EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- One American Who Isn't For Sale
- Transcript: Today's Live Q&A With NSA Leaker, Edward Snowden
- Remembering Satyajit Ray’s Hirok Rajar Deshe: On Edward Snowden, Resistance and Inverted Totalitarianism
- Obama Cans Regulator Who Crossed Wall Street
- Pentagon Bracing for Public Dissent Over Climate and Energy Shocks
Popular content
Today's Top News
The Struggle for Leadership Within "Leaderless" Occupy
The current debate that has erupted within Occupy circles was built into this movement's foundation. It has been sparked by much needed soul searching in the wake of a series of confrontations with the police, most notably in Oakland, that ended disastrously. It should be news to no one that the police easily put down these efforts with gut wrenching brutality. What is surprising is that many of the Occupy participants lead these events into an inevitable military confrontation with the police, as though they could rule the day without the necessary numbers, preparation, or moral authority in the eyes of the 99 percent. Whereas Occupy had previously gained wide support from Main Street, in part, because of their non-violent tactics that relied on collectively standing strong to resist police repression, these actions appeared to be led by a different program with different tactics and a different agenda.
(Photo: Reuters)
These developments are taking place within the context of a shrinking number of Occupy participants and sympathizers. Occupy is still strong and holds great promise. Such ebbs are natural in the evolution of any movement. However, they also pose great dangers. In the resulting isolation, impatience can take hold and it becomes easier for a relatively few adventurists to dominate proceedings without the corrective of more Main Street participants. The more the movement becomes isolated, the more the participants’ feelings of moral superiority can surge unchecked, which in turn can justify engaging in more radical tactics while condemning the remaining 99 percent for their seeming apathy.
Occupy started out as a tiny effort. The original occupation at Zuccotti Park in New York City was mainly built by members of small left groupings, without any backing from larger organizations of the 99 percent, such as the unions. However, their targeting of Wall Street and their call for mass unity provided a broad-based messaging foundation to reach out to Main Street. Without this approach Occupy would never have blossomed into the Main Street movement it became.
Hundreds of thousands of people went further than they ever expected they could go in taking direct political action, including, most significantly, the unions. The mass misery created by the great recession, including the rise in the inequality in wealth, the 1percent’s hijacking of any democratic process that even appeared to provide a voice to the 99 percent, the lack of any serious political response to the loss of jobs, the cuts in education and social services while the banks got bailed out, became the talk of the day.
However, even with this transformation, many in the activist core of Occupy had not yet shed the narrow political approaches and organizational prejudices that marked its birth. The contradictions of Occupy being both a marginal and Main Street movement are now re-emerging on a larger more urgent scale.
It is without doubt that the capitalist crisis is creating the conditions for a great social movement to emerge. What is at stake for Occupy is whether it will spearhead this development or be left as a predecessor of it that veered off into a dead end before realizing its promise.
The outcome will be determined by a political struggle for leadership within Occupy. Just because many within Occupy describe it as leaderless, does not make it so, even if leadership only amounts to calling a meeting, proposing an agenda for it, and suggesting a facilitator. Any social movement, any mass collective action, requires leaders, whether acknowledged or not. To counterpose leaders to the rank and file or mass of participants in movement building, as though both are not connected, is a bit like counterposing the front and back wheels of a bicycle, as though both are not necessary for the ride.
It is not difficult to see where this prejudice against leaders comes from. Both in the political arena, and within many of our own organizations, the 99 percent is for the most part dominated by unaccountable leaders who live apart from us and pursue policies against our interests. It is an easy jump to conclude that leadership, in itself, is to be avoided, that all movement building should be done on a strictly horizontal basis. This superficial thinking, however, could not be more harmful for doing what needs to be done to build a movement that can challenge the might of the economic oligarchy and both of their political parties.
What is needed is to build leadership structures where the leaders are under the firm democratic control of the rank and file and replaceable if need be. Maintaining that Occupy is leaderless only leaves its leaders invisible, unaccountable and no matter how well intended, free to push a course that will isolate the movement. Likewise, to argue for rank and file leadership within the unions, as opposed to rank and file control of the leadership, leaves the most conservative bureaucratic elements untouched, unthreatened, and free to do what they want.
