This week, This Week in Global Unrest visited Occupy Wall Street and has filed this special report on what things are like in Liberty Plaza.
If you like This Week in Global Unrest, please like and share our Facebook page. We are always interested in tips and feedback! You can also now find Global Unrest on iTunes! Subscribe today!
We must be intentional with this occupation if we are to change anything. Right now, we are just camping in a city park. Yes, we march against banks, campaign offices, and other targets. That is of course necessary, but that is only half of what we should be doing. This cannot just be a family…
Hey fellow occupiers. I’ve been thinking about a lot of stuff lately. And if you are anything like me, you will probably agree that there is a lot of stuff to think about.
Well, some friends of mine decided that after the GA, we were going to go have a beer. (you remember beer, right? it’s how you used to spend your evenings BEFORE you got a part time sober volunteer job at your GA) Well, we were talking about how the press and the rest of the world and even the city officials who visited our GA tonight tend to treat our consensus process with the utmost derision and ridicule. I bet, if you were paying attention, you even saw “twinkle fingers” mocked on the Daily Show last night.
I say, “fine. that’s fine. we hear your critique and we don’t need it.” and here’s why:
The general assembly consensus process gets made fun of all the time as “inefficient”, “time wasting”, “boring”, whatever… insert your stupid critique here ____________.
But the fact is that the problems of the GA may seem dumb and bumbling and pointless, but I say, “compared to what?” To me, the problems of the GA are not ridiculous minutiae—they are the very essence of creating a better world. The fact that they seem difficult is only because they we are judging them by the standard of the common “efficient” mechanisms for making decisions. And what are these? Modern efficiency, capitalism, corporatism, workplace organizational structure—all things that are equally (if not MORE SO) fraught with frustration and pointlessness. All things that involve top-down power plays that are meant to shut down dissent and gloss over a diversity of opinion in favor of getting to a result—even if that result sucks ass for most of the people involved.
But you know what? If the outcome sucks, that’s not really efficiency. Really, if that’s the best you can offer, you should go ahead and take your sweet time.
Look, the answer is that HUMANS DON’T YET HAVE A GOOD WAY TO ORGANIZE OURSELVES THAT DOESN’T INVOLVE THE ABUSE OF POWER, BUT THAT DOESN’T MEAN THAT THE PROJECT IS NOT WORTHY OF OUR EFFORTS. We just don’t yet have answers to the problem of how to move forward in a wholly constructive (not a destructive) way—and who cares? that’s part of the damn project. And anyone who says that we should magically know how to make up for that GIGANTIC GAPING HOLE IN THE HISTORY OF HUMAN CIVILIZATION after a single bleeding month spent in #occupy can just fuck off.
And while we’re on the topic, the same goes for anyone who wants to tell you that we haven’t figured out our demands fast enough. If, after arguably 90 goddamn years without a solid leftist politic in this country, we take our time to figure it out, I don’t feel bad about that. And if the worst thing you can say about consensus process is that it’s slow? take a damn chill pill, remove the mocha enema from your ass, and find someone to make out with until the debate is over. There’s worse fucking things in this world than taking the time that’s needed just to figure some shit out.
So, what I’m saying, if you’ll pardon my french, is fuck your timelines. I don’t remember being on your schedule.
“Still, Žižek was right. If the cops are being polite and the politicians are eager to make the protesters comfortable, it’s not because they’re nice. It’s because they’re not feeling sufficiently threatened. When several hundred protesters left the City Hall campsite last week, marched to a Bank of America branch on Figueroa, and refused to leave until tellers cashed a giant, Ed McMahon-style check for $653 billion made out to the people of California, the chumminess of our brothers in blue evaporated. Eleven people were arrested. The lesson was clear: The protests would be permitted, encouraged even, so long as the protesters didn’t try to actually do anything. It’s not a fight, in other words, unless you’re fighting. Otherwise, as one particularly intense young fellow put it to me on the City Hall steps last night, “We’re just fucking camping.” “
BEN EHRENREICH on Occupy L.A.
and JASPER BERNES, JOSHUA CLOVER, and ANNIE McCLANAHAN
on percentages, politics, and the police.
Good day, Fellow Occupiers!
First off, a hardy huzzah! to all our brothers and sisters in College Green Park and in all occupations around the globe! We had some rough weather in the last 24 hours and even more props for those who came through, stayed on, and came back!
I also want to let you know about our action on Saturday. We will be holding a Rally Against the Banks on Saturday the 15th from 10-11am on the Iowa City Ped Mall on the Corner of Washington and Dubuque in front of Wells Fargo and US Bank. Be there or be square!
OK. In the blog today I want to address issues of sponsorship and endorsement in #occupy. We have had a number of discussions about these issues and I am really happy with the outcomes so far, but these can be tricky issues so I wanted to document my thinking.
Again, this is just me and my thoughts; I’m not speaking for OIC, the GA, or the #Occupy movement in general.
