The Sound and the Fury: A Critique of Occupy Wall Street
AMBER FROST and RYAN BRILES
So, if you’ve been reading any alternative news outlet this week, you know about the Occupy Wall Street protest. In a nutshell, the protest is taking the form of an occupation nearby Zuccotti Park (since the police knew about the Facebook group they blocked off Wall Street) as well as various marches around the Financial District. It began on September 17th and the organizers plan on an indefinite stay. But, what is really going on down there? What are the demands? What are the guiding principles? And most importantly, is all of this sound and fury going to signify anything?
Well, let’s examine this, pro and con style.
Pro: The organizers want to develop demands in a democratic manner, via a general assembly. Con: It’s really hard to have a protest that doesn’t have a clear goal in mind. A general assembly of whoever happens to drift by is an unwieldy beast. Not to mention that the working class doesn’t have the time or resources to hang around in Lower Manhattan and dedicate their lives to assemblies. Saul Alinsky wrote that “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.” They know what they are against, but they can’t decide on what they’re for. Something simple like the reinstatement of the millionaire’s tax or Glass-Steagall, or something bigger like the nationalization of the banks would work.
Pro: They seem to have an idea of the intersectionality of the economic issues facing America. Here’s a working draft of their manifesto. Con: Pretty vague manifesto, huh? Also, adding every conceivable cause (environmentalism, anti-capital punishment, anti-war signs were all present) to an economic protest can easily distract from the main point if you don’t do it right. This is a common problem on the Left and can be fixed with one simple phrase: “Yes, that’s a really important issue, but we’re not talking about that now.” Because they’re not making a clear connection between these related issues, the multiplicity of them makes Occupy Wall Street look like a confusing sounding board for every sort of complaint about America. Yes, we know that marijuana legalization is related to capitalism, but to the casual observer it’s left field.
Pro: They seem really interested in fostering a social relationship between the protestors. This is great because comrades aren’t comrades without camaraderie. Con: Assuming there is a universal activist culture is alienating. Look, some people might really like Bob Marley sing-a-longs, drum circles, and group yoga, but to some of us, those things make you look like a privileged, white, upper middle class hippie going through an “activist” phase. For some of us, this struggle is our lives. We literally live it every single day and find this treatment of it to be trivializing.
Pro: They’re not afraid to get arrested. On September 24th, almost ninety of them were carted off by the police and some of them were beaten, tazered, and pepper sprayed. Case in point: Here. Con: They don’t know how to get arrested effectively. Initially, most people had no idea that the cops were looking to arrest them, or what kinds of actions were likely to lead to arrest. They also haven’t decided on a policy regarding interactions with the police. Some people goad them (shouting “fuck the pigs” and whatnot) and some ignore them. They have a table with legal information on it now, but there’s still no real consensus on how to interact with the law.
Pro: They’re willing to do something new and radical. Con: They think that they’re doing something new and radical. As we well know, there is nothing new under the sun, including democratic general assemblies. They appear to be falling headlong into pitfalls that labor activists and ‘60s and ‘70s radicals know well. A conversation with these seasoned veterans could have helped to avoid them. There is an element of newness to what is going on, but they aren’t reinventing the wheel here. The old cliché about being doomed to repeat history applies to this. The Left needs to use its resources. One of those resources is the wealth of experience.
So, once again, is this going anywhere? We’re not sure. If they can get some demands together (which some protestors are actively opposing), several big unions will pledge support. An increase in age and class diversity would do them well. In addition, the media blackout has swept the actions under the rug, but Saturday’s blatant police brutality has made headlines. There are some really committed people there and hopefully they can get some organization going. Right now they have the sound and the fury; they just need something to signify. We’ll be back out there with them, but probably not until next weekend. After all, we have to work.
I am happy to see that the authors have decided to offer a measured critique of the Occupy Wall Street actions. I find that I agree with most of the arguments and that, in general, the essay is written so as to affirm the efforts but also to locate some of the problems with those efforts. I found the arguments about the problems of activisty culture and building a sustainable majoritarian left to be especially convincing.
I suppose I wonder, however, if the authors would affirm any spontaneous political action whatsoever. There is a strong sense in which the essay seems to suggest that there is a distinction between rational and well-controlled “action” that is governed by some established political principle and the sort mass crowd “motion” that was so feared by the bourgeois social scientists of the 19th century. There is, in my view, no doubt a strong sense in which many modern revolutionary movements unfolded according to immanent principles that were given through the process of revolution itself.
