Five Things That #OccupyWallStreet Has Done Right
Mark Engler | 02.10.2011 06:14 | Other Press | Policing | Public sector cuts | World
#OccupyWallStreet protests are now well into their second week, and they are increasingly capturing the public spotlight. This is because, whatever limitations their occupation has, the protesters have done many things right.
I will admit that I was skeptical about the #OccupyWallStreet effort when it was getting started. My main concerns were the limited number of participants and the lack of coalition building. One of the things that was most exciting about the protests in Madison—and the global justice protests of old such as Seattle and A16—was that they brought together a wide range of constituencies, suggesting what a broad, inclusive progressive movement might look like. You had student activists and unaffiliated anarchists, sure; but you also had major institutional constituencies including the labor movement, environmentalists, faith-based organizations, and community groups. The solidarity was powerful. And, in the context of a broader coalition, the militancy, creativity, and artistic contributions of the autonomist factions made up for their lack of an organized membership base.
With #OccupyWallStreet the protest did not draw in any of the major institutional players on the left. Participants have come independently—mostly from anarchist and student activist circles—and turnout has been limited. Some of the higher estimates for the first day’s gathering suggest that a thousand people might have been there, and only a few hundred have been camping out.
That said, this relatively small group has been holding strong. As their message has gained traction—first in the alternative media, and then in mainstream news sources—they have drawn wider interest. On Tuesday night, Cornel West visited the occupied Zuccotti Park and spoke to an audience estimated at 2000. Rallies planned for later in the week will likely attract larger crowds. People will come because the occupation is now a hot story.
#OccupyWallStreet has accomplished a great deal in the past week and a half, with virtually no resources. The following are some of the things the participants have done that allowed what might have been a negligible and insignificant protest to achieve a remarkable level of success:
1. They chose the right target.
The #OccupyWallStreet protesters have been often criticized for not having clear demands. They endured a particularly annoying cheap shot from New York Times writer Ginia Bellafante, who (quoting a stockbroker sympathetically) resurrected the old canard that no one who uses an Apple computer can possibly say anything critical about capitalism. Such charges are as predictable as the tides. Media commentators love to condescend to protesters, and they endlessly recycle criticism of protests being naïve and unfocused.
I am among those who believe that the occupation would have benefited from having clearer demands at the outset—and that these would have been helpful in shaping the endgame that is to come. But protesters have largely overcome the lack of a particularly well-defined messaging strategy by doing something very important: choosing the right target.
Few institutions in our society are more in need of condemnation than the big banks and stockbrokers based where the critics are now camped. “Why are people protesting Wall Street?” For anyone who has lived through the recent economic collapse and the ongoing crises of foreclosure and unemployment, this question almost answers itself.
The protest’s initial call to action repeatedly stressed the need to get Wall Street money out of politics, demanding “Democracy not Corporatocracy.” Since then, many protesters have been emphasizing the idea that “We Are the 99 Percent” being screwed by the country’s wealthiest 1 percent. At Salon, Glenn Greenwald writes:
Does anyone really not know what the basic message is of this protest: that Wall Street is oozing corruption and criminality and its unrestrained political power—in the form of crony capitalism and ownership of political institutions—is destroying financial security for everyone else?
....So, yes, the people willing to engage in protests like these at the start may lack (or reject the need for) media strategies, organizational hierarchies, and messaging theories. But they’re among the very few people trying to channel widespread anger into activism rather than resignation, and thus deserve support and encouragement—and help—from anyone claiming to be sympathetic to their underlying message.
Notably, young protesters have been able to convey the idea that their generation, in particular, has been betrayed by our economy. This idea was picked up in remarkably hard-hitting commentary at MarketWatch.com, which reads like more like something you’d expect to find in the socialist press than on a business website:
[A]sk yourself how you might act if you were in school or fresh out of it or young and unemployed. What future has Wall Street, the heart and brain of our capitalist country, promised you? How does it feel to be the sons, daughters and grand kids of a “me” generation that’s run up the debt and run down the economy?
Unemployment is between 13% and 25% for people under 25. Student loans are defaulting at about 15% at a time when more young people have no alternative but to borrow to pay for school.
Meanwhile, Wall Street bonuses continue to be paid at close to all-time highs. Lloyd Blankfein, the chief executive of Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (NYSE:GS), took home $13.2 million last year, including a $3.2 million raise.
Such a message resonates with many, and protesters did something important to attract them:
2. They made a great poster.
I write this partially in jest. There is a joke among labor organizers that if you are spending all your time obsessing over the quality of your posters or handouts, rather than going out to actually talk to people, you are in big trouble.
