWS is all about "eliminating the middleman".
Yes, they should go OCCUPY that corrupt U.S. institution called CONGRESS which this week will consider legislation that would classify pizza as a vegetable so that the interests of their masters in the food industry are protected.
I'm willing to entertain the idea of 'fanning out,' but let's make no mistake about what has happened: Dissent in the form of occupying what is left of "public" space has been CRUSHED in cities throughout the US by the police in a brutal, violent, paramilitary, nationally-coordinated ATTACK.
We must ask the question: What have we LOST by not being able to occupy public space in an ongoing, energizing, peaceful, educational protest in public spaces throughout the US?
1) We have lost the right to work with people who have nowhere else to go. We have lost a bridge with the dispossessed who were a feature of those encampments.
2) We have lost the ability to coordinate a series of organizing events and activities in, and through, a public venue which was open to passersby, the curious, and the poor.
3) We lost the ability to share resources such as computers, a library, expertise, and experience through public space.
4) We lost a space that served as a magnet, a portal that many people passed through, through which many people came and went, learned, shared, and experienced direct democracy.
5) Many participants lost their tents and all of their possessions, and for some of those people, that was all they had.
The arrogance of the privileged is on display in this disconnection from the home that were these occupations, in these theoretical discussions about the 'tactic' of being 'dispersed' as an advantage, but what about those who were beaten? What about those who arrested? What about those who were beaten, arrested, and had all their possessions stolen? Tell those people about this great victory.
Ask yourselves: How could the brutal repression by the state be a victory? It is true that many of us are still around. But it would be foolish not to note, and note well, what has been lost, and what we have lost forever if we cannot hold on to public space. We are the dispossessed. We are the homeless. We are the indigenous people. Maybe some of us still live in boxes, but corporations will make slaves of us all; corporations and their police have a goal too: Occupy everything.
Odd, isn't it?
"1) We have lost the right to work with people who have nowhere else to go. "
They're still there and you can go talk to them and organize them all you like. People have for 30+ years. There are loads of organizations to communicate, help and organize the people that have no where to go.
"2) We have lost the ability to coordinate a series of organizing events and activities in, and through, a public venue which was open to passersby, the curious, and the poor. "
Really? I think you can all meet in the park or square or anywhere else you want, but just can't camp there.
"3) We lost the ability to share resources such as computers, a library, expertise, and experience through public space."
Really? You can't find a building or someone won't loan you space? Find something boarded up and ask the landlord?
"4) We lost a space that served as a magnet, "
You can still be there without camping can't you? Get a rally there with tables to hand out literature everyday from now till forever. No one would stop you.
"5) Many participants lost their tents and all of their possessions, and for some of those people, that was all they had. "
It sucks, but they were warned that it was going to happen.
I believe there is a right to protest (of course) and this is THE issue of the day, but there is a limit to free speech and it seems to be set when you camp in the parks and don't leave at night. I don't think you are reaching that many new people between 1am and 5am. What you are complaining about is that you were committing civil disobedience and were called out for it AS IS THE WHOLE PURPOSE OF CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE!
There are plenty of us that protest at Occupy and don't sleep there at the camps. Our 99% of the 1% of the 99% don't really feel all *that* violated.
Feel this:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/object/article?f=/g/a/2011/11/17/dramatic_occupy_photos.DTL&object=%2Fc%2Fpictures%2F2011%2F11%2F17%2Fba-occupydramati_0504578120.jpg
"To allow the market mechanism to be sole director of the fate of human beings and their natural environment, indeed, even of the amount and use of purchasing power, would result in the demolition of society." This is a history of capitalism. As the commenter above is more aware: this is about man and nature and how "... labor and land are no other than the human beings themselves of which every society consists and the natural surroundings in which it exists. To include them in the market mechanism means to subordinate the substance of society itself to the laws of the market." Karl Polanay, "The Great Transformation" a socialogical history of captitalistic system in which we have been born into, not by choice. There is a better alternative for us to organize our lives and environment that is more sustainable than this distructive system forced upon us.
