Graeber writes: "Occupy is shedding its liberal accretions and rapidly turning into something with much deeper roots, creating alliances that promise to transform the very notion of revolutionary politics in America."
Occupy Wall Street participants stage a march down Broadway as part of May Day celebrations in New York, 05/01/12. (photo: Getty Images)
Occupy's Liberation From Liberalism
09 May 12
he US press seems to have decided that the Occupy movement is no longer a story. Pretty much no matter what we do. In New York, on May Day, something between 50,000 and 100,000 people marched through the streets – we don't know the exact numbers because most papers didn't report the event at all, and therefore, didn't bother to make estimates. In California, there were blockades and walkouts. In Seattle, one band of protestors relived the famous Black Bloc actions of November 1999, smashing many of the same corporate windows – and even that didn't make national news!
But in a way it hardly matters. Occupy is shedding its liberal accretions and rapidly turning into something with much deeper roots, creating alliances that promise to transform the very notion of revolutionary politics in America.
During the first two months of the occupation, camps emerged in every city in America, there was an explosion of press attention, and, at the same time, a vast influx of money (at one point, OWS in New York was sitting on over $0.5m, almost all of it from donations of under $100 each). Those months also saw a veritable invasion from liberal groups, ranging from Rebuild the Dream to MoveOn.org. Before long, occupiers realized the help was threatening to destroy them; meetings became bureaucratized as they turned into endless squabbles about money; paid organizers with agendas often very different than the original occupiers were infiltrating and trying to turn the movement towards much more conventional political or electoral campaigns.
Then came the evictions.
There is a traditional terms of alliance between liberals and radicals in American social movements: through civil disobedience and direct action, the radicals create a fire on the liberals' left that makes them seem relevant as a moderate alternative; the liberals keep us out of jail. In this case, the liberals spectacularly failed.
Over the winter, rather than making an issue of the extraordinary illegal violence of the evictions, they chose, instead, to create an almost histrionic moral crisis over a few broken windows in Oakland months before. But when OWS re-emerged in the spring, the abandonment of the liberals, the drying-up of the money, have become an almost miraculous blessing. Activists have honed and polished their street tactics and democratic process. New alliances have been created, with community groups, immigrant rights organizations, and, increasingly, labor unions.
One reason OWS agreed to forgo mass civil disobedience in New York on 1 May was to solidify those alliances. Instead, occupiers working within the coalition pushed – with the boisterous support of many rank and file, despite the initial hesitation of some union leadership – for a joint solidarity statement that called not just for the usual battle against austerity, but to the revolutionary transformation of society:
"For centuries, May Day has been a time when the stirrings of spring lead people of good will towards visions of revolutionary renewal. The powerful wish to take these dreams away from us. They never will. And so it is on this May Day, in the wake of a growing planetary uprising for justice, we dare to look forward to a world when the borders that divide us will be made meaningless, to the birth of genuinely democratic culture of communities managing their own resources for the common good, and where the value and dignity of no human being on this planet is considered inferior to any other."
For representatives of New York's Health and Transit Workers, not to mention its Central Labor Council, to sign on to such a statement is epochal. America is one of the few countries where May Day, the International Workers' Day, is not even a holiday – ironically enough, considering the fact the date was chosen to commemorate events that occurred in Chicago, during the struggle for the 8-hour day in 1886. During the cold war, the idea of unions signing on to a statement like this would have been inconceivable: in the 1960s, unionized workers were known physically attack Wall Street protestors in the name of patriotic anti-communism. But the collapse of state socialism has made new alliances possible, and, in making common cause with occupiers, and the immigrant groups that first turned May Day into a national day of action in 2006, working-class organizations are also beginning to return to their roots—up to and including, the ideas and visions of the Haymarket martyrs themselves.
The words might be diplomatically chosen, but there's no mistaking what tradition is being invoked here. In endorsing a vision of universal equality, of the dissolution of national borders, and democratic self-governing communities, nurses, bus drivers, and construction workers at the heart of America's greatest capitalist metropolis are signing on to the vision, if not the tactics, of revolutionary anarchism.
|
THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community. |














Comments
We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.