Consequently, if the current debates within Occupy are not to result in a further fracturing of the movement, an accountable and transparent leadership should emerge. This leadership should be judged on its ability to create the widest possible unity among all working class and grass roots organizations, not simply build Occupy apart from them. In addition, this unity in action should be built independently of the Democrats and Republicans. While it would be folly for Occupy to insist on organizations such as the unions to break from supporting the Democrats as a precondition for uniting on the issues that are most important to the 99 percent, Occupy must insist on its own independence. In doing so, it will be demonstrating to the unions that more can be accomplished by building a social movement than building an electoral campaign for allegedly worker-friendly Wall Street politicians.
Too many within Occupy fret over being co-opted by the unions. And there are grounds for being cautious. For example, Robert Master, the Northeast political director for the Communications Workers of America, described Labor’s attraction to Occupy in these terms: "I think there are going to be tremendous opportunities for labor and the Occupy movement to work together," Mr. Master said. "We have different roles— as labor we are much more embedded in mainstream politics. But we understand that without the pressure of more radical direct-action tactics, the debate in this country won’t change substantially." In other words, labor wants to have a foot in both camps: in the Democratic Party which is controlled above all by the 1 percent and in Occupy, which is trying to defend the 99 percent. Contradictions are unavoidable.
Nevertheless, in the immediate present the greater danger is that Occupy will fail to maintain and increase the support it has gathered from Labor by prioritizing its own organizational interests at the expense of unity.
Occupy's tactics must be guided by the strategic understanding that, in order to effectively pursue fundamental change, the vast majority of the 99 percent must be united. Therefore, any actions taken must be able to garner the sympathy, if not active support, of most working class people. Small-scale confrontations with, for instance, the police, are counterproductive if they do not have this support. No matter how "militant" appearing, they are as far from revolutionary as shifting into reverse gear is from shifting into overdrive in a car.
Likewise, the demands that Occupy chooses to mobilize around must be capable of building the widest possible unity. If these demands do not correspond with the consciousness of the 99 percent, they will fall on deaf ears no matter how important they might be in the minds of those proposing them. In selecting demands, we must be willing to prioritize what is most immediately important to the vast majority of working people over our own individual opinions. The demands must articulate what people feel is most important but have not yet been able to articulate for themselves. At this point in time, arguing for explicitly anti-capitalist demands when most U.S. workers' minds are on the need for good jobs, healthcare, taxing the rich, and keeping their homes, is a waste of time.
Currently, one of the obstacles impeding the participation of Main Street today is the process of decision-making. In most Occupy formations, a 90 percent yes vote is needed to pass anything. In addition, it only takes one person to block a vote. The hope behind these measures and others is to encourage the greatest sense of collective cohesion. The reality is, however, that they enable a minority to control proceedings — like what we are trying to fight against in our own "democracy" in the U.S. — and that they unnecessarily bog down the meetings. This does not build collective cohesion as much as it turns away participants. While it is often desirable to reach consensus, this should not be treated as a principle. One person, one vote, with a simple majority to pass proposals after a full and democratic discussion, should be the standard operating procedure.
In addition to this, there are many items discussed at the General Assemblies (GA) that would be better handled by leaving details to be worked out by an elected leadership body, which in turn can work out a proposal for a vote at the next GA.
Spring is approaching and there are high expectations that Occupy will be able to emerge all the stronger from its winter slumbers. It is hoped that this article will contribute towards this end.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
62 Comments so far
Show AllGreat article. Well thought out.
Author points to precisely the issues that are making Occupy less palatable for the 99%. Here in the SF bay area, a liberal area, the comments in the press, both mainstream and independent are running about 10:1 against Occupy.
Fewer and fewer people are showing up at the events and it is NOT a question of weather as it has been shirtsleeve here for the most part all through the winter.