Or if you prefer a more modern writer try reading Perelamn's "Invisible Handcuffs of Capitalism" who equates our capitalistic society with "...a different theology- an anciet Greek legend. A bandit named Damastes terrorized people near Eleusis in Attica. People called him Procrustes, or "The Stretcher," because he compelled unwary travelers who fell into his hands to spend the night on an iron bed. He sadistically murdered his guests by stretching short men to fit the dimensions of the bed, or, if they were tall, cutting off as much of their limbs as necessary to fit them into the bed. His sadism supposedly turned the surrounding countryside into a desert. Procrustes' reign of terror was eventually cut short when Theseus, a heroic fgure who became king of Athens, subjected Procrustes to his own bed treatment."
Might also consider this: "Broadcasters, in essence, are guardians of something precious-the modern-day equivalent of the public square. Except they decide who will address the "assembled" audience. The specter of the media, particularly the corporate media and its values, deciding the viability of political candidates-and, by extension, which issues and policies voters will hear about during campaigns-should be utterly offensive to a democratic society."
"Fixing Elections: The Failure of America's Winner Take All Politics"
by Steven Hill, Routledge Press, 2002
I want to be the first to say what an honor it is to have Mayor Bloomberg join our discussion and share his thoughts.
Although I think I understand what Stiv means, your suggestions are good ones.
I was thinking about the folks in Oakland, and at OWS, here in the "land of the free", getting evicted from public parks (I know Zuccatti isn't exactly public.)
Then I thought about the citizens of Cairo. They are re-occupying Tahrir Square. But even last spring, except for the time they were attacked by Mubarek's thugs, people camped out there undisturbed for many days, protesting Mubarek's dictatorship.
A little ironic, no?
Living in an urban area, I know that sometimes parks are closed after a certain time to deter anyone from committing crime (getting high, dealing drugs) or prevent any homeless people from sleeping there.
But if the useless war on drugs was ended and resources dedicated to providing either more shelters or affordable apartments, then maybe there wouldn't be such a need to close a public park?
I am glad you wrote this. I don't think the public at large has a very good idea of the destruction that took place, including all of the confiscated and/or smashed laptops, the other personal possessions lost, the destroyed books. I think that your story needs to be told -- and heard.
If you're serious, and have the time to occupy a public space, then I suggest you come to Washington, DC, which is the real center of corruption, and join the two (2) occupy camps that are still active.
Though the occupiers would like nothing more than spending time with all those who have made their quest so valid, it was never their intention to remain still. Our offer exists only with those who will start. Don't let starting get in your way.
Names don't matter.
Remember "the people's revolution" in the Philippines when everyone wore yellow? I think the Occupy movement needs a similar simple way for others, the public at large, to show their solidarity with the movement and its cause.
____________________________________
Good luck hearing an American politician speaking so frankly:
____________________________________
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bdob6QRLRJU&feature=player_embedded
When you go to your neighborhoods bring sex education and population information, and condoms.
And with the closing down of these encampments comes the abandonment of the bottom poorest of the poor, as represented by these encampments who brought in the homeless street people, by simply closing shop as it were and movin on (move on...) to bigger and more focused, middle-class representation of the 99%. Quan/Bloomberg/other mayors helped to provide that lift, away from this reality, and so now it is time to settle into the gentrified % of the 99%. Time for Russell Simmons to give this % the "Concert for the 99%." Hey, maybe he can get his wife to market a fashion statement for the event too? Or an app--we need an apple app since we already have the slogan/pitch. Nothing says "change" like marketing/sales...
Whether it's an original thought or you picked it up somewhere, SkDoTo, thanks for pointing out that movements, and not just neighborhoods, are subject to the insidious process of "gentrification".
I think the Occupiers should stay! Interesting how the 1% doesn't want 'them' in their neighborhoods, i.e., in Santa Monica, Califas, the rich were upset when people who had homes foreclosed parked their RV's on the streets and lived in them - they had a hissy fit, saying they don't want 'them' living in their neighborhoods, complained about sanitation, noise, trash...Newport Beach, Califas they used to run the homeless out of that city. I bring this up because, if you have been to certain areas in the Caribbean or Central/South America, the rich are pretty much separated from the poor, the rich need to have heavy security/armored vehicles due to kidnapping for ransom, people have bars on their homes/businesses that seems to imply they have to imprison themselves inside, and these guys (1%) have the nerves to complain about the occupiers!
