It's been a while since my last post, I've been distracted by too many things and trying to spend time doing something that might eventually make some money. For many of us, it's not that we have so little to do that activism sounds fun. But when you have so much to do and so little to work with you turn to activism as your only hope to break the vicious cycle, to change the system before it completely breaks you. When occupy began there were already a great number of people falling below the poverty line, so many lost their homes in the recent crash and leading up to that time that many people simply had no where else to go.
Of course it began in NYC but this wasn't the true face of the movement, nor was it the heart nor the brain. It was more like center stage, and those in the spotlight were the actors portraying the movement the way actors do, passionately but somehow more beautiful. I don't mean to take away from the powerful and authentic experiences people took part in, I merely want to show that even NYC was playing a part in a larger movement that it couldn't possibly represent completely or accurately for many reasons. Nor should it represent the whole without regard for the unique concerns of those present, which is why each group took on it's own unique identity usually combining the word "occupy" with a specific regional distinction.
In the same way that many people can't afford to march on Washington DC for any cause simply due to the cost of travel and time off work, most people couldn't afford the ticket to NYC to actually occupy Wall St. We used our cyber connections so that one's voice could be heard from coast to coast and beyond, the people were speaking and listening. Somehow, quite naturally, as we formed these regional groups we were able to address all of the important issues of our lives, from the micro neighborhood concerns to the macro level of international politics and multinational entities. Though our independent identities could have easily led to a chaotic and disjointed movement, policies and practices aligned as if we were all guided by the same compass. How was this possible? With no leaders we are told we will all spin in endless circles for eternity, without powerful wealthy people showing us just how good it is to be on top, how will we know what to aim for?
Though the movement had a very left/liberal/radical undertone, it attracted many curious people who had other, or no affiliations whatsoever. What they found was a conversation that didn't sound anything like the debates on TV, in which one group is usually singled out for scorn and blame. Well, except perhaps those we began to affectionately refer to as the 1%. And save the occasional "Eat the Rich" sign, there was even a surprising level of respect granted to this singled out group of people. But the spaces opened up for dialog was not the result of finding a target to blame our common problems on, but in the realization that the vast majority of people on this planet, if we can find no other way to identify with one another in a state of true solidarity, we are the 99% When we hear statistics that tell us that 1% of the world population owns half of the worlds wealth, it's pretty clear which side of that line you're on.
We all know that most statistics are complete bullshit, or should I say 99% of all statistics are bullshit? Even the best checked stats can't be completely true, and may be completely false for all we know. The two most common percentiles used in rhetoric are "50%" and "99%" because it sounds better than using the words "half" and "most" over and over. Numbers just sound more logical, even if you're using them to make fallacious statements designed to trigger emotional responses. Most Americans are bombarded with misleading media all day everyday assuring them that the world is fairly evenly split between left and right, liberal and conservative, rich and poor, you name it. When it suits a certain group to portray themselves as outnumbered they use the corresponding rhetoric, but for the most part we're divided but not emboldened by our numbers.
What does any of this have to do with occupy? Not much. "Occupy" refers to the tactic of occupation of public spaces and sometimes government or corporate facilities. We are not "occupy", but some of us "occupy", all verb, no noun. This didn't seem to matter until many towns and cities around the country couldn't continue their occupations in the cold, or were dealt with too harshly by local authorities in that cold winter. Though most of these groups continued to meet indoors in community spaces to carry on the general assembly meetings, an identity crisis quickly ensued as groups called "Occupy..." were no longer occupying any public spaces in the same continuous manner they had before. Though many communities managed to tough out the winter months, the spring did not bring occupiers back into these public spaces.
There's no doubt looking back on that phase of the movement that it was a unique and powerful moment in time. This was never a summer event, you would think a prolonged occupation would be planned for warmer months, it's hard enough to organize a mass demonstration in June. But despite the fact that camping season was clearly over people used camping as a new tactic of demonstration, reminiscent of past and present homeless encampments. But the real paradigm shift came from the new slogan carefully chalked on cardboard signs and cleverly rolling off the tongues of thousands of demonstrators in their winter coats: WE ARE THE 99%! I don't recall the word "Occupy" being used in any chants and I certainly don't remember anyone carrying a sign that said "We are Occupy."
Though I can't speak for every group, I was active in Occupy Bend in Oregon, a small city in a vast rural area. We had a good variety of people from various colors and stripes of the proverbial political spectrum but managed to hold true to policies avoiding divisive language. Once in a while someone would mention their party affiliation, or use words like "liberal" or "conservative" to describe their values but for the most part we avoided these terms and didn't discuss parties or politicians, just policy. It's hard to fathom that this could be achieved, and I doubt I could replicate this phenomenon if I tried. But somehow when we focused on policies and issues that most concerned us, we aligned, if not completely agreed. How can left and right, democrat and republican, liberal and libertarian come together and agree on so many things? By not saying the words "left", "right", "liberal", "conservative", "democrat", "republican", "Obama", "Ron Paul", etc. etc. etc...
