EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Transcript: Today's Live Q&A With NSA Leaker, Edward Snowden
- 'Tip of the Iceberg': Senators Warn Far More Data May Not Be Safe
- Playing the Obama Bumper Sticker Game
- Intentional and Evil: Court Marshall Sexually Assaults Woman, Then Arrests Her When She Protests
- David Brooks, Tom Friedman, Bill Keller Wish Snowden Had Just Followed Orders
- Transcript: Today's Live Q&A With NSA Leaker, Edward Snowden
- The Terror Con
- Remembering Satyajit Ray’s Hirok Rajar Deshe: On Edward Snowden, Resistance and Inverted Totalitarianism
- Pentagon Bracing for Public Dissent Over Climate and Energy Shocks
- Bank of America Lied to Homeowners and Rewarded Foreclosures, Former Employees Say
Popular content
Today's Top News
Occupy's Return From Hibernation
As winter fades, the Occupy Wall Street movement is heating up again. But don’t expect the same focus on physical encampments and rowdy protests. While the blood of the 99 percent is still boiling at the injustice of growing inequality, in organizing meetings and workgroups, cooler heads are prevailing. This is Occupy 2.0—the mainstreaming of momentum.
From my conversations with Occupy organizers and supporters, my sense is that the main thrust of organizing energy and attention will go toward Occupy Our Homes— a coalition of Occupy activists joining with existing grassroots groups to support families that are facing foreclosure or have been evicted by big banks. Prioritizing Occupy Our Homes is great choice for two reasons.
First, the foreclosure crisis is immense and growing. Despite the recent mortgage settlement with state attorneys general that will grant 750,000 foreclosed-upon families a whopping $2,000 each (!), 4.2 million families have already been foreclosed upon during the economic crisis. The industry site RealtyTrac estimates that number will skyrocket to 10 million in 2012. Besides literally pulling the rug out of millions of American families at the worst possible moment, according to the Federal Reserve, high rates of foreclosed properties drive down home prices and values, hurting all homeowners and the economy as a whole. There may be no more powerful illustration of the abuses of the 1 percent than the taxpayer-bailed-out big banks foreclosing on struggling families and driving down the economy for the entire 99 percent.
But organizing around Occupy Our Homes is a strategic second phase choice for Occupy for another reason, one best summed up by my own mother. She sent money to Zuccotti Park and her own local Occupy site in Allentown, Pennsylvania but, at age 64 (sorry mom!), told me there was no way she was sleeping on the ground outside in the cold. The great thing about Occupy Our Homes as a tactic is that there’s still a tangible way for the tents and sleeping bags set to be involved (as when Occupy supporters camped out on the lawn of the home of an Iraq War veteran near Atlanta, ultimately saving her home from foreclosure) but foreclosure prevention also creates avenues for other types of engagement, whether bringing a casserole, writing a letter to a bank, or joining a prayer vigil. Such actions put a broader face on the 99 percent movement, not just punk kids in bandanas but middle class families threatened with homelessness standing with block association presidents and pastors and grandmothers (i.e., my mom).
Say what you will about mainstreaming, that’s how movements evolve being a fringe concern to a force for change. I don’t mean to disregard the role of the vanguard, those at the leading edge of a movement’s origins who take the first, bold steps and, often, risks. But vanguard leaders should be self-aware and situate themselves in a larger context, seeing the prospect of mainstream appeal as a sign of their success not a threat to undermine it. It’s absurd to pave a road and then get angry when other people follow it. Instead, the next step is to pave a new one.
Unfortunately, I predict that a crowd of die-hard Occupiers will stubbornly cling to the tactic of public Occupy encampments and mass, edgy protests, confusing these tactics for the entirety of the movement and overlooking the possibility that these tactics may have outlived their symbolic power. Related debates about the political utility of black bloc tactics have been springing up and hopefully, these important debates will continue, knitting together various philosophies within Occupy into a diverse whole. But as with many movements, it looks like this next phase will divide the movement into factions, with the radical anarchist wing splitting off from the rest. Perhaps the best outcome of this will be that even though the anarchists will continue their “day of rage” type actions and police aggression, they will make the Occupy Our Homes wing seem more reasonable and rational. At best, the more radical wing will continue to pave new, innovative roads for future momentum. That would be the vanguard-y thing to do.