I think some people need to download/listen to the song by the Chi-Lites (from the 70s), the song "(For God's Sake) Give More Power to the People," it's an interesting song. At the beginning of the song, there's a siren that reminds me of a revolution, then the lyrics kicks in with "For God's sake, give more power to the people. There's some people up there hoggin' everything. Tellin' lies, giving alibis about the peoples' money and things..." Another thing that people should think about, remember during the 2010 elections, the tea party and some from the oathkeepers kept saying publicly that they were for the constitution, and would stand with the people against tyranny/police state, and what about A. West in Florida who ran on a military standpoint?
The Occupy Movement should put a candidate for president on the ballot in all 50 states. If just one of the 99% occupies the White House it will be good.
It more or less has. (Hint: He's seeking a second term.) By default or whatever, 99% of the 100% of OWS will support him. You know its true.
There is talk of OWS candidates ...
I nominate Jesse Ventura for President, with Alan Grayson a strong second or Vice President.
A presidential candidate might be a good way of letting people know that just because people aren't camping, it doesn't mean the Occupy Movement is over. I wonder whether a presidential candidate, campaigning on a shoestring budget, would garner anything more than "novelty factor" attention from the media and is it worth it? I'm not negating your idea, just asking a question.
I do have a slightly different take on your idea, though. The Occupy Movement is not only national (and international), it's local. I wonder whether anyone who has recently been camping out (or otherwise spending lots of time) might consider running for a local office like school board or city council? It might be too expensive to do this in a major city (LA, Boston, SF), but sufficient campaign funds could be raised for a campaign in a medium or smaller sized city (for ex., Long Beach or Martinez)?
Whether for president or local office, I don't think the Occupy Movement candidate should run as a member of any established party; not as a Green, nor as a Democrat. The recent batch of Congressional GOP freshmen were "Tea Party" candidates. They needed the approval of the Tea Party to be selected as the GOP candidate. Since they've been sworn into office, I haven't seen a single rank-and-file Tea Party member or TP organization in the media discussing their latest activities. I got the impression that once their movement was co-opted and their original anti-TARP message diverted to serve the GOP, the Tea Party members themselves were no longer needed. Whereas the GOP and its money machine got right with the Tea Party, I don't get the impression that the Democratic Party establishment is too inclined to associate with the Occupy Movement. (smile) Speaking strictly for myself, the feeling is mutual.
My thoughts about running a candidate for local election are that education and local issues (foreclosures, evictions) are Occupy issues. Local citizens would have the opportunity to learn that the candidate isn't so different from themselves (no matter what they heard on FOX News). Finally, quite frankly, this might be a solid, step-by-step approach toward building what could potentially be a viable, left/progressive 3rd party in the U.S.
These past few years when there's been a 3rd party presidential candidate, its done in such a way that, you don't hear anything for 4 years, then the Green party announces that they're running some "celebrity" candidate (Nader, LaDuke, McKinney) for president. How can a national campaign be run effectively without an existing infrastructure and financial resources? I remember in 2000, reading about Nader folding himself into an intern's subcompact car that was stuffed with campaign flyers and materials. In 2008, I learned, accidentally, that Cynthia McKinney was the Green Party candidate. I saw one small article where she gave a speech to 25 people. 25 people?! All I could think was that the Greens lacked the organization to support and promote their candidate. And, no, I'm not saying I'd be much better, since I've never run a political campaign. I just think to be effective, they'd have to let their presence be known more often than every 4 years.
Back in the 1990's, I heard a report on the radio about the evangelical Christians and their political activities. At the time, it seemed as though they'd burst out of nowhere. As opposed as I am to everything they represent, I had to admit I was impressed with their level of organization. During the 1980's they'd been quietly advancing their bigoted, homophobic agenda around the country by getting elected to school boards, city councils, etc. It took them about 10 years, working almost below the radar, building their political organization slowly, a bit at a time. When they were ready to compete for a statewide office, they'd established a presence in a number of cities.
Anyway, I just thought I'd throw all that out there...