These terms are (or can be) divisive because some of us identify with them, and others identify with the opposites. If you identify with "conservative" then you're probably going to offend some people just by saying the word "liberal" in that derisive tone that suggests that there's something wrong with "liberals." If you identify with a politician you might be compelled to defend their politics when you perceive others to be "bashing" them. There are many who have no sympathy for the leaders of their party until someone from outside of the party attacks, thus reinforcing divisions along party lines. Praising a certain politician can have a similar effect, especially if that politician has a complex set of ideals on their agenda. And of course, designating leaders would most likely cause many of the same divisive problems in time, creating power struggles within the movement. As it was, the whole movement was a constant struggle to remain independent of so many groups and entities that would gladly co-opt any popular movement for the mileage it could provide to their existing agendas.
The occupy movement, for lack of a better term, began in the middle of the biannual election cycle. This is the time when Americans are the least propagandized in polarizing rhetoric, if we didn't get a break every other year we would surely all go shooting spree crazy, seeing terrorist Muslims behind every tree in our towns. Not that they would wait very long before kicking off the next election cycle, in fact every state it seemed couldn't have their primaries soon enough. We had already seen most occupations come and go, and though we continued meeting our numbers were thinning even as the snow began to melt. Just when we could have been planning a spring/summer occupation that could dwarf our previous numbers, our political party masters began pulling the strings of fear and division. In the beginning there were some people who came out with the attitude that, if they couldn't campaign for their favorite politician, what was the point of discussing politics? Some of them stayed and played along, others left in disgust. But the following spring it became clear that all of these divisive buttons were being pushed signaling to the masses that it was time to fall back in line and rally round the party.
Occupy wall st and it's many counterparts may have been a powerful demonstration, but it wasn't the movement, it's not an identity, and identifying too much with it has caused many predicted problems. Occupy is over, past tense, done, which is all too convenient for those who were chomping at the bit to write the obituary of the movement and wax philosophical on the many reasons it failed, with subtle implications embedded in the premise. If we had resisted this illogical identification and instead emphasized our identity as "The 99%" no one could declare us dead, defunct, or ultimate failures. It's harder to imagine us eliminating the old ties that bind us to political parties, especially if we've been politically active as volunteers on campaigns. But as the 99%, over time, we can (and should) be emphasizing this identity so that it becomes on par with our party affiliations, and perhaps someday soon we will identify first as the 99% and can liberate our minds from the party agendas which we know deep down are not worth defending.
Now in the news comes the story of Justine Tunney, who claims she founded ows, or at least the twitter feed largely identified with the movement. But, she seems to believe that she is responsible for the movement as a whole and has been making her own attempt to retroactively co-opt the message of the movement. So, despite what you thought, apparently we DID have a leader, there IS an "i" in "Teiam", and apparently we all hate the "Liberal Elite" and love corporations, especially Google, whom our new dear leader is a dedicated employee of. Apparently, she also tells us not to use consensus, the democratic model at the heart of every general assembly. I guess if I was trying to co-opt the movement I'd better discourage or eliminate the voice of the people, especially the veto power. Otherwise my coup detat may be too short lived. Anyone who had any experience with an occupy general assembly meeting knows that there are plenty of crazies out there who think they can walk in and take over this leaderless group, everyone has a little Napoleon in them after all. So it's really no surprise to see that two years later it's never too late to co-opt the movement to your own ends.
But the real problem and it's solution are the same as they were then, and it's never too late to make the necessary correction. Stop identifying with "occupy", either use the tactic or not, but don't be the tactic. Instead make your most passionate appeal as, by, and for the 99%. Identify with that as much and as deeply as possible, the 99% is your brother, your sister, your family, your friends. It doesn't matter who's left or right, or who's right or wrong, we are all the 99% together. Except, of course, for the 1%, who we need to be focused on like a laser beam, like we were that Fall. Naming a problem is the first step to correcting it, and we named the 1%, and the 1% heard us. They have never been as frightened as they were then, and they would, and will stop at nothing to prevent it from ever happening again. I'm not addressing any special conspiracy, but human nature, what we call "self preservation." The 1% prefers we identify with occupy and wonder what went wrong, why and how we failed, as long as it's all past tense they're satisfied. But the 99% is not past, not over, not gone and not going anywhere, and together we know what the problem is and there's no lack of ideas on what to do about it. Occupy is/was only one of those ideas, and though it can and should happen again, our identity should never be so confused with it that we as a group begin and end with one event.