The Public Strike in October drew about 6000 people from a city of over 300,000 and reports are that most were not from the area.
Recently many Occupy protesters were brutally arrested by police in Oakland. Of those arrested, only 25-20% were from the city of Oakland.
This points to the fact that the movement does NOT represent the 99% of the one city where it should be getting THOUSANDS of people into the street. A city of unemployment, police brutality, urban decay, and forclosure. A city that has a history of action on the left including strikes in the 1930s that indeed DID shut the city down.
To move forward, Occupy needs leaders, a simple focused set of demands, and a commitment to non-violence above all things.
The author has it right on the nose.
I am not so sure "leaders" is what it needs. Haven't we been "lead" for too long? I think a cohesive message will develop without the need for any hierarchy. It will be forced on us through the mechanations of finance and big business. At some point the 99% will awake to the fact that they are being manipulated. How can people call for less government while being exposed to predatory financial systems, faulty corporate products and environmental destruction, accept austerity while watching the the uber rich get huge bonuses and worry about praying in school while our school budgets and curriculm is cut to make way for corporate tax cuts and fund privately run "faith based inniatives". Not to even mention sacrificing our sons and daughters in wars we don't understand and which have nothing to do with evil tyrants or any religion (radical or not) and everything to do with banking and the private control of resources.
At some point we have to wake up and realize it's not the poor working smuck doing all this damage. We're being played.
"Wars we don't understand" ?
The US occupations and wars are far easier to understand than anything else that is going on...eternal occupations and wars assure an eternal revenue stream for the military industrial complex...its the simplest economic model ever contrived.
He doesn't understand because he needs Sergeants to tell him what to think and do...
Yes, you are incapable. Are you volunteering to be the leader? What do you advocate as a centralized demand? Perhaps we should start with a clear picture of what you want the future to be, just what are you going down to the protest to fight for? Just your paycheck?
Oh, I get why you need hierarchical authoritarian leaders in the military situations you suggest. But unlike you I am not suggesting that hierarchical authoritarian leadership is needed to make a social movement successful. OWS is agitating for horizontal bottom up democracy. And hierarchical authoritarian structures, like the military structures you are apart of and love, are anti-democratic in spirit and deed.
John Shade-----Did you bring that up at the GA? Did you articulate what you want the future to be? What are your "simple" demands? Are you calling for the elimination of Capitalism? totalitarianism? Enforcing the rule of law and protecting the constitution?Have you ever been In Oakland, CA? You are violating your oath to defend the constitution-why?
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2012/feb2012/whit-f13.shtml
Jerry White
Socialist Equality Party's presidential candidate
"All over the country, workers are beginning to recognize the need for a fundamental change. They are waking up to the realization that the old political parties and trade unions have nothing to offer them."
Mark Vorpahl
Union steward
"What is surprising is that many of the Occupy participants lead these events into an inevitable military confrontation with the police..."
Although I have never wanted to live in a socialist country I have voted for socialist candidates for the past 30 years because the Dem party and the GOP keep moving further to the right and the only way to move the agenda left is to vote extreme left.
FDR's New Deal that created the US middle class would never have happened if nearly 10% of the voters had not voted for socialist and communist candidates during the 1930s. Until the "commie threat" returns, the US middle class will continue to disappear.
We need a Huey Long to kick some ass for We The People......
HOWARD zinn and his book the Peoples History goes into detail on how 3rd parties push the 2 main parties into change and shows time and time again how trying to change the 2 parties from withn is akin to throwing your energies downa black hole.....
Some here don't beleive that?
Look no futher than the obama admin and It's effect on the left - neutered and non-existent.
ray, I haven't voted for a president yet, only losers. I'm oh fer.
FDR tossed bones to the snarling dogs to keep them from consuming the capitalists.
I just as soon see the middle class disappear and take the lower and upper with them.
Capitalism is antithetical to equality, reason and Life, the evidence global.
"Until the "commie threat" returns, the US middle class will continue to disappear."