Lastly, look in the spring for another wing to emerge—existing grassroots organizations driving sets of actions tied to the mission of Occupy Our Homes but with a more radical, confrontational edge. This will include perhaps the most visible, systematic disruption of corporate shareholder meetings ever seen in our country as well as other targeted direct actions on big banks in particular. No doubt there will be some missteps but, to be clear, the difference with this cluster of organizers and actions is that it will explicitly seek to bolster the same message and goals as Occupy Our Homes and implicitly create political pressure and space through edgier tactics that legitimize other arms of the movement.
I was recently trying to explain hibernation to my three-year-old. I told her that animals like bears store food in the fall, dig in and gather strength in the winter and then come out ready for spring. The 99 percent movement gathered tremendous public will and political momentum in the fall of 2011. Now, the movement is quietly planning and gathering strategic strength. In the spring, populist activism will bloom across America with a density and diversity unheard of for decades. It’s going to be a very hot spring indeed.
- Posted in
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...



99 Comments so far
Show All"But organizing around Occupy Our Homes is a strategic second phase choice "
"Unfortunately, I predict that a crowd of die-hard Occupiers will stubbornly cling to the tactic of public Occupy encampments and mass, edgy protests, confusing these tactics for the entirety of the movement and overlooking the possibility that these tactics may have outlived their symbolic power."
Both true statements. Hopefully Occupy will morph into a movement at the grass roots level to stop individual acts of injustice rather than camping and attracting unwanted attention to themselves and the movement.
As I have said in the past, the comments I hear and see in the left press are about 10:1 against Occupy here in the Bay Area which is a really liberal place.
It's not surprising at all Bay Area liberals would be against Occupy 10:1. That is a good sign for the genuine Left.
Unless liberals have occupied the movement.
Many people in the Occupy movement here in Denver are homeless. I don't think they should have to camp in Skid Row or below underpasses for Occupy PR purposes. I prefer they sleep in the most public and visible spaces.
How NICE of you to decide what other people should do... especially the most vulnerable.
Maybe someday you will consider us as real people, with minds of our own?
@Kanary - you totally do NOT get Swza's meaning or intentions. He's on the homeless people's side.
Spare us the people who "are on our side." They often do much more damage than those who aren't, or don't claim to be.
Talking about where "they" should or shouldn't sleep, so as to help the movement, is not "on our side." The repetition of false and damaging stereotypes is not "on our side."
Read this phrase again:
"...Skid Row or below underpasses for Occupy PR purpose."
"Skid row" and "below underpasses" is the cruel and false stereotype. Can you see that? And then we are told that "they" should sleep where the writer thinks they should sleep - "for PR purposes." Surely you can see how manipulative, condescending, self-serving and paternalistic that is, no?
Pardon my coarse language, but to hell with what people's "intentions" supposedly are, and to hell with people who claim they are "on our side."
I am certain that a few of us totally DO get Swza's meaning or intentions, and are totally appalled.
You are happy with this article and what it represents, no doubt. No surprise there.
Occupy isn't "hibernating", what happened is that (mostly Democrat) mayors ordered riot police to use force and the threat of force to scatter it in order to protect capital. This has nothing whatever to do with cold weather; the homeless Occupy people have still spent this winter on the street.
And as far as I understood it the goal was never "rowdy protest", the goal was to physically stop business as usual and force a new conversation on the social order. I'm afraid that necessarily involves some degree of "rowdiness." It was my hope that enough people would have massed to physically shut down the NYSE. I still hope that happens; it's certainly possible and it's about the ONLY thing Wall St fears (note their command center staffed in conjunction w/ the NYPD).
The word "Occupy" means exactly what it means and was chosen deliberately. While there are a number of great things people can do that are less strident or militant, the fact remains that if people aren't occupying a space of power in order to confront it, it might be a worthwhile use of time, but it ain't Occupy any longer (one exception obviously being physically preventing home foreclosures).
Thank You.
Putting Occupy in tactical boxes like only occupying foreclosures (while really an important thing to do) is strategic suicide, as is abandoning the initial principle of occupying public spaces.
Principle does matter. It is the only clean path to building real power.
If occupations are limted to foclosures only (a tactic), they can easily be bought out -- or as we saw from the cooridinated police/federal/governmental attacks on the urban Occupy camps -- be quickly and ruthlessly shut down.
Occupy Wall Street if you can!
If not, join the anti-suppression rallies Feb 28!!!!!!
You're welcome.
I'll also amend a fact that I haven't even heard much from within OWS: the NYSE trading floor is taxpayer money. There's no reason it shouldn't be open to the public:
http://www.nader.org/index.php?/archives/86-Nader-to-PatakiGiuliani-Stop-NYSE-Giveaway.html
Yes. Occupy was brutally suppressed, by Democrats, the same Democrats now claiming to be "on our side" as they try to hijack and steer the movement.