We’ve had several questions about how to handle donations, sponsorships, endorsements, and statements of support at our occupation. It seems to me that the group is grateful for all donations, yet there has been some question about how to acknowledge donors. We have voted to display a piece of cardboard on which donors can write their names if they like. We also have a sign that says “Thank you, Donors!”
But aside from that, questions about displaying other organizations’ or businesses’ logos (for example) have been voted down in the interest of avoiding being co-opted or appearing to be sponsored by other groups. Donations made by political groups (excluding unions) and politicians have been banned outright unless an individual is willing to donate anonymously. We also affirmed in our GA a commitment to transparency in our donations.
I support these moves and I think they represent good attention to the dynamics of power that could overtake our movement. I have heard objections that this stance may make the movement seem stand-offish or too concerned with “ideological purity” or even that this stance doesn’t fit in with a standard quid pro quo, in-kind, non-profit development model. Most interesting to me is the objection that we should be seeking endorsements/sponsorships because those things will “give us legitimacy.”
I am not worried about these things and I would like to encourage you not to be worried about them either. And I don’t think, referring back to last night’s blog post, that this is a time when we should opt not to be nice to people. People who show us their support through donations are a vital part of our movement. People who help us, either because they support our cause or simply cannot physically be a part of the occupation help to keep us going and alive. I am grateful for them.
But I would urge my fellow occupiers to continue to think of the uneven power differential at play at all times in the #occupy movement. Taking on sponsors or endorsements may seem to add “legitimacy” but in the end it only provides us with borrowed power, not earned or taken power. In that situation, power can easily be taken away, or worse, our message can become drowned in the message of other groups.
That said, I am aware that there are groups and organizations and even businesses that are sympathetic to #occupy and want to show their support of us. So, even as I understand the importance of not allowing others to endorse or brand #occupy, I still believe that there is a way to publicly show support that will actually help #occupy, not co-opt it.
Simply put: My solution is a public statement of solidarity. Two ways to accomplish this are a statement to the press and a sign indicating solidarity placed in the window of the outside organization.
This solution upholds the core principles of free association with the movement as supporters are choosing to align themselves with #occupy, instead of expecting #occupy to act as mouth piece for their message and thus risk having #occupy’s budding politic drowned out.
I haven’t heard too much discussion about this issue from other #occupy groups, so this issue may seem small. But it is hard for me to believe that OIC is the only #occupy GA who is wrestling with issues of sponsorship, solidarity, and message/identity. That’s why I wanted to put this out there as a thought.
I also understand that many participants in #occupy may be used to working in a non-profit or public sector fundraising type model and may assume that in kind and quid pro quo and legitimacy are necessary and desirable outcomes for #occupy. If you find yourself in this camp, you may feel uncertain or impolite or worried about alienating potential donors if you don’t offer to display a logo or publish a list of endorsements.
To those of you who understand this concern, I gently say, “fear not.” #Occupy is a different type of animal than a non-profit and for good reason. When people want to help, we should respect the sincerity of their requests by letting them know what they can do that will actually help us, not hinder us. That is the best thing we can do for everyone involved and it can be done with kindness and, yes, even niceness.
And the time is ripe to be considering these questions. Over the last week, you have undoubtedly heard politicians of both stripes trying to piggyback on #occupy—and this at a point when the message of the movement is still young and unformed. Establishing good practices that maintain a space for us to develop our politic is good service to our goals and to our dissent. And establishing and upholding those practices with our local communities and neighbors is the best start that can be made to what is a global project.
Solidarity and strength in the fight!
In a previous blog post, I made a reference to the city’s response to Occupy Iowa City and the decision to not seek a permit for the occupation and, thereby, engage in civil disobedience.
The city scooped us in our quest for civil disobedience, however. The city attorney issued a statement on the morning of the day of the occupation saying that they recognized our ability to be in College Green under language in the city code allowing for emergent gatherings and saying that no permit was needed for us to occupy the park.
I want to take a moment to address this move and, in doing so, I would remind anyone who reads my words to understand that I am speaking for myself, based on my understanding and experiences, and that I’m not a representative for OIC, the general assembly, or the group. The things I say here are my own opinions and mine alone.
So here are my thoughts on this:
I know that there are many people in the group who were happy to hear that the city did not initially require OIC to have a permit to be in the park after hours. I am not one of them. I initially had a problem with the city’s move because it smacks of a paternalistic attitude of “noblesse oblige.” Simply stated, this is the idea that those who have nobility (power, wealth, privilege) have a duty to aid those who are, for lack of a better term, “less fortunate.”
So, why would I object to a sentiment like that in the middle of a movement like #occupy, that is coalescing around notions of inequitable distribution of wealth and power?