As it should. A middle class necessarily implies both an upper, aristocratic class and a lower class of perpetual poverty. FDR created the middle class as a buffer to keep the rabble from storming the castle. It was not only phenomenally successful but also became both the primary driver of global eco-destruction and the universal model for unattainable third-world aspirations.
The plutocrats use a multi-dimensional model of reality while too many who oppose them operate with a single-dimensional one. What looks like hypocrisy or a contradiction in one dimension can be logically consistent in the multi-dimensional reality, and the leftists who have gained power in the past and in different regions have understood that. This one-dimensional view leaves the OWS left with far too little flexibility and far too few options, though I guess it provides some with a great buzz from self adulation based on the illusion of purity. That is why in this multi-dimensional game of chess, the plutocrats are kicking the left's behind.
For now. But one should realize their multidimensional reality relies on the labor of the rest of us. Sure many of us are so busy just keeping our heads above the water in our single dimension we don't have a clear picture of their guilded lives and multifaceted conceits. But at some point when the rest of us step back and tell them to do it for themselves their multidimensional house of cards will come crashing down. Especially if the rest of us decide to blow on it, all at the same time.
kivals, I like the idea of "multi-dimensional" being superior to "single-dimensional". Can you apply this concept and give us one or two concrete examples, as illustrations? I mean examples of issues that have come up with the current Occupy movement. Thank you.
The author dreads an "anti-capitalist agenda" yet the demands for "good jobs, healthcare, taxing the rich, and keeping their homes" all rely on the insight that human rights outweigh property rights. Maintaining property rights over human rights is the foundation of the capitalist agenda with both liberals and conservatives insisting that there can be no human rights without property rights. A political formula which rewrites the Bill of Rights for human rights is what Occupy needs, but it cannot achieve this without drawing distinctions within the concept of property, specifying different legal concerns and obligations for assets as opposed to commodities, and thereby unseating the whole "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness [i.e. property]" concept that is the centerpiece of the capitalist agenda, as well as the social contract underpinning the US.
Assets manufacture commodities, however, both are concealed in the deliberate ambiguity of the term "property." When commodities are the stock of assets, their creation entails thermodynamic processes, each of which produces only losses according to the second law of thermodynamics. Nevertheless these transactions are said to produce "profits" which must entail victims who receive less compensation than they would be due to reflect the real thermodynamic efficiency of the transaction. This victim status is protected by law and often, as in the case of union actions, publicly reinforced by violence from the state, the holder of the legal monopoly on violence. It is the ambiguity of the term "property" that serves the capitalist agenda and Occupy needs to invalidate the use of that term in favor of the distinction between "commodity" and "asset" for the establishment of a social contract favoring human rights.
A constitution from below, presumably preceded by a Declaration of Justice, or some such thing disambiguating between assets and commodities. Life and liberty may be enjoyed with commodities, but are threatened by assets. Thereafter it must be enforced as law by courts.
Thank you, Class Act. The 99 percent might all want good jobs, but half of them think that the way to get them is by eliminating regulations. They all want healthcare, but half of them think that it would improve if only the government took its hands off their Medicare. Even if Obama turned into Roosevelt overnight and proposed a massive public works project half of the 99 percenters would oppose it as an evil socialist agenda.
There is nothing in the mainstream that will unite the 99 percent. The "consciousness of the 99 percent" doesn't exist, so there is nothing to conform to.
In my opinion, OWS needs to educate the 99 percent so that they stop acting against their own interests. If they fail, all they have to do is wait until the real unemployment is 60 percent and the remaining jobs don't pay a living wage - I don't know - 6 months? No matter what the demands anyway, Fox News will label them as socialist and anti-american.
This is the traditional Jacobin / Bolshevik line of thinking.
The reason it only ever leads to failure or Terrors is because it is completely backwards / upside-down.
The Revolutionaries should be educated by -or just plain be- the People, not the other way around.
Educating people is Bolshevik, matti?
