The Occupied Turn Occupiers

---

By David Swanson,warisacrime.org

 

In a recent debate, Congressperson Ron Paul claimed the U.S. military had troops in 130 countries. The St. Petersburg Times looked into whether such an outrage could be true and was obliged to report that the number was actually 148 countries. However, if you watch NFL football games, you hear the announcers thank members of the U.S. military for watching from 177 countries. What gives?

 

We are supposed to be proud of the U.S. empire, but to reject any accusation of having an empire. We are supposed to be proud of the U.S. empire, but to reject with high dudgeon any accusation of having an empire. Abroad, this conversation makes even less sense, because those troops and their bases are in everyone’s faces.

 

As President Obama encircles Russia with missile bases and China with naval bases, the people who live or used to live where the bases are built resent the occupation, just as the people of Iraq and Afghanistan resent the occupation. A global movement against U.S. military bases is rising from all corners of the empire. But so is a movement against the occupation of Der Homeland by an unrepresentative and unrepresenting police state.

 

 A large majority of us want the rich and the corporations taxed heavily, but they are not. We want the wars ended, the troops brought home, and military spending cut. None of this happens. Nor do the outcomes of elections impact the likelihood of any of these things happening. We want to keep and strengthen Social Security. We want Medicare protected and expanded to cover us all. We want rights enlarged for humans and curtailed for corporations. We want to cut off the corporate welfare and the bank bailouts. We want to invest in infrastructure, green energy, and education. We want the right to organize and assemble. We want a clean system that allows public pressure through ordinary means: publicly-funded elections, verifiable vote counting, no gerrymanders, no media and ballot barriers to candidates. None of this is forthcoming. We are paying taxation and receiving no representation.

 

What could make change possible is the process of reversal now underway through which the occupied are becoming the occupiers. This is how it starts. There is no other moral option than nonviolent resistance. There is no other possible outcome than success. That’s the beauty of ending an empire; victory is guaranteed sooner or later by the inevitability of imperial collapse.  

 

---

Occupy Wall Street:
The Most Important Thing in the World Now

By Naomi Klein, www.thenation.com

---

One of the speakers at the labor support rally for Occupy Wall Street said: “We found each other.” That sentiment captures the beauty of what is being created here [in New York]—a wide open space (as well as an idea so big it can’t be contained) for all the people who want a better world to find each other.

 

If there is one thing I know, it is that the 1 percent loves a crisis. When people are desperate and no one seems to know what to do, that is the ideal time to push through their wish list of pro-corporate policies, thereby getting rid of the last constraints on corporate power.

 

There is only one thing that can block this tactic and, fortunately, it’s a very big thing—the 99 percent. And that 99 percent is taking to the streets from Madison to Madrid to say, “No. We will not pay for your crisis.” That slogan began in Italy in 2008. It ricocheted to Greece and France and Ireland and finally made its way to where the crisis began.

 

“Why are they protesting?” ask the baffled pundits on TV. Meanwhile, the rest of the world asks: “What took you so long? We’ve been wondering when you were going to show up.” And most of all: “Welcome.”

 

Many people have drawn parallels between Occupy Wall Street and the anti-globalization protests in Seattle in 1999. That was the last time a global, youth-led, decentralized movement took direct aim at corporate power. And I am proud to have been part of what we called “the movement of movements.”

 

But there are important differences. For instance, we chose summits as our targets: the World Trade Organization, the International Monetary Fund, the G8. These are transient by their nature, they only last a week. That made us transient, too. Occupy Wall Street, on the other hand, has chosen a fixed target. And it has put no end date on its presence here.

 

But the biggest difference a decade makes is that in 1999 we were taking on capitalism at the peak of a frenzied economic boom. Unemployment was low, stock portfolios were bulging. The media was drunk on easy money. Back then it was all about start- ups, not shutdowns.

 

Ten years later, it seems there aren’t any more rich countries. Just a whole lot of people who got rich looting the public wealth and exhausting natural resources around the world. The task of our time is to turn this around: to challenge this false scarcity. To insist that we can afford to build a decent, inclusive society, while at the same time, respecting the real limits to what the earth can take.