To try and state this in a clearer manner, let me quote Staughton Lynd: “in the moments of revolution or near-revolution during the past century and a half we find that poor and working people did not conduct struggle through organizations already in existence when the crisis began…they acted through new institutions, created for the purpose at hand” (from a 2002 speech).
Now, to be clear, I’m not saying that the Occupy Wall Street stuff is inherently revolutionary but I am not willing to dismiss the revolutionary potential of spontaneous action altogether. I am also convinced that the Occupy Wall Street stuff, through admittedly problematic, (1) expresses a kind of refusal of the social organization of life according to capitalist command and (2) seeks in some sense to convert this expression of refusal into a positive political project.
Here is a quote from their manifest that seems indicative of this point:
“Today, we proudly remain in Liberty Square constituting ourselves as autonomous political beings engaged in non-violent civil disobedience and building solidarity based on mutual respect, acceptance, and love.”
In the same sense that the radical union folks sometimes argue that the union is the instrument and the microcosm of the world beyond capitalism, I think that all too often democratic socialists either posit the democratic party in the same role and/or find the alternative to the party in the type of social movement structures that were most prevalent in the period of the New Left.
I think the Occupy Wall Street folks are up to something different. What it is precisely, I am not sure… I haven’t studied it enough. Nor have I been there and experienced the process of evolution and becoming that is going on. Nevertheless, I’m not sure finger waging is as helpful as we might imagine it to be at this point. Instead, we might try to find points of articulation and resonance…capture some of the surplus of the energy of struggle and redirect it to our own capacities for organizing and occupation.
These are my initial thoughts. My thanks to the authors for the interesting article.
Solidarity,
Matt
PS for those who don’t know me, I am a former co-chair of YDS, out of the Arizona State U chapter.
YES
YES
YES
Matt May quoting Staughton Lynd: “in the moments of revolution or near-revolution during the past century and a half we find that poor and working people did not conduct struggle through organizations already in existence when the crisis began…they acted through new institutions, created for the purpose at hand”
Um…the Russian Revolution saw poor and working people conducting struggle through an organization already in existence…the Bolsheviks…rather significant oversight by Lynd…
I honestly did not know what to expect from these protests, and I can’t say that I expect it to become anything more than any of the other myriad attempts to “build the left wing tea party” that have transpired since 2009. The big problem with these protest movements in my opinion is not just a lack of organization, but an unwillingness to be critical of the shortcomings that come from a lack of organization, unified message, and continuing organization. Matt stated:
“I am also convinced that the Occupy Wall Street stuff, through admittedly problematic (1) expresses a kind of refusal of the social organization of life according to capitalist command and (2) seeks in some sense to convert this expression of refusal into a positive political project.”
I’m not sure what sort of “social organization…according to capitalist command” you are referring to. Organized political programs are in no way, shape or form a capitalist-exclusive thing. Compare “Today, we proudly remain in Liberty Square constituting ourselves as autonomous political beings engaged in non-violent civil disobedience and building solidarity based on mutual respect, acceptance, and love” to what is laid out in the Communist Manifesto (not my favorite book, but still a great example of an organized resistance and its philosophy): “It is high time that Communists should openly, in the face of the whole world, publish their views, their aims, their tendencies, and meet this nursery tale of the spectre of communism with a manifesto of the party itself.”
This is the self-esteem generation. I admit to being a part of it myself. We all are who were brought up post-1970s in many ways. But an unwillingness to conform to a program in the name of ambiguous self-expression isn’t serving a purpose. Look at Wisconsin this year. You had organizations. You had goals. You had means of achieving them.
Andrew,
I am wondering if you would clarify a point for me: are you saying that the problem in Wisconsin WAS that there was organization and goals, and means of achieving them? Or are you saying that the protests in Wisconsin are part of what you call the “self-esteem” generation and are mainly about self-expression? I admit that I was not able to understand your point here, and hence, couldn’t quite articulate a response to this part of your argument.
I also admit that I am not sure how the OWS Manifesto is different from the Commie Manifesto…at least according to your criteria. Is your problem that it isn’t explicitly ideological enough? Or is the issue that you find one or the other more or less rhetorically successful?