To succeed, these protests need broad support. In order to gain broad support, OWS will need to convince more people to join them. In other words, they need to educate people like Santorum's voters, for example (or, for that matter, Obama's voters), that they are being duped into voting against their own economic interests. Either I wasn't clear, or else you just skimmed through my post. In any case, I hope this clarifies things for you.
But Vorpahl's point is merely that such arguments are either not comprehensible or not of percieved importance to the People at this time.
Step #1: DEMONSTRATE the utility of social democracy by employing the half measures possible under the current system. Not only will this make sense to folks because it is something they understand, it will also gain their support, since it is something they have been calling for for some time now.
Step #2 Pursue deeper change with the People's support and growing understanding instead of as "elitist egg heads".
Makes a lot of sense to me.
Thomas Jefferson, in drafting that truly radical document of our republic – the Declaration of Independence from tyranny – deliberately altered John Locke’s inalienable rights of “life, liberty, and property” to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”. This was not a euphemism for property. Locke defined property broadly to include people’s lives and liberties, as well as their wealth.
The 1776 Virginia Declaration of Rights, written by influential Founder George Mason, delineated the “inherent rights” as “the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety” – the means, not the property itself. Benjamin Franklin was in agreement with Thomas Jefferson in downplaying protection of property as a goal of government, because he found property to be a “creature of society” rather than a natural possession.
In the Western Judeo-Christian tradition, the earth was given to humanity to be held in common. “The land shall not be sold forever; for the land is Mine; for ye are strangers and sojourners with Me.” – GOD, Leviticus XXV. This notion of the earth as a sacred trust was carried forward into the Enlightenment by John Locke: “God gave the world in common to all mankind”. This was reiterated by Thomas Jefferson: “The earth is given as a common stock for man to labor and live on”, and by Abraham Lincoln: “The land, the earth God gave man for his home, sustenance, and support, should never be the possession of any man, corporation, society, or unfriendly government, any more than the air or water.”
But Locke understood that, within the social compact that created society, we retained our natural rights to life, health, liberty, and possessions, and that we created a right of possession by the application of our labor. The brilliant pamphleteer, Thomas Paine, articulated the distinction between common and personal property: “There are two kinds of property. Firstly, natural property, or that which comes to us from the Creator of the universe – such as the earth, air, water. Secondly, artificial or acquired property – the invention of men. In the natural property all individuals have legitimate birthrights. Men did not make the earth. It is the value of the improvement only, and not the earth itself, that is individual property.”
Locke was clear that “Government has no other end, but the preservation of property” and that “Every man has a property in his own person”. Thus the legitimate function of government was the protection of the natural right of a citizen to be secure in his own person and in the property value that his efforts create.
A far better differentiation than between commodities (which are merely economic goods) and assets (or capital), is that between personal property (the things that one possesses for one’s own use and sustenance or makes with one's own labor) and private property (state-granted rights which determine the relationship of owner to other users, rather than to the thing itself).
As I pointed out to you before, the phrase "unalienable right to life, liberty, and property" is from the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Virginia. This usage of "property" is meant to mask over the distinction between slaves and real estate. In drafting the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson substituted "happiness" for property, following John Locke, because otherwise the declaration would sound to its intended audience, the courts of Europe, as though some kind of socialist revolution was taking place in the new world (although the word "socialist" would not be coined for another 39 years). Even happiness became qualified with "pursuit" in this formulation, market vicissitudes being what they were and are.
It is not "possession" itself that makes one a productive member of society in fulfillment of the social contract, it is access to resources. Distinctions between "personal" and "private" property would be hard to argue without a legal distinction between commodities and assets, replacing the "property" formulation underlying the American social contract. As regards the platitudes of Jefferson and Lincoln, both were instrumental in the fundamental crime at the heart of the American system: the giving away of virtually free land in exchange for support of the political system. The agreement was founded with the exchange of the Ohio river valley in return for public support of an unpopular Constitution never submitted for public referendum after being drawn up without authorization in secret. The extension of that agreement across the continent was made possible by Jefferson's Louisiana purchase. The guarantee that the western territories would not be subject one by one to slave versus free wars imposed by wealthy slave owners, whose property rights were protected under the Dred Scott decision, was obtained by Lincoln. They spoke of a better world with appeals to god ... while facilitating the crime at the heart of the American system.