 

This time our movement cannot get distracted, divided, burned out, or swept away by events. This time we have to succeed. And I’m not talking about regulating the banks and increasing taxes on the rich, though that’s important. I am talking about changing the underlying values that govern our society. That’s hard to fit into a single media-friendly demand and it’s also hard to figure out how to do it. But it is no less urgent for being difficult.

 

As this movement grows from strength to strength, always be aware that there will be a temptation to shift to smaller targets—like, say, the person sitting next to you at this meeting. After all, that is a battle that’s easier to win. Don’t give in to the temptation. I’m not saying don’t call each other on shit. But this time, let’s treat each other as if we plan to work side by side in struggle for many, many years to come. Because the task before will demand nothing less. Let’s treat this beautiful movement as if it is most important thing in the world. Because it is. It really is.

 

---

What Remains: The Wall Street Occupation

By Karen Malpede, www.theaterthreecollaborative.org

---

I’m standing with Medea Benjamin (founder of Code Pink), and Ynestra King, who organized the two women’s marches on the Pentagon in the early 1980s, as well as the first eco-feminist conference, Women and Life on Earth, in 1980. Ahmad and Ann Shirazi (he, Iranian, she of Jewish descent, veterans of many antiwar, and free Palestine marches)  are also here with us. A few hundred feet away the core members of Occupy Wall Street are in the midst of their 15th General Meeting since their occupation began eight days ago.

 

I’m reminded of Em Jo Basshe, a progressive playwright who wrote an epic play about Jewish immigrants in the lower east side called The Centuries. His play was produced in 1927 by the anarchist New Playwrights Theater, a collective whose members included John Howard Lawson and John Dos Passos. Basshe later went to Hollywood to write films and then was blacklisted. He spent the final 20 years of his life in a depressive stupor on his living room couch. His wife told me he “sat up” when the Free Speech Movement erupted in Berkeley in 1964. Basshe was magically restored. The New Left had risen from the ashes of the Old. And then Basshe was content to die.

 

So in our small group we are speaking about the young. Behind us, the General Meeting grinds on. They are using a “people’s microphone” in the plaza where no sound equipment is allowed. A speaker says three words, which a core among the crowd repeats so the rest of us can hear. Everything takes twice as long. But we are happy in our little group of veteran protesters, though we lack the patience of the young for this General Assembly and its endless community-minded minutia.

 

Our New Left devolved into Weatherman fantasies of violent revolution, yet what remains 40 years later are these newly committed pacifists, reminding each other in their General Assembly to take vitamins, stay hydrated, and recycle.

 

They are gentle, non-hierarchical, non-doctrinaire, completely committed to non-violence. There are egos to be seen, but so far there are no fights for dominance, no purges, no betrayals. They paint signs with individualistic, often witty, always acute and encompassing sayings: “If you lost your house, Wall Street stole it from you.” And they have a bucket collecting money for their “adopt a puppy fund.” Yesterday, a score of them were brutally beaten and maced by New York City cops as they walked up Fifth Ave. obstructing traffic without a permit. Today, they speak of a committee that is reaching out to local businesses to establish good working relationships.

 

They say that Wall Street workers are coming surreptitiously to support them with funds. Free pizzas are being delivered. After the General Assembly, if it ever ends, there will be a collective meal.

 

I say to Ynestra, “Everything we fought for is here, now, today.” The antimilitarism, the nonviolence, the feminism—so accepted you simply see young men and women working together as equals without a second thought—the anti-capitalist, pro-democratic socialist analysis, the anarchism, their concern for nature, animals, for the immediate ecology of this place and the larger implications for the planet.

 

So, I feel like Em Jo Basshe, woken from a long dark sleep by the sudden emergence of these committed, radical young. I wonder that they seem to have adopted as given the lessons we struggled so often with such acrimony to learn ourselves. I marvel that from all our madness, they seem to have kept the good parts. A gentle strength pervades their occupation. “They are so sweet,” we say to one another standing in our elders’ tiny circle. “Where did they come from?” How, without a draft, did they get here, so resolutely antiwar?