General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.
Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.
- The RSN Team
At the same time, we need an honest reassessment of the role of (most of) organized labor (meaning the leadership and not the rank and rile) and particularly how public sector workers (since they are the largest sector of unionized workers in the country) can fight back. Going out on strike (i.e., stopping services) just pisses off the vast majority of the people that labor needs to win over to their side. The point of a strike was not to stop production but rather to hurt the bosses financially (and at the time the only way to do this was to shut down production). At this point, public sector workers need new tactics...they need to strike by continuing to provide the services that the 99% need and use but provide those services for free thus hitting the bosses (the state) financially. In 1973, the Milan bus workers went out on strike by continuing to drive but refusing to collect fairs...the city caved to their demands in 24 hours.
So, yes, we need to revive the spirit of May Day but we also need to update both our demands as well as our tactics.
As the students and workers in France during May '68 declared "all power to the imagination."
The problem I find with liberalism, generally, is the elitist attitude of 'we know what is best for you' and excluding the workers -- something like wanting to improve the condtions for slaves but not eliminating slavery. And, yes, liberals do tend to be hierarchical as well as authoritan and controlling. Just having 'liberal ideas' does not make liberal (even in its good sense).
This is one of the problems with the ridiculously simplistic one-dimensional idea of liberal or conservative, left or right, that political discussion has deteriorated to in the US.
The next step has to be a vision towards which to work which is expressed in the article and then to determine the tactics and techniques needed to get to some broad beginning since it involves so many coallitions.
All of which is to say that the vision helps establish the avenues that will contribute to the process.
But liberals generally do not work with consensus nor are all that democratic in many cases, but tend to be hierarchical and think they kniw best what everyone else should do to the extent that they are willing to impose their ideas on others -- often as much as the far right does. This is not the vision expressed in the article and by OWS -- that of distributed leadership and socio-anarchism .
At least, this is what is generally happening with liberalism as currently practiced. But there are varitaions in liberalism, with at least two major historical schools of thinking. It's important to note the significant differences between social democrats and democratic socialists, BTW -- with liberals tending towards the former.
That mindset seems like a browbeat because the left tends to be made up of folks who question everything and attempt to analyse the same with the best interests of the many in mind.
Upon thinking things through, one inevitably finds the avenues for improvement or that dreaded word CHANGE. Change as you can imagine is a threat to most humans as we all like the cruise.
I don't believe ANY process for uniting WETHEPEOPLE in defense of and for improvement of 'the commons' can NOT be hierarchical... there has to be institutional/h istorical insight applied that requires a wingspan of grasp to make work. The baton pass of that body of knowledge goes from informed to less informed...a hierarchy. Just the way life and nature work is my take.
The same cannot be said for rw thinking. The right wing thinks in terms of preserving what is and fighting as a solution...if they don't see it our way, nuke 'em, invade 'em, scare the bejeebus out of 'em and do all of the above...then they'll listen...becaus e we know best because our G_d gave us all this wealth to prove our chosen status, so we have the right, so we will kill you in the name of OUR G_d...because he is right.
Consensus is useful especially for planning. The 'Japanese revolution' in manufacturing was based largely on consensus, as is worker run factories, and Quakers' meetings and structure. Consensus and other organization is not well understood by many people, though, and the tendency is to default to hierarchy.
There is also much organization in nature which is non-hierarchica l and works very well (which is why it evolved like that). Swarm intelligence is one example. Collective mind and intelligence is a major field of study, and much has already been learned, and applied.
The major proponents of hierarchy has, historically, been from those at the top, but of course. That doesn't mean it's necessary, nor better. This area can get rather involved and technical, though -- more than can be discussed in a comment section. Yet, much information is available on the (non-hierchical ) web. Just google 'collective intelligence' for a starting point, and you will find enough to chase around to keep you busy for many weeks or months.