Revolutionary movements rarely stand and fight against standing armies. The Algerians in the 1950s melted into the people, as did the Vietnamese fighting against the French and then the Americans. This frustrates the massive army and police forces of the oppressors, who will win in a pitched battle, but will be weakened until they collapse when the revolutionaries live among the people and chose when and how to take their fight. Let there be regular assemblies in Liberty Park (aka Zucotti) at 7 pm to meet and discuss. Not everyone needs to be at these on every day. Occupy the schools, the factories (such as some still remain), the stores, the parking lots, the streets, the churches and mosques and temples. Meet when we're not expected in front of the stock exchange on Wall Street. Set up a mike check on the steps in front of the Supreme Court one day a month. Be organized and go to the town halls of Congressmen and refuse to accept their bs answers. Recall all 535 Senators and Representatives. Demand the resignations of the President, the Vice President, and all cabinet ministers. Demand the removal of all federal judges from the district courts to the supreme court. Let thousands of flowers bloom.
Well said. To me the "occupy" part of the 99% movement is nothing more than "sit ins" were. A tactic. Not the definition of the movement.
I agree the Occupy Movement must use guerrilla tactics. Hit and run. However unlike armed guerrilla warfare the 1% must know we are comming. That way they will send hundreds of police officers on overtime. This will gradually bankrupt them. The Occupy Movement is winning because Mayor BloomingIdiot cannot continue to Occupy New York with Brown Shirts.
Never use violence. But if they reduce the number of police we should ratchet up the rhetoric just enough to bring on a show of force.
This is a time for strategic and pragmatic discussions. As winter draws on what is needed is a prolonged presence but as a witness. Maintaining a daytime presence with sufficient numbers is wise. Wall Street, the cowardly Dems, et al can't be let off the hook too easily.
On the other hand during the winter time must be alloted for a prolonge learning, questioning, discussion, strategizing and concrete goal setting. Why? Cliches, marching, etc. can only do so much. They've opened a discussion long-needed and long-avoided by all parties. What's needed now is a "Smart" OWS who can demonstrate to a somewhat confused public what specifically must be done.
So very specific demands should be established and prioritized by springtime when weather is not an obstacle. Then, it will be time to re-mobilize with new energy and clarity about what specifically to demand. Tobin Tax, specific Wall Street/bankster regulations, restrictions on congressional investments (see "60 Minutes" report of last weekend), tax on the 1%, investment in renewable energy, high speed rail, infrastructure funding, etc. Be specific and strategic!
It's true that the 2012 elections may try to hi-jack discussions. For the enemy GOP - don't give them anything they can use to further justify dismissing, mislabeling, manipulating public opinion. For craven Dems - keep pushing them but in a specific direction. They won't go there unless pressured.
Keep up the fight. Be patient. Be firm. Be peaceful.
You guys should be reading the ADBUSTERS tactical briefing, which suggests flash mobs as the next step. Not that I agree with this, but, ADBUSTERS is one of the motivating strategists and tacticians behind OWS. As I pointed out above, the difference between OWS and the Salvation Army is that the Salvation Army uses the money and goods it receives from donors to help the needy, whereas OWS does not. A HUGE difference. Perhaps the anti-capitalist OWS NYC should use the $500,000 it has to payoff people's mortgages who are about to loose their homes? And all the food and clothes it has to feed and clothe the homeless and the poor?
It would be too easy to form a flash mob; claim to be from OWS: and then do horrible things. So no, bad idea.
I see that you are frustrated, perhaps the thing to do is to look objectively at the corruption in this country. The Tea Party believes that the problem comes from Washington, I take it that OWS holds a similar belief but believes that while elected officials can get swapped out, the people who buy the access remain the same, and that these are the same people who benefit from K-Street engineered sweetheart deals. Therefore these are the people they go after.
Perhaps the two groups representing the interests of large chunks of average people do not need to aim their fire at one another. Maybe the thing to do is to go after the people who caused the problem to begin with (and would be only too happy to have the voters fighting amongst themselves instead of addressing the issues).
P.S.- OWS did feed and care for the homeless until they were kicked out.
P.S.S.- What happened to our economy has to do with corruption, not the particular economic model that was subverted. Crony capitalism is a misnomer, certainly you cannot argue that preventing competition in the marketplace and stifling innovation is capitalism, can you? You wouldn't be OK with lobbyists drafting the legislation that gets introduced and passed which leaves the government on the hook to pay for goods, services, and resultant lucrative contracts, would you??
without a doubt...they should stay...
the 1% would like nothing better than to say "point taken...now run along"...so we all go back to their version of things...I think not....