EXCELLENT.
leaderlessness should not become the focus. the downsides to "fixed" leaders should be distinguished from leadership which is more fluid between the widest possible range of participants.
to take advantage of all the talents and resourcefulness that exemplify occupy, the basic structure must stay consistant with an overall vision, while encouraging those who show up to take on as much responsibility as possible within that vision.
We have the capability now to organize without central authoritarian leaders. Through electronic communications, all are leaders. We can engage in direct democratic decision-making instantaneously through electronic voting by the masses on each and every topic. Our movement can form itself as it grows, through mass participation. Decentralized organization is the only response to centralized, authoritarian rule. Let our actions form our doctrine, thus insuring precise theoretical coherence.
Prevention of that was one of the reasons for "consensus", as opposed to "majority rule" in OWS. Yet the author of this piece opposes "consensus" ...
Because it is just Minority Rule in disguise. ;)
No, he opposes the misuse of consensus, which is almost universally the case because in true consensus process it's not possible for a single dissenter to 'block" the progress of the group. That's the egotistical misuse of a poorly-understood process which is intended to transcend ego and strive for what is best for the group's mission and purpose.
In most cases of dissent within consensus, the appropriate path is to state one's concerns and then stand aside to allow the group to move ahead, or to leave the group if one is conscientiously opposed to the decision.
That same problem would occur in Representative Democracy without:
1. Constitutionalism
2. A Bill of Rights
3. The Rule of Law
No decent plan for Direct (or Real) Democracy would forget these key features of any form of honest Self-Goverment.
So....no,....no, that's not a problem at all. ;)
I particularly liked this sentence:
"What is needed is to build leadership structures where the leaders are under the firm democratic control of the rank and file and replaceable if need be"
Apart from that, I liked the article in general, although I wish the writer had been more emphatic regarding the importance for Occupy to maintain a strict non-violence policy, with the clarity and forcefulness exhibited by Chris Hedges in his recent articles.
Not Enough Pain yet for the Occupy movement to succeed......
Don't worry though the kleptocrats and oligarchs will soon accomodate you in that regard.
That is why Homeland Security is bolstering the arsenals of US police departments (not to mention that ordnance is another profit center for the kleptocrats).
mt, It's the harsh reality of the situation. As the middle dwellers drop into the ranks of the malnourished, the scales will tip.
In my opinion, if there is to be any kind of leadership for the OWS movement, it needs to be horizontal, not vertical, in order to succeed. And above all, committed to non-violence, because the 1% have always used violence to brainwash the sheeple and help advance their agenda. Good, comprehensive article.
This is an excellent and timely article. Its analysis is clear and corresponds to the reality of our country, the awareness that most Americans have of the Occupy movement (those who have heard of it at all), and also it knowledgeably and fairly characterizes the recent trends within Occupation.
The only question I'd pose is the one about leaders. What *exactly* is a leader? Do we mean someone who has been elected by vote (or consensus) to be the one who, in turn, casts votes and makes public statements on behalf of those who have elected her? Is the author suggesting that *representative democracy* is what is needed--as distinct from the semi-anarchy that has prevailed at most Occupations? This is how it appears to me, though he didn't make it explicit.
In any case, I think it is for each Occupying group to decide how it is to proceed, and as long as everyone has their rights respected--and the procedures administered equally without discrimination--a variety of ways of self-governing will be fine. What is *not* fine is that in some quarters there has been a recent and rising valorization of criminality as a fetish display of "revolutionary" status. The author briefly touched on this, and rightly so. The real challenge in Occupy is not so much between "leaders" and non-leader modes of organization, but between democracy itself--whatever form it takes--and the ascendancy of intimidation, threats, and the romance of felony as a virtue. We know what is appealing to most of the 99%--and it isn't Street Fighting Man.
as more and more of our living world perishes via industrial activity, and more and more of our freedoms are curtailed via electrical activity, one can only suggest stopping such activities is key to survival...
that OWS says so little in the way of concrete goals, going forward, other than general demands for actions regarding what? taxes and jobs? leaves them with a much larger problem than a lack of leaders...
they suffer a lack of logical continuity...
their only apparent strategies are shown to be ecologically and socially suicidal...
no more leaders...we must each become our own leader...