 

Well, there are no jobs. They target Wall St. because, of course, it is the brutality of unchecked, late free-market capitalist economy, brought even lower by the wars that mar their future. And they carry in the marrow of their bones an Old Left, a New Left, and whatever they have yet made of this, their idealistic youthful energetic wish to change the world: a New New Left.

 

A newer left. At last. Rise from your stupor, your cynicism, your despair, as Basshe did, sit up and join them there. They are our legacy, our children, and they are very much themselves. 

 

---

How Occupy Wall Street Is Evolving and Gaining Power

By Mark Engler, www.dissentmagazine.org

---

Now after many weeks, the protest movement not only continues to grow, it is maturing and becoming stronger in impressive ways. What started as a few hundred independent activists gathering for a protest on Wall Street—and a few dozen having the resolve to extend their demonstration by camping out in Manhattan’s financial district—has become something much bigger. It has become the embodiment of longstanding progressive hopes that Americans who have been hit hard by the economic crisis would finally get mad enough to publicly vent their outrage.

 

The movement is rapidly spreading to cities around the country and it has progressed in some very promising respects. Here are three:

 

1. The demand problem has been solved. Throughout the first few weeks of the action, the question of whether Occupy Wall Street had clear enough demands was constantly raised, both by progressive commentators and in the mainstream media coverage the mobilization was receiving. This issue has ceased to be a serious problem because, as the protests have grown, their central focus has become significantly more defined.

 

During the first week, there was a real problem. If several of the protesters were Ron Paul libertarians or were obsessed with eliminating the Federal Reserve, another few were 9/11 conspiracy theorists, and several others, when asked by reporters, responded by saying, “We don’t believe in demands,” you ended up with a bona fide messaging crisis. But that is no longer the situation. The mobilization has now drawn thousands of people who have rallied behind the call of “We Are the 99 Percent.” MoveOn.org summed it up this way: “What do the protesters want? A solution to the jobs crisis, corporate money out of politics, fairer tax rates, and policies that work for 99 percent of Americans instead of the 1 percent at the top.”

 

Protesters do not need to hash out exactly what percentage the capital gains tax rate should be or precisely how many millions of dollars in student debt should be forgiven, in order for them to have an impact.

 

2. The occupation has drawn together an amazing coalition. When it started, Occupy Wall Street was made up of students and independent activists who responded to a call to action that was initially put out by Adbusters, but with limited institutional backing. The major organized constituencies of the left—unions, community groups, environmentalists, faith-based organizations, and the like—were not part of the mobilization. This was a problem, suggesting that the protests might not have significant reach and would have limited resources.

 

Yet, as the actions have gained momentum, the institutional groups have come. Nationally, all sorts have flocked to support Occupy Wall Street. In New York City, major unions have declared their support and a veritable who’s who of labor and community organizations are marching to the financial district to show their solidarity. 

 

3. The movement is becoming an umbrella for economic justice causes nationwide. As the movement spreads nationwide, Occupy Wall Street is becoming a unifying umbrella under which people outraged about corporate greed can get involved in supporting any number of ongoing efforts to create living-wage jobs, end foreclosures and predatory lending practices, hold banks accountable, get corporate money out of politics, and otherwise promote economic justice and genuine democracy.

 

In Boston, community groups doing anti-foreclosure actions at Bank of America were able to merge their efforts with Occupy Boston demands. Likewise, Occupy LA joined with the United Teachers in a bank protest during one of its first days in existence. Organizers who have been working on anti-corporate campaigns for months or years now are starting to benefit from the new energy—and new media attention—afforded by a movement that is now seen as a national phenomenon. Occupy Wall Street, in turn, benefits whenever greater numbers of local drives identify with their overarching efforts.

 

The potential for expanding this type of solidarity is great and it is likely that more groups will be linking up their campaigns in the days and weeks to come. 