In this case, however, there’s some truth to the idea that posters matter. When you’re not mobilizing an established organizational membership, but rather trying to capture the imagination of unaffiliated activists, protest planning is more akin to promoting a concert than staging a workplace strike. And if you’re doing that kind of promotion, how cool your call to arms is makes a difference.
#OccupyWallStreet has benefited from a series of great posters and promotional materials. Foremost among them is a lovely depiction of a ballerina dancing on top of Wall Street’s famous bull statue, created by the veteran leftist image-makers at Adbusters. The text below the bull reads simply: “#OccupyWallStreet. September 17th. Bring tent.”
The poster hinted that the event would be exciting and creative and audacious. It suggested that culture jamming and dissident art would be part of the adventure. And it pointed to another thing the protesters did right:
3. They gave their action time to build.
Most protests take place for one afternoon and then are finished. Had #OccupyWallStreet done the same, it would already have been forgotten.
Instead, planners told participants to get ready to camp out. The event operated on the premise that challenging Wall Street would take a while, and that things would build with time. In fact, this is exactly what has happened. It took a few days for alternative press sources to catch on, but now the occupation is a leading story at outlets such as Democracy Now.
The extended timeframe for the protest has allowed for the drama of direct action to deepen, which is my next point about the protesters:
4. They created a good scenario for conflict.
By claiming space in Zuccotti Park (also known as Liberty Plaza), #OccupyWallStreet set up an action scenario that has effectively created suspense and generated interest over time.
Participants there have invoked Tahrir Square. On the one hand, the comparison is silly, but on the other hand, the fact that occupations of public space have taken on a new significance in the past year is another thing that made #OccupyWallStreet a good idea. If the authorities allow them to continue camping out in lower Manhattan, the protesters can claim victory for their experiment in “liberated space.” Of course, everyone expects that police will eventually swoop in and clear the park. But, contrary to what some people think, civil disobedients have long known that arrests do not work against the movement. Rather, they illustrate that participants are willing to make real sacrifices to speak out against Wall Street’s evils.
The fact that police have used undue force (in one now-famous incident, pepper spraying women who were already detained in a mesh police pen and clearly doing nothing to resist arrest) only reinforces this message.
When will the police finally come and clear out the occupation’s encampment? We don’t know. And the very question creates further suspense and allows the protest to continue gaining momentum.
5. They are using their momentum to escalate.
Lastly, but probably most importantly, the #OccupyWallStreet effort is using its success at garnering attention in the past week and a half to go even bigger. Their action is creating offshoots, with solidarity protests (#OccupyBoston, #OccupyLA) now gathering in many other cities. Protesters in Liberty Plaza are encouraging more participants to join them. And they are preparing more people to risk arrest or other police reprisal.
It might seem obvious that a protest movement would treat a successful event as an occasion to escalate. But, in fact, it is quite rare. More established organizations are almost invariably afraid to do so: afraid of legal repercussions, afraid of the resources it would require to sustain involvement, afraid of bad press or other negative outcomes. Such timidity is anathema to strategies of nonviolent direct action.
In this respect, the fact that #OccupyWallStreet has not relied on established progressive organizations ends up being a strength. Its independent participants are inspired by the increasing attention their critique of Wall Street is getting, and they are willing to make greater sacrifices now that their action has begun to capture the public imagination.
This can only be regarded as a positive development. For the more that people in this country are talking about why outraged citizens would set up camp in the capital of our nation’s financial sector, the better off we will be. #OccupyWallStreet protesters have gotten that much right.
Mark Engler
Homepage:
http://dissentmagazine.org/atw.php?id=563
Comments
Hide the following 6 comments
radical non-violence
02.10.2011 19:46
schmoontherun
Just FYI
02.10.2011 20:58
I am slightly confused by what is meant by "unjust arrest". The whole point of Civil DISOBEDIENCE is that you are breaking some law or other. The people crossing the bridge who stayed on the pedestrian walkway weren't arrested. If what you are doing is perfectly legal then it isn't CD.
The demos are now making the news. There are often demos/actions going on in NYC and so until the last few days when this one grew in size it's being ignored about par for the course, not "suppression". You should note that one effect of the "CD" tactic is more likely to obtain more notice.