I kind of like the difference, in my work I'm led by Leaders! In my union we have too many Leaders! I say leave OWS alone if they survive the winter I hope something truly good will come to the fore. A new way of thinking, We missed the chance in 1772 and 1864 and 1940, I'd truly like to see something different
>^^<
Right, I've been my own leader for the past 20 years, leading my own way away from depending on corporations to provide for me and those in my community. Some are less dependent, some more; but the direction I'm going in is to produce, become a producer and become less of a consumer. For example, on a parallel path Jim Merkel wrote "Radical Simplicity", about how and why he lives on $5000 a year. Not needing the corporate tit, while not a be all and end all for everyone, is real power - not over corporations, but over ones' own self. A short list of corporations not really needed by ... #occupy supporters (maybe?) insurance companys; banks; creditcards; auto makers, natural gas supplyers.
Can we be self-employed? Here's the thing: emancipate yourself from mental slavery, get out yer own way. Reduce incrementally, your present active support for corporations, and start actively supporting people you know and trust. For the movement to be powerful, we need to empower ourselves and each other. Because non-violence is useful only to those with moral legitimacy.
I would like to see OWS come up with some good orators. Unfortunately, those come around very rarely in any movement, but when they do, they can effect change.
As someone who has said from the first about OWS that there are always "leaders," acknowledged or not, let me suggest one way that Occupy groups might work more effectively.
Effectiveness in building the movement is what's important - not making oneself feel "brave" by committing acts which are guaranteed to alienate the general public.
Occupy groups could meet - locally or state-wide, up to them - and at that meeting:
#1 decide by voting (majority wins) which issues they wish to work towards after hearing all proposals. They should number no more than 2-3 to begin with;
#2 each issue should have its own working group, and the people in that group could elect their own coordinator/spokesperson subject to immediate recall if work is not done to the group's liking;
#3 elect someone as overall coordinator - not "leader" or "president" or "executive director" or other elitist appellation - just coordinator. That person will communicate with the spokesperson/coordinator of all issue groups, propose actions to the groups for their approval, and work to make things happen which groups wish to happen, as well as communicate with media and others outside the movement, inviting them to join Occupy in one or more of its issue groups.
#4 groups can vote whether to join any particular action which other groups are proposing;
#5 heads of each group could meet in person or telecommunicate frequently to ensure each knows what the others are doing. This is also the job of the overall coordinator.
#6 when demands are such that most of the general public can agree, then it is not necessary to go more "radical." Most serious social change movements that were effective began with everyday demands, e.g., "tax the rich," "bring the troops home," "equal pay for equal work," "stop poisoning our drinking water."
The very nature of these demands, if outreach to the general public on these issues is kept up, is antithetical to the profiteers on Wall Street, and so can help bring about real change.
Yes, the writer is correct about certain elements in OWS, as in all movements, get ahead of themselves and think they, all by themselves, can jump-start a revolt amongst the peasantry.
Please look up the Weathermen during the late 60's. I remember how they alienated regular people from the antiwar movement, while thinking themselves heroes, as they accidentally blew themselves up. Foolish elitism.
Thought this, combined with the main article, really gets things going in the right direction.
"when demands are such that most of the general public can agree, then it is not necessary to go more "radical." Most serious social change movements that were effective began with everyday demands, e.g., "tax the rich," "bring the troops home," "equal pay for equal work," "stop poisoning our drinking water."
"The very nature of these demands, if outreach to the general public on these issues is kept up, is antithetical to the profiteers on Wall Street, and so can help bring about real change."