 

---

In Praise of Occupy Wall Street

By Paul Street, www.zcomm.org

---

I’ve been to the New York financial district’s Zucotti Park twice. I’ve marched with and attended a General Assembly meeting of Occupy Chicago. And I’ve spent some time with Iowa City’s version of Occupy Iowa, which is camped out three blocks from my house. I’m not too impressed with all the criticisms. Don’t get me wrong. I’m a technically middle-class, middle-aged, and over-educated left Marxist who has probably read a few hundred too many books for my own good.

 

Do I wish I’d met more tough- minded critics of the profit system than I have on my journeys into the Occupy Wall Street (OWS) movement and its different regional offshoots? Sure. Was I disappointed to meet a young starry-eyed New York protestor who thinks capitalism can and should be saved in a “more humanized form” and another protestor who had good things to say about the racist libertarian Ron Paul? Yes. Do I wish I’d seen more folks from the most truly disadvantaged, working and lower class, and non-white communities? Okay, Yeah.

 

On the other hand, there’s much to be said for the movement’s distinctly fluid, diverse, non-doctrinaire, and even eclectic ideological character. That sort of free- flowing diversity and eclecticism is characteristic of protest movements that possess a genuinely grassroots and popular character. This is not the fake-populist “Tea Party,” where all the supposedly “grassroots” and “anti-establishment” messages come in the form of five or six canned grievances and demands cooked up in the propaganda shops of hard-right Republican elites.

 

OWS is also not a front for the Democratic Party. I haven’t met a single occupier who thinks that Barack Obama is anything other than another political tool of the moneyed class. When I told one New York occupier dressed up as a greedy billionaire that I’d seen similarly clad street thespians protesting the anti-union policies of Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker in Madison, he was quick to make a critical distinction. “The Wisconsin thing was shut down out of subordination to the Democratic Party and the union bosses,” he said. “They got co- opted. This is different. It’s about the whole system, which is run by and for the rich whether they’ve got Republicans or Democrats out front.”

 

The movement they have sparked is something that holds basic and elemental meaning for millions. It’s about the authoritarian control of economy, society, and politics by the super-rich and the deadly consequences of that control for democracy, community, social justice, livable ecology, and more. This is something that ordinary working class Americans understand very well. 

 

---

Occupy This, Demand That

By Michael Albert, www.zcommunications

---

I am just back from a short trip to Lexington, Kentucky. I had a speaking engagement there, invited by groups that work to mitigate the pain and hardship of poverty and the economic crisis. Some of the people were grass-roots activists. The high point of the trip was hearing from folks working on Occupy Lexington Occupy Louisville. They had many questions on the problems that arise in such endeavors. But the main thing for me was their energy, desire, focus, and their awareness that what is needed is longevity. Kentucky? There is something happening here, there, and, increasingly, everywhere. 

 

Two things kept recurring in those discussions and in some emails I have been getting from Greece and Spain. One concern involves demands. What do we want, now? The second concern is about occupation per se. How long does it make sense to bring people to some central location, as in the Wall Street occupation?  

 

Diverse thoughts are percolating on what to occupy not only in Wall Street and the now hundreds of other occupations emerging around the U.S., but also in Spain and Greece, too, where they are much further along in the process. The inclination emerging is clear: let’s keep the city square as an occupied zone, but let’s diversify. For example, why not have occupations in parts of our cities? Why not have occupations in our neighborhoods. And much more to the point, why not have assemblies in our neighborhoods? 

 

So, what if once a week, or on whatever schedule turns out to make sense, everyone assembles citywide, but afterward, most of those folks return to their neighborhoods and work to create venues of discussion, resistance, and governance with their neighbors. In other words, why not start creating feeder occupations? The benefits are twofold. It is a whole lot of work, but it is work that incorporates more people and that, of course, is what’s needed. If this approach proves popular, once there are local occupations and assemblies, way more people can attend and, when they get together, they can arrive at plans for their locale that are manageable and that can be implemented largely by their own efforts. The project then starts to be about taking over parts of society, not just a square in a city.  

 

From what I have heard, this is where things are headed in Spain and, perhaps, Greece too.