Yes, you are so right. They had to expel the occupiers from the public square so they would be able to steal the rhetoric without having the occupiers loudly calling crap on them doing that.
Occupy is a slogan not a organization. Anyone who tries to organize around the slogan or claims to be a "leader" of the "movement" is a fake and a charlatan. Anyone can build a website and put a PayPal donation button on it.
America the possible - Orion Magazine
http://www.orionmagazine.org/index.php/articles/article/6681
Occupy largely accomplished one goal: introducing the question of class inequality into the 'mainstream' American conversation. This despite many years of skillful elite propaganda. In fact, that said propaganda was shunted aside so swiftly after much investment is a prime reason why Occupy continues to scare the elite and their lackeys to the core. Thus a move to resisting foreclosures in a move akin to the squatters movements of Europe is genius. It disperses protests everywhere that already over-stretched police departments will be sorely challenged to deal with. This is in contrast to last fall's pattern of occupying a central place, which conveniently placed all occupiers in one place. The time has come for Occupy to not only do asymetrical media warfare, but asymetrical political warfare as well.
Class inequality needed no introduction to the "mainstream," if by mainstream you mean the working class people. If by "mainstream" you mean the upper middle class, whom this author speaks for, then that is not much of a "main" stream, is it?
What Occupy introduced as the possibility of fighting back. That is what the liberals and the Democrats are desperately trying to suppress - while claiming to be allies.
Prior to Occupy, all the chatter in the mainstream media was about record budget deficits, government "overspending", etc.
Since Occupy, the topic of income inequality and the concept of the spoiled 1% vs. the rest of us has infiltrated into the ranks of the professional chattering classes who -- whether we like it or not -- are the ones who tend to frame the terms of discussion in this country as discussed in D.C corridors., as echoed by the commercial media whores, and as heard by the majority of the sheeple in-between their episodes of Dancing With the Stars.
So I agree with Nate; Occupy's greatest success has raising the profile of those concerns to become part of the national discussion. The Mittster, for example, will go into the November presidential elections with a giant, stinking 0.001% albatross hanging around his neck. Obama may not fare much better. This should be entertaining to watch.
Yes, "the topic of income inequality" is now talked about by the professional chattering classes.
The problem is that it is only there for the purpose of discrediting, attacking, maligning or co-opting the movement.
Nothing will ever be permitted to be aired on the MSM that could possibly help us. Any thing else that people think they are seeing there is an illusion or wishful thinking.
The topic of "what can we do to help the working class?" will never be discussed in any corporate board room. Why would we ever expect anything different from corporate media?
Were you even watching (in between upchucking) Faux News Channel or the rest of the American corporate media before Occupy gained traction? For that is what is euphemistically termed the 'mainstream media,' by the hypnotized, clueless, lackeys, and shills. Said propaganda outlets still loath to utter any language of class struggle, but have to lest they be complete jokes.
I agree 2A. the possibility of fighting back is much more imporatnt than a slight change in the nuances of corporate media debate.
Initially, the idea was that ythe occupiers would close down Wall St - No More Business as usual. This did not happen and so we are supposed to believe that a great propaganda victory has been won.
Nonsense, the need to take back Wall St and all streets is still as burning as ever.
Occupy is a movement, a rebellion. I recommend the violent and nonviolent factions to have separate actions and not to disparage each other. Violence is a wedge issue. The violent by nature oligarchy enjoys the rebels tearing each other down, over the ethics of property damage or the very different ethics of harm to living beings, as the oilgarchy steadily destroys all life on earth for profit. USA'ans enjoy slaughtering fellow animals for food but do the "capitalist quiver" at the mention of destroying property in the name of destroying the global oilarchy that is destroying the earth.The state as we have repeatedly seen will be as violent as it cares to be regardless as to how nonviolent a protest may be. The state will inject agent provocatuers whenever it wishes ( as with the two FBI agents firing over the students heads toward the National Guard at Kent State). Capture of power ( property) is one Anarchist tenet upon which OWS is organized. Anarchists do not ask, the asking (protests) has resulted in a fascist imperial (it has always been imperial but the fascism may be an apogee), Anachists take power. The people intiating OWS and the ones at my Occupy are very cool in that they are relying on consensus process (another Anarchist tenet) to overcome fascism. I agree with Occupy and this article and have promoted that Occupy preforeclosure properties is a major focus. The public spaces should still be occupied if possible. Actions should be separated into three categories, non violent, violent against property and violence against humans ( I disassociate from violence against humans, but I do not disavow the right of others to be violent in their conscious effort to destroy the earth's despoilers). This article is insulting in its attitude that Occupy was primarily "Rowdy" and seemed to claim responsible for police brutality ( though I do wish for a rapport with security forces). Goddess forbid that people are rowdy when confronting the greatest human caused harm the earth has ever seen. Speaking of harm what is happening in Tibet?