MDN
fuck off moral high ground scum
03.10.2011 10:24
The media control public opinion, not the other way round - if they want to trash the reputations of these people they will do it. For UK examples of this look at the G20 climate camp or the goldman sachs occupation. Both were entirely peaceful and caused no damage to the surroundings. They were occupations and nothing more, just like this was. But both were violently repressed by the cops, who then lied to the media who gladly trumpeted the cop line, painting anyone present at both demonstrations as black bloc, as scum, as violent, as opportunists out for a fight, as whatever. For both events they picked random people from the occupations, raided social networking sites for embarassing pics and back-stories and ran devastating smear stories.
There's only one reason the cops, the politicians and the media won't paste a campaign group / demo / occupation etc. That's if they're not scared of that group. There's all kinds of tactics to be deployed, all kinds of considerations to be made. But you're looking at a bunch of 700 people taking on the most sick and twisted power network the world has ever seen, and saying that when the stasi arrived to lock them up they were right to surrender.
Presumably you also think the people who showed up to demonstrate against the Iraq War in London that time were right to remain nonviolent? I mean, the only objective was to make sure the media printed favourable things about the demo right? I'm sure all those Iraqi children rotting in mass graves are really grateful for your nonviolent statement of condemnation. It really changed the world and saved millions of lives .... right?
What do you think would've happened if all of those people had instead armed themselves and gone to government buildings and military bases and actually brought the war home? Yes that was never going to happen. Yes it's unrealistic. Yes if anyone had tried that they'd still be in jail. There's any number of reasons why you wouldn't do it, but I challenge you to bring up one that shows me that a violent protest would've been WRONG or LESS EFFECTIVE. Considering the hundreds of thousands of civilians that were murdered because we failed to stop the war.
@
TWO things
03.10.2011 16:32
a) When protesting a war you need to ask WHY you are protesting the war. One possiblity is that you believe war is the worng way for us humans to settle our differences. Sorry, but in that case you just about can't use violence as counter to what you are trying to say. The other possibility is that you believe war is right but in this case you prefer to be a combatant on the other side.
No, they wouldn't (likely) still be in jail. Much more likely dead.
b) You can't understand why violent protest can't be less effective? You don't understand the difference between stratefy and tactics? These folks are having a hard enough time getting attention and other people to sympathize. You are under the strange impression that in THIS country they would get more favorable attention by being violent?
The problem with violence used as a tactic is that it changes the issues. No longer primary whatever it was that you were fighting for. Understand? If you are shooting at me I'm unlikely to give a damn about whether there is any merit to your cause. I'm going to shoot back until you are dead. This is the US, not your country. Over here much of the population has guns.
MDN
@ MDN
04.10.2011 15:59
"When protesting a war you need to ask WHY you are protesting the war. One possiblity is that you believe war is the worng way for us humans to settle our differences. Sorry, but in that case you just about can't use violence as counter to what you are trying to say."
So your mate's getting beaten up by someone with no justification. He's properly laying into your mate. Are you seriously saying you'd just go up and ask the guy to stop? And if he refused .... just walk away? What if it's a woman getting raped? Sorry but you're beyond reprehensible if you really think that personally avoiding committing violent acts whatever the cost is the courageous way to live your life.
Spurious examples? No - they tie in completely with the concept of self-defence - you don't actively seek war but when it comes you defend your patch of land / your family / your way of life etc. You don't have to like war or believe it's right. In this situation you'd probably be cursing the war more than anyone.
They also tie in with pragmatic action in pragmatic situations. What you're advocating is prioritising the moral high ground over hundreds of thousands of lives. Prioritising your personal comfort, that you can say you opposed the murders, over actually doing something to stop the murders. What if you oppose murder, and you're given the choice to murder one person, in doing so saving 100 people from being murdered. If you choose not to murder, you can dress it up a million different ways but you're ultimately choosing to preserve your sense of having lived a clean life, when you could've stopped 99 things you oppose if you're willing to get your own name a bit bloody.
I'm not talking about building a campaign, trying to be popular or any other number of aims we traditionally see. They're very useful tools at times, usually far more effective than just tooling up, and I don't believe that it's always time to mask up and smash the state, fuck no. But I believe that if you want to do everything you can to pragmatically oppose reduce and halt war wherever possible, there's plenty of times when that most pragmatic thing to do would be to promote and act upon a campaign of domestic sabotage.
You can take a stance in your head against war, fantastic. But until you're willing to face up to the reality of the world we live in and adapt your actions to suit that harsh reality, that stance will be nothing more than in your head. I didn't take up arms or anything like that, but I'd never try to glorify my position in peacefully opposing the war. I'd never be so unbelievably arrogant as to say I did ANYTHING to help those hundreds of thousands who lost their lives. Do you think our marches saved a single life?