I'd submit that ALL hierarchy evolves too and thus in it's hopefully unpresuming wisdom chooses the fade button at appropriate times.
I DEFINATELY do not abide by anarchy. I get your take on the appearance of liberty and work for the common good in a hive perspective.
I always in discussions regarding the nature of this, find that there is a 'stump' when one has to plug in the Queen and attendants. The hive is organized around preservation of the brood line...another broad hierarchy.
I'd postulate that there is always a hierarchy whether it is prevailing or momentary, it is needed to perpetuate the momentum for survival.
Look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hierarchical_incompetence
Hyper linked through http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_intelligence
and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relevance_Paradox
and also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacit_knowledge
Hierarchy is only one mode of organization, and one with huge inherent flaws. It can be useful, but is not necessary, even temporarily.
If you study up on this you begin to understand what the problems are, and why OWS has been more successful than many groups in the past. Seriously -- there is a lot involved with it, and it's not simple, but complex, subtle, and deep -- I'm still learning more and more despite having started with these ideas forty years ago.
If you won't abide anarchy -- then you won't be effective in many areas and find it virtually impossible to understand occupy. Can you abide wikipedia? You have to open up your mind and forget the stuff you think you know.
Note the application listed, but also that this is not hierarchical, but can be adapted to find effective ways to combat the 1%, government control, gaining public support, etc. but 'sending out scouts' to try different things and then letting them come back to describe what they learned, using lateral communication (introducing information or proposals during an occupy GA, or on various web sites).
This is just one very small part of the subject of non-hierarchica l organization.
Also check that link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operations_research , and notice that points to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organizational_studies
Like I said -- this is deep, broad, and complex. And much of it new knowledge.
I tend to think that at the heart of our problems is the adversarial political system where the winner takes all and that makes it far easier for the 1% to control the debate. Often it leads eventually to violence as it has so many times in the past.
Liberalism and capitalism have both been failures. They cannot be reformed. They must be abolished if civilization is to continue. Good places to start are how we produce and how we exchange.
If you look at a loaf of bread and mediate on the how it got too the store from a seed you will see that many hands are involved this is the interdependance that is a reality and all of those hands should be honored and not exploited for the few as is the case now regardless of the economic system as long as our leaders are working for the 1% this is not the case I believe OWS shoud focus on Getting money out of politics and and use the Bill Of Rights and Constution as a means too get a change become a Patriotic movement pro democracy etc to achive its changing goals and educiate the public that socialism and collectivesm are not dirty words as well as capitalism as long as there is no gang boss and slavery under govt as we have now.
I am the zipster
I agree with you about the Bill of Rights is (along with the Declaration) and the need to "Occupy" these again and take them back from the right-wing (i have a different take on the Constitution as a whole however which i think in many ways was the counter-revolut ion in that it was really a document about defending the property rights of white males while at the same time deliberately excluding/disen franchising the majority (poor white males, women and african americans) from any political say whatsoever.
And, while i agree we need to get "money out of politics" it has always been "in" and the political system organized to protect the interests of the 1%. So to think that somehow before Citizens United or whatever there was a golden age (or that overturning CU will somehow usher in a new one) where monied interests did not control the game is simply not true.
However, I believe it is a mistake to concentrate on the personalities, the individuals sitting in the chairs in Congress or the Oval Office as well as in the state houses. The issues, I believe, are the institutional relationships, the systemic paradigms that define job descriptions for the many butts planted in those chairs and those of their staffs and consultants. We get rid of one here and one there only to turn around to find 5, 10, 20 more butts all too willing to plant themselves in the same chairs and make the same decisions while operating under the same paradigms within the same system.
We have to change those paradigms that define the job descriptions. That will never happen by changing butts, by working an inside game alone.
It will happen by challenging the honesty, fairness and morality of the accepted "wisdom" spewed by the corporatist owners of vast, unproductive wealth and recipients of vast, unproductive income hell-bent on maintaining their superior status even if they push everyone (including themselves) into Third World penury.