WOW. That is the stuff-thank you. We need it, all you can give-THANK YOU.
"...cooler heads are prevailing. This is Occupy 2.0—the mainstreaming of momentum."
If true, truly disastrous. What's next? "Occupy endorses Obama!"?
That would mean permanent hibernation, i.e. death.
Yes, that is exactly what is next. We can count on it.
so, those that can should pay to live, but those that can't should be allowed the same for free? will we pay their credit card bills, too?
obviously, the core issue of ownership is being sidestepped, and awkwardly so...
no one should pay for, nor own, property...
certainly, it is not for some to pay while others do not, nor is it for some to ruin the planet upon which all depend while violently forcing others to comply...
the planet must be guarded, protected...
from both the working consumer, and the violent industrialist...
This is an incredibly incoherent comment, and your equating the working consumer with the violent industrialist is reactionary bullsh-t.
Methinks thou art an asshole.
its illuminating to see everyone project their wish lists on occupy
let me tell you what the worldwide movement is about folks
we live in an unreal and falsely constructed prison set up by the bankster terrorists and their minions in politics and on wall street
and folks want out of the prison
that is why there is no specific cause de jour - occupy has set its sight on the biggest prison break in history and for that reason i support them
that's why they are important
"occupy has set its sight on the biggest prison break in history and for that reason i support them"
Nice line ...
"Such actions put a broader face on the 99 percent movement, not just punk kids in bandanas but middle class families threatened with homelessness standing with block association presidents and pastors and grandmothers (i.e., my mom). "
I'm glad you are being honest, and labeling the movement for what it is....all about the muddleclass, and of course, your OWN family.
It has never really been about those of us who have been left out for decades now.... people who are genuinely poor, especially disabled people.
Stop labeling yourselves "the 99%". when you don't see us, or include us!
The article claims that occupying homes facing foreclosure is a mainstreaming of the Occupy movement. The problem is that this tactic is by definition aimed at the middle classes who actually own homes, in that sense "mainstream" is just code for "middle class."
Yes we need a broad movement that includes the a large section opf the middle class, but it would be a mistake for the Occupy movement to focus solely on middle class issues. The author paints occupying public spaces as a worn out tactic clung to by stubborn anarchists and bandanna clad punks. In fact occupying public spaces helps to include the very poor and the homeless in the movement.
While I think occupying homes facing foreclosure is a good tactic, the author presents this tactic wrapped in a load of classist, petty bourgeoisie bullshit, and completely ignores or disparages the non-homeowning activists who have given so much to the occupy movement.
I am highly suspicious of all middle class refromers seeking to "mainstream' Occupy. The poor and working classes will always form the backbone of any successful revolution against capitalism.
Thank you, dreamjoehill! For many years, I tried to get that concept across to muddleclass "liberals". They can't listen at all.
I used the famous quotation, and substituted, "First they came for the poor people, but I wasn't poor...."
And, now... guess what. It has come true.
But still, there is only concern for the sad, falling muddleclass. People like Thom Hartmann and Ed Schultz and even Bernie Sanders add to that problem by only talking about the "poor failing middleclass".
That talk and ignoring us is opening the door to some really heavy retribution!
Amen, brother.
It is important to understand the falling middle class is merely a continuance of policies and laws put into place decades ago and especially during the time when demonizing the poor went on steroids with Welfare Reform.
Let me inform a few people of the importance of addressing the poor in all situations especially those who've been here all along, The poor are not just the "falling middle class". We have not addressed things for decades about poverty. These people who were (and are) used as political footballs, the disabled unable to work for a wage, the homeless, the underemployed, the underpaid, the sick, the elderly who worked those McJobs until they were used up. Not addressing these issues properly decades ago are just a few reasons why poverty is adding more and more people now.
There are laws and policies put into place because everyone, including the middle class, blamed and denigrated the poor. They created laws that say the *only* way to contribute to our communities is work for some corporate welfare queen and that being disabled or having barriers to working for a wage is somehow "not doing anything" and therefore unworthy of support. These laws continue to reward the rich for "giving us jobs" when they won't and punish those struggling. That the middle class is faced with the same things that have been going on for decades ~ oh the horror and big surprise!
