A valiant effort, I daresay, by politicians and the people alike, standing together for once in the common cause. But how did it end? What was accomplished? Nothing, I’m afraid. Soon after, Governor Walker, with the blessings of the Wisconin Senate and the State Supreme Court, saw to it that the action on behalf of human, workers’ rights was for naught.
Which brings me to the heart of the matter, the idea of committing to a cause, any cause, no matter how just it is! My thinking is, however noble the aspirations or the particular cause which gives rise to them, they’re stained by association, contaminated, tarnished, and the reason is – all such responses are fool’s errands because they’re co-optive by nature, suggestive of the feasibility of negotiation when the time for negotiations is long past. Which is why the movement’s absence of specific demands or a clearly-articulated platform – the subject of severe critique on the part of even the most progressive elements of the American Left – rather than being its greatest weakness, is its greatest strength.
How so? You don’t negotiate with the enemy if you perceive them as the enemy. To do so would be to validate their status as something to be reckoned with, the last thing you want to do once you've come to a realization that they’re no longer deserving of any such status, not when the very object of the movement is to strip the enemy of all pretensions to legitimacy. Whatever few concessions can be won or chipped away at the negotiating table aren’t worth the price, not when the object is to discredit the enemy as having no standing whatever, whether moral or legal or otherwise, and to reduce them to the level of brute and faceless force which in fact they are, and deprive them thus of any justification to be anything but.
Indeed, once the traditional channels of voicing a dissent or a protest have become exhausted, when they no longer hold any promise, when all such efforts have been tried in the past and were found wanting, total and absolute negation is the only way to go. So make no mistake about it, the movement at hand is an outright revolt, a revolution in the making, a promise of better things to come; and there’s no taking of prisoners.
Which message, unsurprisingly, is lost on the conventional purveyors and analysts of news in our mainstream media, from Cokie Roberts to Clarence Page, all of whom are still intent on seeing the world in terms of the same failed paradigm and on interpreting the world’s events in terms of it. What they fail to realize is that it’s that very paradigm which is brought into question with the idea of uprooting it.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Glenn Contrarian
Roger -
The time for the change you seek is not yet, and it may never come. One can speak truth to power and fight city hall and sometimes win, but it will be done so - if at all - by the OWS movement and by those politicians who accept and align themselves with the movement.
While there are a very few in the Tea Party who have agreed with OWS, most will oppose it to their dying breath. Why? Because unlike OWS, the Tea Party is not so much a grass-roots movement as a tool of the Right. Read this article from the NYT - it's quite educational - and here's an even more educational article from the New Yorker.
Both articles show quite clearly that the Tea Party has long been co-opted by the Right in general, and by the Koch Brothers in particular...and even a cursory examination shows that the Tea Party is hostile to much that OWS stands for.
So...no. The Tea Party will never, ever join OWS.
I'm really hopeful that OWS will succeed, but they'll have to do it without the deep pockets of billionaire financiers like the Tea Party had.
2 - roger nowosielski
A good part of today's Amy Goodman show devoted to OWS.
3 - Anarcissie
I've written something about the Occupation
4 - roger nowosielski
Got to give me better URL, this one doesn't work.
5 - Anarcissie
I just tried it now, and it worked.
It looks like Bloomie has backed off for the moment. About a thousand people showed up in the plaza (at 7 a.m.!) and once something started probably a lot more could arrive. So the Man has gone back to Plan A.
I didn't like Amy Goodman's piece much; it seems she's slipped into thinking that OWS is a formation of shock troops for Mr. O's reelection. This is what the Democratic Party establishment would like, no doubt, and the Right is trying to help out by roundly abusing and lying about the Occupation, but at the moment Mr. O and company are as much targets of the Occupation as anyone. 2008 is water under the bridge.
6 - roger nowosielski
Yes, it does work now.
Top-notch analysis, Anarcissie. The focus on access to public spaces, the agora, in which to exercise rights of freedom of speech, assembly, and to petition the government is the indispensable element of the democratic process; yet, it's precisely the access to these spaces which is being controlled by private property rights and local/municipal ordinances which enforce those rights.
I thought you would be negligent of making mention of non-physical spaces as well, but of course you haven't, and your take on MSM is a case in point.
Lastly, the eventuality of OWS becoming co-opted is a far greater thread to the movement than sheer destruction by brute force -- I entirely agree. A powerful myth is better than none at all.
So yes, we're joined here "in dubious battle" whose eventual outcome no one can foresee.
7 - roger nowosielski
... a far greater threat ...
8 - roger nowosielski
@5
Of course Mr. O & company are as complicit in the mind of the protesters as the bankers are. Not certain though about your take on Amy Goodman and will have to re-watch it. To the best of my knowledge, she's always been one of those rare progressives who have been skeptical about Mr. O and the present "democratic" process, going back to 2008 at least. In short, I very much doubt whether she'd consider O's re-election as a move in the right direction.
Cornell West and other black radicals no longer think so.
9 - Anarcissie
I sort of worship Amy Goodman. But, like a lot of people, I am very sensitive to the threat of cooptation -- as I mentioned in the article, the Democratic Party leadership did much to destroy the effectiveness of the anti-war movement's major organization, and they will certainly do the same thing to the Occupation if they can. Their attraction for me is not in getting some high official to look over his shoulder for fear of riot, but in the possibility that they might be able to eject the high official from his job and possibly get rid of the office as well.
Krugman recently wrote something similarly ambiguous, was called out by Yves Smith, and sort of apologized for seeming to endorse what they called 'elite capture'.