The part of your argument that I did understand, and respect, was this bit:
“The big problem with these protest movements in my opinion is not just a lack of organization, but an unwillingness to be critical of the shortcomings that come from a lack of organization, unified message, and continuing organization.”
I too find problems with a lack of reflection on organization. I think that an important part of building the left is having organizational presence and political relevance. Indeed I owe much of my own political consciousness to my involvement with YDS.
Yet the point I was trying to make, only as an initial point of departure for this conversation mind you, was that we can also theoretically posit the possibility that in the moment of revolutionary transition, indeed in making the “real movement that abolishes the present state of things” (one of Marx’s definitions of communism), collective formations or organizations can be fabricated by the participants to suite the moment at hand. Indeed, it seems to me that in some sense they must in order to prevent the irresponsible imitation of movements past (which Marx himself talks about in the 18th Brumaire).
So, while I appreciate your concern with organization, I suspect my concern is that you argument is in fact not concerned enough.
@Jason: yes, there are oversights in Lynd’s position…as you would probably admit, there are oversights in most positions…or else they wouldn’t be positions. There is a difference between, say, pointing out an oversight as a kind of “a ha, gotcha!” and pointing one out in the interest of moving the conversation forward. If you want to do the latter, we can talk. If the former, then I don’t think we have anything to talk about.
In my view, our exchanges, even on line, should reflect the kind of solidarity, that we say our politics are about.
“I am wondering if you would clarify a point for me: are you saying that the problem in Wisconsin WAS that there was organization and goals, and means of achieving them? Or are you saying that the protests in Wisconsin are part of what you call the “self-esteem” generation and are mainly about self-expression? I admit that I was not able to understand your point here, and hence, couldn’t quite articulate a response to this part of your argument.”
I’m not sure how it wasn’t clear. I said that Wisconsin “had organizations. You had goals. You had means of achieving them.” What is unclear about that? I was using it as a contrast in the same paragraph to this abstractness of OWS.
That statement, “Today, we proudly remain in Liberty Square constituting ourselves as autonomous political beings engaged in non-violent civil disobedience and building solidarity based on mutual respect, acceptance, and love,” seems to me, if it’s meant to be their version of the TCM quote I referenced above, an expression of ideals and not goals. What do we hope will come on engaging in these things? Love might be an inspiring ideal, but it’s not a political program, though I’m sure there are people who would insist so. I see it as feelings looking for a movement. As Jason S. alluded to, the spontaneous generation of organization from chaos is less common in successful movements than you think. Now, this could be the moment that allows for the formation of organization, but as Amber and Ryan mentioned, many people are actively fighting AGAINST that. Why, I’m not sure.
I have to admit, I’m not a romanticist when it comes to politics. When I think of successful protest movements I admire, they’re usually concrete reactions to oppression. The formation of the People’s (Populist) Party. Independence movements in the colonial world. Civil Rights. All could be seen as being organization born from chaos, but all formed around solid, ultimate goals.
What goals can we take to the non-activists out there? If we’re doing this for people like us, and not with the goal of ACTIVATING the apolitical but oppressed, the suburban and rural white bread middle and working class Joes and Janes as much as the urban poor and Global south, then we might as well just be having an activist reunion out there.
Furthermore, in the spirit of offering up something constructive, the idea has been raised that the program be something along the lines of FDR’s 2nd Bill of Rights. It’s broad enough that most of the left can unite under it, inspirational enough to the apolitical to garner support, and still provides a solid framework.
Of course, many of these protesters are apparently Ron Paul types, and in that case it’s going to be a harder task.
Just real quick, Andrew, it is curious to me that you purport to know what I think regarding the success of organization from chaos. I simply posited a theoretical possibility. Why the ad hominem?
BTW, I still have no idea what you’re talking about in relation to Madison.
Alan, I agree that there is some loose arguments around here that could lead down the path of the vanguard; but it is my understanding that most majoritarian leftists (indeed, such as Michael Harrington) would agree with you that the process is inseparable from the outcome. To hold these things separate seems to me like the claptrap of the guardians of the vanguard.
Madison had organizations (unions and sympathetic groups), goals (repeal of the controversial measures), and tactics (protest, then mobilization for the recalls). Is that clearer?
What of my previous statements did you take as ad-hominem? I’m talking about the protests and the organizers. If you took that personally, that’s not my fault.