In my age group (boomers), these people have asked for it. While these former yuppies were attending wine tasting parties and going to Italy for vacation, they sat on their asses and APPLAUDED all this stuff they are now suffering
I would not wish this on my worst enemy but suffice it to say activists like me were laughed off the stage when we tried to warn them the poor were being used as canaries in the mine and that THEY were next if they passed the laws they did. See in their elitist thinking "those laws" were made for the poor,certainly not for them, oh no siree. Obviously these (okay I will say it), dumasses did not read the Constitution which says laws are not made for one class or segment of the People. Laws apply to EVERYONE not just the poor.
What is sad and kind of funny to me is they are back where I have been all along crying about how unfair this is. Oh REEEEEAAALLLYY? These were the same ones looking down their noses as I struggled working my ass off while they sat in judgement of me as if it were somehow my fault because see, I just wasn't working hard enough.
I am glad the Occupy folks are addressing some of the falling middle class needs, but People, they should go to the root of the problem, all poverty. The next time a homeless woman comes to them, perhaps it might occur to them that she has been the results of policies that started far before banks taking homes, that the people in my generation allowed this crap. As LauTse said, "You cannot know your future until you know and come to reconcile your past ..."
Cat in Seattle
Thanks, Cat. Great to see you.
Thanks for this fresh dose of reality.
Ah, yes. The long-expected gentrification of Occupy, with the arrival of the usual cast of do-gooder liberals showing up to "save" Occupy - by destroying it. "Cooler heads" are now prevailing.
Those of us, the "rowdy" ones, the "punk kids in bandanas," the "radical anarchists," the "tents and sleeping bags set," will still be allowed to participate, don't you know. Special Occupy free speech zones will be set up by the organizers so we won't feel left out. Isn't that just swell?
But enough with all of that demonstrating and rage and stuff. The liberals will now lead us in some really powerful actions - bringing a casserole, writing a letter to a bank, or joining a prayer vigil. It is time to be more "reasonable" and "rational." That will scare the shit out of those Wall Street bankers.
What is the matter with us "vanguard-y" types, anyway? Are we just "negative?" Are we "dangerous" and "crazy?" Are we "advocating violence?" Apparently, the author thinks so. Because, she is "on our side," don't you know, and is only trying to help us. How dare we say otherwise?
All of the blather here on CD about those nasty Republicans. In this article you are hearing the voice of a far more devious and dangerous enemy. Don't be fooled by the yammer about "grandma" and "the children." Behind that pleasant smiling face and charming "middle class" reasonableness lurks a vicious attack dog.
This is how it works, folks, how it has always come down. Those nasty right wingers and the cops deliver the body blows, and then the liberals step in and do the embalming. If we refuse to be embalmed, then the liberals will "with regret" start calling for body blows, too.
I think this is the ugliest, most hateful and deceitful article I have ever see here. Beware! This article is a warning shot across the bow, a murderous threat clothed in nice-sounding "middle class" platitudes and sentimentalities.
"Don't be fooled by the yammer about "grandma" and "the children." Behind that pleasant smiling face and charming "middle class" reasonableness lurks a vicious attack dog."
Well put.
Helping those losing their homes is as good an idea as reducing crime in Oakland 20% by having a camp that educated, fed, and housed the homeless. Both avenues are among hundreds that lead to a new way of governing. Viva la Evolution !
As long as we're using "bear" metaphors:
To me, this article is less about "hibernation" than about advocating that those nasty WILD bears stay in the caves where they belong and watch what the nice TAME bears can accomplish!
It's just common sense that a bear who rides a tricycle will win more friends and influence people than a bear who goes around growling and mauling innocent bystanders. That's just ASKING for trouble!
How is attempting -and often failing- to camp out in a quasi-public square "wild", and camping out to prevent home seizures and using shareholder rights to take the protest into the rooms of the powerful "tame"?
Doesn't make any sense to me.
These are all revolts against the system that we need to be revolting against, right?
We don't expect people to wear uniforms, so why would we expect or want uniformity in their actions?
For myself, I would like to see a real revolution and renewal here in the U.S., and I don't think that the past camp-out tactics are going to get us much further towards that goal.
I'm at least gonna wait and see if these bears are actually "tame" before I go up and pet'em. ;)
This is a classic example of the "don't get me wrong, I agree with you BUT..." tactic.