The answer is that I believe firmly that the essence of the power in people’s movements in general and in #occupy in particular is the willingness to engage in civil disobedience. When we gathered in College Green Park on Thursday, we stated that we were willing to put ourselves in the park after hours and risk arrest to make the point that we are serious about our dissatisfaction with the current state of affairs in the country. This is a position from which we have power. When the city turned around and said, “It’s ok, do what you want.” They attempted to usurp that power.
Suddenly, we aren’t occupying, we are there at the leisure of those who already hold power. And that is not the place of a people’s movement; that is the place of a pet.
On a visceral level, this bugs me because it betrays the paternalistic attitude of the city to what I am sure they assume will be an amusing camp out for college students and a precious diversion to childless hipsters who are living off unemployment. Their response reminds me of that of an indulgent parent who laughingly placates an adorably tired child by giving them the lollipop they insist on having NOW.
But my objections are deeper than that.
A common theme that gets echoed in OIC and in the press coverage of #occupy is that people are so glad something is finally happening. You often hear, “I’ve been waiting so long for something like this to happen!” This speaks to the fact that the willingness of the population to seek new solutions to the problem of inequity is still young and fragile.
Mobilization is hard because pointing out the inadequacy of the solutions that have been provided is hard. It requires courage and grit, not just to say something is wrong here, but to stand up and say, “the way the existing centers of power have been addressing (or not) these problems is wrong.” It requires even more courage and grit to be willing to go against authority in order to make that point—even if you only risk a ticket or a simple misdemeanor.
It is so hard and so scary to become mobilized that it is easy to look at a move like this from the city and say “whew! I sure am glad I can be out here and not risk arrest!” But that’s easy and that makes for playtime, not for civil disobedience.
Sitting at home is easy. Continuing to shut up and take it is easy. Watching the news and calling yourself an informed and right-thinking person is easy. And that’s why it’s ineffective. And that’s why doing just that hasn’t gotten us anywhere so far.
But a move like this by the city is a sweet little escape, for those who would take it, back into demobilization, back into complacency, back into apathy and isolation. And if we allow ourselves to be happy that the city has taken this stance, we not only risk demobilizing ourselves, we also risk being toyed with by the city at a later date.
Already, we are being approached and appealed to multiple fronts on grounds of “protecting the park” or “protecting ourselves” or “being polite” or “being reasonable” into considering making concessions and quid pro quo deals that will mire our statement, our occupation, our movement.
Niceness and propriety and protocol are tools that are used all the time to make sure that you and I stay at home, watch the TV, buy things that actualize our right-thinking lifestyle, put our cans in a recycling bin, and a million other things that distract us, leave us feeling smug and safe, and keep us from banding together to realize our goals.
Niceness is the language of power in polite society. And I would ask you to think of the ways that calls to niceness, propriety, and politeness have been used to limit and discourage you and people you care about:
Basically put, the language of niceness demobilizes us. We cannot afford to be nice or to assent to appeals for niceness from people and institutions (corporations, governments, or anything else) that have NO intention of being nice to us or playing nice with us.
The occupation in the park, on Wall Street, and every other city is viewed by those who have power as a problem that will be suffered graciously until it gets so big that it needs to be solved. And if you doubt this, consider the responses by forces in NYC, in Boston, in Des Moines, and the surveillance activities by police at OIC. By being part of #occupy, we have already said that we care enough to do something; we must not think for a minute that people who are in power now don’t understand that a possible outcome of that emotion is that they won’t be in power anymore. If you think that the powerful are ok with that, then ask why they haven’t divested themselves long before now.
I know that when some of you read this, you will find some, or perhaps all, of these ideas challenging. You may disagree with my distrust of police, or my cynicism regarding power and the city. You may think that I’m … not being nice.
You are right; I am not being nice.
But do not think for one second that it is impossible to be pleasant while still being uncooperative. (Sometimes, it is necessary to be BOTH unpleasant AND uncooperative, but I’ll deal with that later.) For now, just remember that you don’t have to say, “Fuck you, pig!” to a cop when all that’s required is, “I do not consent to a search.” And for my more radical brothers and sisters who read that sentiment with up-turned eyes, understand that it is important that the structure and essence of power be articulated and that the full range of options for resistance be outlined so that people will see that small steps of courage do as much as large ones when forging new ways of thinking, associating, and organizing. Indeed, every step anyone takes in service of civil disobedience feels like a large one, and every step taken in the past is likely to feel small by comparison.
And for those engage in civil disobedience and find themselves confronted with this issue of niceness (by family, friends, neighbors, city council people, police, etc.), I would suggest that you politely express that your sincere dissatisfaction with the current set of answers has left you with no other option. Patiently explain to them that the people who engage in a critique of niceness are inadvertently using the language of power to discourage others from mobilizing to realize their self-interest. And then feel free to pleasantly inquire of your conversant why they consider encouraging people to continue to get shat on by corporations and banks and political parties is such a vitally nice thing to do to people they care about.