 

Coming up with demands can be done too fast, but it can also be done too slowly. At some point, coherence includes some degree of clarity, not least so people know what they are getting into. But it is also so people can start raising costs for elites. True, demands in one city may not be what they are in another or even in one neighborhood so a full program is not something that spans a state, much less the U.S. On the other hand, aren’t there a few demands that do make sense throughout an entire occupation movement? Of course. In fact, anyone at the various occupations could make a fairly long list of worthy demands. So how does one pick? Well, a good demand resonates and educates. It would raise awareness, generate excitement, and create a context for seeking much more. 

 

So what is making people angry? Based on hearing from folks in many places, there are three main things. First, the economy—in particular budget cuts and unemployment. Second, the media that sucks the life out of reality to deliver pap, fear, and empty jargon. Third, war. It is good for less than nothing. Others might have a different list, maybe better, and that’s what the assemblies are for: to talk about it, think about it, and find what resonates, not just with those who have already turned out, but also with those who are not yet involved. Remember that for a list to serve the whole occupation movement it doesn’t need to address everything because each city, region, and neighborhood will add its own local features to its local agenda. What is needed for the whole is a really good (not perfect) short list that inspires and informs.

 

How about, then, two demands for the economy: fair and full employment and budget humanization. Suppose demand is 25 percent below what output would be if everyone was working. One option to make labor match demand is for 25 percent not to work. That is fixing the crisis in a way that weakens working people and the poor. Another option would be that everyone works, but for only three-quarters as long as folks were working before. In this way output matches demand, but with full employment.

 

However, there is a problem. If working people suddenly work a quarter less and they keep the same hourly wage, then they earn a quarter less than before. That would be pretty horrible. Okay, instead, everyone works three-quarters of the usual duration, but for full wages, which means for one-third more per hour.

 

Except, those who were earning a whole lot already, let’s say $100,000 a year or more, don’t need to get, nor do they deserve, an hourly raise. So they work a fourth less hours and they get a fourth less pay (so their hourly pay rate is unchanged). Now we have full employment and fairer work because it is more justly remunerated, albeit not perfectly, yet.

 

When the economy picks back up, working people are stronger, not weaker, because they are all employed. So who loses? Well, the top 20 percent in income work less and get less, which is hard to call losing, considering their high incomes. The top 2 percent still profits, but quite a bit less because they are paying all that extra in wages relative to output. It all moves in the right direction and paves the way to move further. Working people get more leisure. People who deserve it due to being underpaid get more income per hour and also become more powerful. Owners lose income and power. This is a way to get out of a crisis while improving the lot of those who deserve improvement.

 

What about the budget? Everyone knows what to do. Move some large percentage that is now spent on war and the military to socially beneficial uses, like education, health care, housing, and infrastructure. This is materially good and empowering for those in need, and it is good for cutting back the war machine.

 

Here is an idea. We have a whole lot of largely young people in the military. We don’t call them unemployed, but there is a very real sense in which they are because their product is more harmful than it is beneficial. So cutting back the military by half—or more—includes an issue regarding lots of military bases. What are they to do? How about social projects? How about literacy campaigns? How about building low income housing, fixing leaks in homes, fixing infrastructure, putting up solar panels? (In fact, the first recipients of all this could be the soldiers doing the building.) You know all those ads about join the Marines, learn a skill. Let’s make it, learn a skill that is worthy of you—and not how to kill.

 

How about a media campaign called, perhaps, Press the Press, which demands that every newspaper—from small town outlets to the Washington Post and New York Times; from every radio station to every TV station—all have to initiate a labor section, which covers the situation and especially the desires and actions of workers on behalf of working people. More, the board in charge of the labor section is elected from the workforce in the relevant communities and the structure of decision making and payments for the workers in the labor section are what they, not the owners of the paper or TV station, decide—with the section’s overall budget the same as that of the sports or financial sections.

 

Okay, I admit, I am winging it. And I am not even going to try to polish the above—supposing I even could. There is no need to do that. As the movement grows, participants will have no trouble making a list like this. My main message is that, as with thinking about possibly moving toward more local occupations that could begin governing neighborhoods, thinking about having a short list of instructive demands is some-thing worth considering.

Z

---

The complete text of the articles appearing here is available online.