So, "the past camp-out tactics" are not :going to get us much further towards that goal" of "revolution," which is what you claim you want, but the things this author recommends will?
Look, stop trying to engage in some sort of rhetoric contest with me.
I'm not employing "tactics" here, just speaking my mind.
I don't know if Occupy Our Homes or shareholder meeting actions will get us further down the road to revolution.
But I do know that the movement needs to become genuinely popular for us to get to revolution.
I don't think the camp-outs will do that. In fact, I think they work against it- unintentionally, of course.
Make sense now?
Occupy is - or was - "generally popular." A tiny fringe of right wing fanatics, and an equally tiny fringe of bourgeois liberal activists and Democratic party hacks have a problem with it.
You really need to stop trying to straddle the fence on everything and figure out where you stand.
"Shareholder meeting actions will get us further down the road to revolution?" Come on.
"it looks like this next phase will divide the movement into factions, with the radical anarchist wing splitting off from the rest. "
Sounds like wishful thinking by a bourgeois liberal.
Nothing short of "radical" solutions will solve the problem. The word "Anarchist" is misunderstood by most people, including this author. Anarchists have been advocating for the occupation of foreclosed homes since day one. Indeed, the organizational structure and tactics of Occupy are anarchic -- decentralized, cooperative, non-hierarchical and based on direct action.
I watched over a hundred hours of footage from Occupy camps in preparation for my film "Rise Like Lions". Viewpoints varied a great deal, but the overriding consensus was that the United States is no longer (never was) a democracy, and that the broad mass of the people should be allowed to participate in the decision making process. This puts Occupy at odds with traditional liberal philosophies, which are centered around private property rights, and which insist on the need for "representatives" to make decisions (supposedly) on behalf of the people.
If the Occupy movement marginalizes "anarchists" and embraces liberalism, this will not spell the "growth" of the movement, it will spell its death.
Another important point here about the author's desire to marginalize "anarchists" and "radicals".
John Stauber and PR Watch exposed a fascinating correspondence by Ron Duchin, "president of Mongoven, Biscoe & Duchin (MDB,) a Washington, D.C., public affairs firm" which "specializes in issues management and the motivation behind activist movements"
Duchin graduated from the US Army War College, and served as special assistant to the Secretary of Defence...He is listed in the Association of Former Intelligence Officers Membership Directory 1991.
"In 1991 he gave a speech to the US National Cattlemen's Association describing MBD works to DIVIDE AND CONQUER activist movements. Duchin explained that activists fall into four categories: radicals, opportunists, idealists and realists, and that a three-step strategy was needed to bring them down.
"FIRST, YOU ISOLATE THE RADICALS - those who want to change the system and promote social justice.
"Second, you carefully 'cultivate' the idealists: those who are altruistic, don't stand to gain from their activism, and are not as extreme in their methods and objectives as the radicals. You do this by gently persuading them that their advocacy has negative consequences for some groups, thus transforming them into realists.
"Finally, you co-opt the realists (the pragmatic incrementalists willing to work within the system) into compromise. "The realists should always receive the highest priority in any strategy dealing with a public policy issue . . . If your industry can successfully bring about these relationships, the credibility of the radicals will be lost and opportunists can be counted on to share in the final policy solution." Opportunists, those who are motivated by power, success, or a sense of their own celebrity, will be satisfied merely by a sense of partial victory."
But the "radicals" have agency in this game as well.
The "realists" and "idealists" are not separated from the "radicals" solely by antagonistic groups.
The "radicals" can and do also close themselves off from their would-be movement allies.
The hostility that many self-appointed spokespeople for the "true Occupy" way adopt in these boards and others to criticism and/or suggestions of alternatives may be evidence of this happening in this movement.
The hostility started from, and continues from the "allies" against the radicals, not the other way around. It is the work within the system would be allies who are aggressively establishing themselves as self-appointed spokespeople for the "true Occupy" way, and are encouraging people to reject anything else.
But this article, for example, doesn't do what you say.
Rather it anticipates a split and critiques the "anarchists" only as a side point to offering encouragement to new and different expressions of the same revolt.
Also, I understand what you are saying in your first point, but I wonder if you are not misundertanding mine?
What I mean is "it takes two to tango."
Wherever splits such as the one we are speculating about "start", BOTH groups have agency in the crack widening and the split becoming final.
I hope what Kohn here hopes, that the "split" can be more like different currents in the same general stream than real antagonism.
The author claims to merely be responding to a "split" that she clearly is fomenting and aggravating.