Charlie showed me an article about the currently ongoing "Occupy Wall Street" movement in the New York Times today.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/25/nyregion/protesters-are-gunning-for-wall-street-with-faulty-aim.html?_r=1
While writing a response, I happened to begin thinking about how I felt towards the movement, regarding its strengths and weaknesses, and what we could continue doing. Here is what I came up with.
---------------------------------------------------------
The article by New York Times correspondent by Ginia Bellafante takes a discouraging perspective that doesn't really acknowledge how hard it is to conduct theory in practice, especially when people are trying to think through the very issues the writer criticizes them of not being familiar of. Please, give a good, hearty laugh when the author mentions "Intellectual Vaccum". It is easily observable that on Occupywallstreet's official website, there are a list of demands. The organizers decided that instead of presenting them as their goals, a common slogan/objective would allow more contingencies for action, and gather a larger crowd.
On the first day, Saturday September 18th, it would take someone of extreme ideological tilt to declare that there was a shortage of conversation and intellectual vitality: people's assemblies and discussion groups were happening all the time. Now, I believe the assemblies could have been more effective if they had better audio equipment and a media relay unit going back and forth between all groups, but real democratic processes with a multitude of voices were occurring; they are time consuming and can be quite messy.
The article is also quite contemptuous and dishonest. Notice how the writer cites the individuals holding banners, the woman in underwear as if they came straight out of a freak show; and most distasteful, is the haughty quote from a snug trader that concludes the piece. Of course the kids know Apple is a fucking monopoly, but you just can't get away from buying shit in a capitalist system. It's not something one should use as an argument against one's opponents: not everyone is an engineer or tech wiz who can build their own computers, either. Implicit in that citation, I think, is a very classical "you're against capitalism (substitute this for Wall St, Big Business, Corporations etc.), but why do you buy xxx?" sort of attitude.
However, I think the article is correct in identifying - but also twisting and trivializing - the movement's mostly left-leaning college-student middle-class base, and a particular protest lingo that is unfamiliar to those who aren't in the know. For example, "creative rebellion", "carnivalesque protest", "use of internet memes" etc. We didn't have many members from the working class in our tow; the largest working class population present one Saturday ago were probably the NYPD officers. If we aim to eventually be able to mobilize the workers in the nearby Pizzeria and the McDonald's across the street, and if the message seems muddy and cluttered (or if it is being distorted or downplayed by mainstream media like this), then we need strategies that can hone our focus. Communicative tactics that do not sacrifice the multiplicity of issues that are being discussed.
Similarly, one doesn't have to grant the movement a "make or break moment" or "event" kind of status. Unrealistic expectations sap our mental energies when disappointment is met; it can also make us psychically over-invest in the activities while creating a psuedo-catharthic outlet effect that leaves us too satisfied and drained. Political dissent shouldn't be orgasmic, ending in climaxes. It should be intensive and prolonged, where anger, pleasure and reflection flows steadily and in accumulation. If the momentum doesn't carry, perhaps it's time to pause, take a brief respite, think, re-strategize and then regroup on those motherfuckers; maybe back in Wall Street, maybe just locally.
Darwin