10 - roger nowosielski
Likewise, same sentiment. As to Krugman, perhaps you're referring to his recent editorial in NYT. I'll look it up and post a link.
To change the subject (somewhat), would you consider having your last piece on OWN published it here. I know it's not one of your concerns, trying to influence people and all that, but it would certainly be a good thing if your analysis of OWS got greater exposure. I could provide you with the details if you're interested. If not, there's another outlet Cindy suggested, a direct input to the OWS people -- if only for edification purposes.
I'll provide the link to that, too.
11 - Anarcissie
The article published at 1freeworld.org is licensed under the Creative Commons. (See the symbol at the bottom.) It can be published or sent anywhere by anyone anytime.
My take on the people at OWS is that they are way ahead of me, so I think the article may be superfluous in their case. However, if you think it would be of any use to any of them, by all means send it.
12 - roger nowosielski
I think you're doing yourself discredit, though I'm certain that since they're living the reality, they're not unaware of the key concepts underlying the very fact and idea of "occupation," if only on the intuitive level. Even so, a clear and articulate statement of the issues, of what's really at stake, is never an effort wasted.
As an example of the many ways OWS can be trivialized, check out comment #58. This commenter can at times be lucid and capable of meaningful interchange, but in this instance he simply displays deep-seated prejudices. What's even more amazing, he's taken seriously by other commenters, seriously enough to merit a response.
Don't they see that physical bodies are being put on the line for the cause? which isn't to say anyone knows how it will all turn up.
13 - roger nowosielski
In Protest, the Power of Place.
14 - Anarcissie
This is a good article about the Occupation and activism in general
15 - roger nowosielski
Yes, it is.
Also, see #95 for further thoughts on your "Occupy Wall Street and the Abolition of Public Space."
16 - roger nowosielski
"Which side are you on"
Natalie Merchant
Pete Seeger
Rebel Diaz
17 - roger nowosielski
And Billy Bragg
18 - handyguy
If “Occupy America” only stays on message and doesn’t succumb to putting forth demands or an articulated platform,
My main disagreement with you could be boiled down to the fact that that sentence is self-contradictory and makes no sense. If a movement insists on remaining all things to all people [or at least to 'the 99%'], it will end up meaning little at all. This is actually analogous to the 2008 Obama campaign, where "hope and change" were nebulous enough for a majority of voters to project their own dreams onto it -- a formula for electoral victory and inevitable post-election disappointment and alienation.
This doesn't mean they just have to give up and be Democrats. But as Barney Frank says, "If they don't vote, all they're putting pressure on is the grass [in Zucotti Park]."
better yet, if it’s joined by the equally disgruntled segment of the American society from the Right, the Teapartiers
And this is just silly. Most tea partiers reflexively follow Fox News's lead and label OWS dirty hippies and freeloaders. There is a common ground of alienation, but such a wide divergence of vision about how to fix things that these two groups will never join. Each is better off trying to recruit from the great Uncommitted Middle of American citizens.
And again quoting the very quotable Rep. Frank, "The Tea Party did vote, and made a big difference in the 2010 election -- much to the detriment of the country."
19 - roger nowosielski
The alternative forms will emerge, Handy. My main concern is to ward off against co-opting; surely you've heard it expressed elsewhere as well.
Furthermore, I no longer have faith in our democratic process, and I believe many of the OWS people share the same sentiment. You're speaking of winning the next election as though it represented an important objective to me or many other people. But if it is not, do you not see the limitation of your counter-argument?
20 - handyguy
Surprise: I don't see it as a limitation in my argument, but rather a limitation in your predictive powers. There may or may not be a 'revolution' as you hope there will be. If there is, it may happen 50 or 100 years from now rather than in weeks or months; i.e., not in our lifetime.
And whenever it comes, it could change the country and the world for worse rather than for better. In other words, the 99% consists of a lot of smaller groups, many of whom may have bad ideas, or no ideas at all, and some unimaginably awful government could result [as in the fascist and communist revolutions of the 20th century]. It ain't necessarily all sunshine, lollipops and rainbows.
Therefore I'd be more satisfied to see OWS influence the players in the current system. It's a more likely and a more practical outcome.
And as I pointed out on another thread, about a third of OWS participants see it that way too: they want to influence the Dems in a way comparable to the Tea Party's influence on the GOP. One hopes it will be a less corrosive and unpleasant and unproductive influence than the TP's -- and in fact I believe it will be.
21 - roger nowosielski
But I do. I'll formulate appropriate response shorty, once I'm done with my errand.
22 - unoccupier troll
handyguy - it is common for the more anarchist elements of the movement to decline interactions w/ media and pollsters
be wary of any generalizations about opinions that don't come out of GAs
23 - handyguy
The 'more anarchist' elements are not the aspects of OWS likely to gain widespread support. That road leads to 'we are the 0.9%.'
Many journalists and curious onlookers have expressed delight that 'these are just ordinary folks.' If want to try to convince me that anarchism is a major strain of thinking in ordinary folks, I'm listening.
24 - unoccupier troll
no you're not
a longstanding 'meme' of the movement is that it is leaderless and its decision making procedures are designed to reinforce this
25 - handyguy
Right. I just meant that the movement will remain relatively small if it pursues 'anarchistic' thought. I would call the Zucotti Park approach ultra-democratic. But try applying that to a whole country with 300 million citizens.
And that 'no you're not' is superfluously hostile and presumptuous.