I find it hilarious that while Occupy has been so terrified of being co-opted, it is Occupy that has co-opted, sucked much of the wind out of, most of the lefty rank and file groups around the country.
http://www.nceo.org/articles/employee-ownership-100
Also right: public-sector employees cannot strike to put financial pressure on their employer but they can provide the services for free. What a bold move that would be.
Now we're starting to get back on track - by proposing solutions and not merely demonizing the opposition.
us like red meat.
Gar Alperowitz has a great recent book called "Beyond Capitalism" that talks alot about the worker co-ops (he's been heavily involved with some very interesting work being done in Cleveland ( check out his work with the Democracy Collaborative and Coomunity-Wealt h.org --http://democr acycollaborativ e.org/ ). This type of work combined with efforts to create publicy owned/controlle d financial institutions (as well as supporting the move your money campaigns to support local credit unions) are the kinds of things that i think can have a significant impact (not the full revolution of course but i think it is naive to think that first we will have the revolution and then we create all this stuff...i think it is actually the reverse as the new system is always born from within the belly of the existing beast). On alternative financials see the work of Ellen Brown (he has a great book called "Web of Debt" on the history of money/banking in the US) and the new economy network ( http://www.neweconomynetwork.org/ )who have put out some great stuff (all down-loadable for free) on meaningful and substantive financial reform/restrctu ring.
You think the right wing isn't about implementing its "we know what is best for you" agenda? Hello? The real "elite" who run this country are not liberals, but conservative creeps like Scalia and his ilk on the Supreme Court who allow the non-tax-paying corporations, via Citizens United, to destroy democracy by encouraging its most venal, greedy, so-called "citizens," also supported by obstructionist Congressional Republicans and corporate media, to warp the political process in favor of the 1%.
Ignorance is the problem thanks to decades of poor education in the U.S. and every citizen opposed to paying taxes. It's Texas gaining control of textbooks, which is putting science on trial so the red States can brainwash, i.e. "home/charter school" their unsuspecting children with cult Bronze Age ideas that have zero evidence in the real world.
Evangelical Christians believe they "know what's best for you," far more than any liberal "elitist" who at least thinks you have a right to your views. Their ideology is based on authoritarian, patriarchal (misogynist), regressive ideas. They want to make sure your daughter uses a back room to get an abortion, because "God" forbid she had sex before she was married.
Pathological ignorance and poor critical thinking skills are our problems, along with the sociopathic worship of unenlightened capitalism.
But to clarify: there are two species and dimensions of both: a pair which adopts conservative or liberal ideas as appropriate, and a pair which *thinks* liberally or conservatively, regardless of the ideology they support.
I am 'liberal' (leftist) in that I will be creative and consider all sorts of ideas, both new and old, but am conservative in that I like to proceed carefully and methodically, with research, before putting much confidence in any of them.
There are certainly elitist liberals and leftists who are absolutely convinced they are correct, that they understand things better than anyone else, and will never work in some other paradigm or be comfortable with others doing that.
This relates to the ideas of unity vs solidarity on the left and in OWS, and to the tendency too often, even in OWS, to do things by majority vote instead of consensus or tolerating diverse approaches.
Those complicit with conservative ideologies are the worst, the most unreachable and dangerous, because denial is uppermost and fantasy rules. You can't talk to Tea Partiers, Libertarians, or John Birchers because the intractability of their world views doesn't allow them to separate out a useful idea from a destructive one. These people can't go where a thinking liberal can.
Think Inquisition vs. Enlightenment-- which in modern form is happening now. Education! Education! Obama, as a conservative, himself, with his naive, vain notions of compromise egregiously miscalculated the pathological limitations of conservative thinking. Most politically conservative ideas simply need to be defeated, crushed and eliminated. Why? Because they are going to kill us.
Only in the despised "liberal" camp do you generally find the emotional tolerance that allows consideration of opposing ideas, which broadens options. Liberalism, "elitist," or not, is humanity's only hope.
RSS feed for comments to this post