No, you are still not making a point. Yes they had goals, organization, etc. So what? What does that have to do with your argument?
For some reason it’s not letting me reply to your last comment, Matt, so I’ll write it here.
My point is that these things will be needed to move forward successfully, much the same way that Madison did, to build a greater movement. A plan, a program (from a coalition, mind you, not some ridiculous vanguard) is begging to be put forward. I think they’re starting to get around to it, and I’m glad.
I’m not sure what I can do to make my beliefs any clearer.
I agree with this critique. The messaging in particular is way too diffuse.
I tried to fix that with a draft declaration:
http://tinyurl.com/3e49dl7
Who ever fixed the font on this article is a Jimmy or Janie Higgins.
I know you guys are biased against my views. However, I also know socialists purport to have at least a cursive support of diversity.
What I am really trying to convey is that sometimes the ideology each of us have so entrenches our world into a world of no ideas, just an ideology.
So, I thought you socialists need a time out to see what the diversified people are seeing in the ideology such as yours.
Please take time to enjoy this report about the Wall St. sit-in. You will come away refreshed and ready to renew your spirit.
Have a look ……. http://www.glennbeck.com/2011/09/27/the-best-progressive-fail-youve-ever-seen/
“Pro: The organizers want to develop demands in a democratic manner, via a general assembly. Con: It’s really hard to have a protest that doesn’t have a clear goal in mind.”
These claims are the meat of what’s seen as the good and the bad in the movement. But, critiquing it for being not being an effective protest misses the point. It’s not supposed to be a protest, it’s supposed to be an occupation and the beginning of a movement.
It seems like we’ve got anarchistic organizing going on and that there’s a concern over the lack of a vanguard keeping the movement disciplined and organized. (the arguments in the article are exactly the same arguments that I have with Lennists who support the idea of a vanguard).
Whatever the meta-demand will be, I think it better to come from a ‘messy’ democratic process than for it to be put forward by a couple of ‘professional’ organizers. This process is a radical break from how we do organizing, yes, but I believe that is exactly what is needed. Democratic processes ARE the alternative — and that’s what this is — and that’s what I don’t think people understand.
http://www.businessinsider.com/a-massive-union-just-voted-to-side-with-the-wall-street-protesters-2011-9
As i understand it, the makeup of the Egyptian Demonstrations were successful through the fruit of spontaneous unbridled contempt for a system that gives them only anger, pain and sorrow.
Let’s take it that the current situation in NYC is total contempt for this unbearable punishing system that brings us Perpetual War, suppression / repression/ codification/ manipulation by corporations who own our Government . The spontaneity i think we can all agree up on is, Yes, and, there wasn’t much planning.
Soon the Egyptian Demonstrations took on a life of their own.
Can we compare and contrast OWS and the Transitions in Tahrir Square > see: http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2011/01/201112515334871490.html Al-Jazeera’s timeline on the roughly 14 day events…
[excerpted] from that timeline: Robert Gibbs for the WH tells reporters that the government should “demonstrate its responsiveness to the people of Egypt” by recognizing their “universal rights”. Oh rrrrreally. Like the suppressed people, said enough is enough, and erupted without warning… i think we knew the despair the Egyptian people were under ~ Lying Executive Branch. (All that ‘plausible-deniability).
There are some other salient points that analyzing would help us to enhance the direction the Occupation, direction that is endeared not sold, to get those elusive fruits…
i think we should demand: Nationalizing the Energy Resources of America (all of them) and Nationalize BANKING. No more usury; it’s simply not necessary.
Nationalizing Energy will pay for Nationalizing Health Care and Transportation (not a big money maker anyhow) and Nationalizing Big AG {it may be a break up of land thru taxation?}
We should make solid, clear, concise bottom-line demands ~ this is Not a dress rehearsal. And let the chips fall where them may.
Will
Billings, MT
http://www.truth-out.org/five-ways-occupy-wall-street-has-succeeded/1317476360
I agree with this critique. In most ways this essay has verbalized my thoughts almost to the exact. If I could add, I believe it’s time for more of us DSA to take up leadership in this conundrum in order to develop some structure within the strike. I’ve noticed DSA in the strike though I think our voices need be more prevalent. This nation-wide strike is a diamond in the rough. We must cut it.