Brilliant. I would add to the list of demands "Stopping corporations from intentionally harming the environment, human rights, the public health and safety, the dignity of employees and the welfare of the communities in which they operate."
____________________________________
Leadership is critical because it can make groups of people more organized and efficient in accomplishing their objectives. It's the massive "power" imbalances that are the problem with the more common leadership models. But one can set up leadership structures without leaders being given undue authority. It's not a matter of, "yes" we should have a few strong, dominant leaders, or "no" we should not acknowledge any leaders at all. It's not a matter of steep hierarchy versus completely horizontal leadership. These are not either/or questions. The goal should be to move as far away from centralized control as we can to get a healthy balance between organization/efficiency of the movement and empowerment of ALL who make up the movement.
"At this point in time, arguing for explicitly anti-capitalist demands when most U.S. workers' minds are on the need for good jobs, healthcare, taxing the rich, and keeping their homes, is a waste of time."
But if the naked truth is that these objectives are fundamentally irreconcilable at this point in human development with capitalist social relations, then what?
"In other words, labor wants to have a foot in both camps: in the Democratic Party which is controlled above all by the 1 percent and in Occupy, which is trying to defend the 99 percent."
Beware--co-optation in process.
"A co-option (also cooptation, co-optation, cooption) is an act of absorbing or assimilating. It is normally used in the context of a group of persons assimilating a weaker or smaller group, with the intention of neutralizing a threat from the weaker group. Verb forms include coopt and co-opt." -- Wikipedia
Same argument that led to the Menshevik-Bolshevik split in the Communist Party more than 100 years ago. Human nature will ensure that those who have the most energy to drive things will become the "leaders"; the question is as to where they will lead and how they will lead. Probably a diverse range of "leaders" will develop naturally, followed by the classic in-fighting of the sort that has wrecked many social justice movements as some of those who see themselves holier than the others claim and abuse the moral high ground (see J. Stalin and Mao Tse Dong for two classic examples) for personal power. The difference between social justice movements and greed-based movements (such as the Murdoch gutter press) is that greed is universal with the one sole aim of gaining power and money and it s impossible to divide and conquer on the grounds of morality. Occupy faces a difficult time internally; guerrilla war requires flexiblity and mobility and adaptability with local commands that work within an overall scheme but do not necessarily write weekly reports to head office. So do social justice movements, if they are to succeed.One doesn't need to say more than that.
It is critical to engage the masses - particularly when your key "slogans" claim to be "the 99 percent." The biggest dangers to the movement, I agree, involve its falling into a "holier than thou" mentality when certain groups are "not welcome" and when the main messages are not palatable or understandable by the masses.
We win when we have the energy of mass enthusiasm and mass empowerment. We flounder when we say, "oh, screw the masses, they don't understand." Thus, in my opinion, referencing the founders and the documents that underpin the creation of the American republic is very much to the point. If people believe the vision has been hijacked - as many, many do - they will listen. If they think that the movement is visionless and just "against" the mainstream, they will not support it.
That's the reality, in my opinion. And regardless of the flaws of the founders - these have been discussed a great deal - that doesn't mean that much of what they envisioned didn't have merit. And it is a vision, however corrupted, that still resonates in the hearts of many Americans of diverse political leanings.
From the name ( Occupy = stupid) to the anarchist non-leadership concept and the absurd human MIC / 90% consensus GA's where 1 person can stop you dead, probably a police agent etc. to the non-tactics and finally the anonymous black gangs( more then likely agents provocateurs of the police and Intell. groups swarming all over this thing by now, its a disaster from start to finish. Reminds me of the "new" Left, another friggin disaster. You cannot fight the highly organized well financed and disciplined forces of the State and the right with a mob of scraggly hippies and grannies, been there done that.
You are a liar. Not so sure about the fish part. You should go there, and try that. Just what are you afraid of?
Well for my part, I don't know if the person is a liar, but she/he is certainly a fish if she/he has been to a GA and not been emotionally moved by the human mic. But it sounds to me like the person has not been to one, given her/his ignorant characterization.