"The other possibility is that you believe war is right but in this case you prefer to be a combatant on the other side."
I'm confused about what your point is here. But I think by presenting this and the 'moral highground' argument as the only two possible believe systems and courses of action, you're very deliberately ignoring a raft of other possible justifications, belief systems, contextual situations and courses of action. Please tell me you don't really believe those are the only two situations that exist / are relevant here?
You don't have to be a combatant on either side or completely silent - you know this but conveniently ignore it in making your point. How about this - you look at the world out there, you realise that to quietly sit on the sidelines and say you oppose war is a fantastic privilege not open to the vast majority of people affected by war (the soldiers who get economically and socially bullied - and in many cases conscripted - into joining up, the kids whose houses get shelled, the women who get raped, the list goes on). You realise that sitting on the sidelines sulking achieves absolutely nothing. You realise that war is an industry and that ALL people fighting on the ground are victims of the political/economic ruling class, and therefore joining one side and fighting this war would only play into that industry, would only escalate the conflict that makes rich people richer and poor people deader. If your aim is pure and simple to stop the war as quickly and painlessly (to the real victims here) as possible, joining either side achieves nothing, demonstrating peacefully and being ignored achieves nothing, but smashing the state, desecrating the avenues of the rich, and forcing the ruling class to personally deal with the pain and suffering that it is their job to export onto foreign lands - that is effective. If every war waged were met, at its onset, by a huge wave of domestic activities designed to cause as much economic hurt as possible to the war-wagers and their cronies, declaring war would be monumentally more difficult. The social instability would make sending all your toughest recruits over the other side of the world lunacy. Again these are unrealistic ideals, but as I'll come to in a bit, you weren't talking practicalities, you were trying to launch a generalised assault on violent protest (disguised as a comment on one situation), so it's entirely reasonable to consider every situation, every possibility.
"You can't understand why violent protest can't be less effective? You don't understand the difference between stratefy and tactics? These folks are having a hard enough time getting attention and other people to sympathize. You are under the strange impression that in THIS country they would get more favorable attention by being violent?
The problem with violence used as a tactic is that it changes the issues. No longer primary whatever it was that you were fighting for. Understand? If you are shooting at me I'm unlikely to give a damn about whether there is any merit to your cause. I'm going to shoot back until you are dead. This is the US, not your country. Over here much of the population has guns."
Clearly you didn't actually bother to read what I wrote. "There's all kinds of tactics to be deployed, all kinds of considerations to be made. But you're looking at a bunch of 700 people taking on the most sick and twisted power network the world has ever seen, and saying that when the stasi arrived to lock them up they were right to surrender." Let me be absolutely clear - it's not me being judgemental here. I'm trying to leave this open to situations and tactics. It's you who claimed they only had one 'right' option open to them, and not because of the situation but because it's supposedly always wrong to fight back.
You tried to dress your claims up as tactical nuances. But you point out that the protesters had every reason and the ability to use force to their advantage, and yet you hail their so-called heroism for not doing so, pointing out some tactical advantages to non-violence that I accept to a degree, such as the greater likelihood of favourable media coverage. I wouldn't necessarily call it heroism, but I would say that in the balance of things I'm happy to accept that that was probably the tactically best thing to do - it's a campaign that is growing rapidly and while the media will smear it very soon (if they haven't already) unless the campaign fizzles out very quickly, every day of favourable coverage you can grab will help the campaign to grow.
In contrast you described black bloc 'antics', called them 'idiots', 'scumbags' and 'traitors', and suggested they're state agents. You tried to subtly turn this one event, where I am more than happy to accept that the people involved made their decisions for a myriad of tactical and personal reasons and I respect that, into a generalised attack on violent tactics. This trick is as old as the hills - you give one piece of evidence (ie not nearly enough to justify a rule), then skip the bit where you give lots of other evidence and justify generalising isolated examples into rules, and just go straight to calling it a rule.
As such the onus is not on me to prove that violent protest is always the most effective, the most right, the most whatever. If you bother to read what I've said (and please, this time, do) you'll see I've never made any of those claims. The onus is on your to show me that there is no such thing as tactical or strategic violence. That's what you've claimed. So once again, I don't have to go into details about YOUR COUNTRY or THIS SITUATION or any other of that stuff you're trying to use to derail the argument. There are times, even if those times are very rare, when violence is fundamentally both justified and the most effective course of action. Show me I'm wrong.
@
A less optimistic view
07.10.2011 10:26
lynx
Homepage: http://jacobinmag.com/blog/?p=1663