Demands, Part 1.5

You want demands? I got your stinking demands. Let's call them possibilities. They're right here:

https://sites.google.com/site/the99percentdeclaration/

OWS #3: Demands, Message

Bert Stabler asks in part 1 of our Occupy Wall Street saga, a question on the minds of much of us:
"They don't actually have any concrete realizable demands, do they?"

Relating to the media criticism of the precision of the Wall Street Occupiers' message, I think the Glenn Greenwald has summed that up nicely--
“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?”

In terms of demands, the text below, recently forwarded to me by a friend, seems to address that question, by saying that the way in which the participants are organizing themselves from moment to moment, communicating, making decisions and implementing them--that their very organizational methodology--can be seen as a living demand. As if they're saying, 'this is what radical, participatory democracy, that is transparent, that takes care of all its members and values their unique abilities and voices, this is what it looks like. This is what we want.' And by living it out, they are showing that it can be 'concretely realized'. We might say, yes, that's nice, on a very small, temporary, privately funded and fed scale. But what can it possibly do to effect any meaningful change on the massive and complex financial system and its chastened attendant civil government(s)? Fair enough.

I believe that there is a core group of dedicated, serious, and capable people down there in the plaza. How they (we?) translate their efforts in this action into long-term, systemic change, or how long that may take, is as yet unclear. It seems to me this group and what they are doing is like a seed of the fruit they want to see. Seeds can grow into sturdy, productive trees, but at first they need to be planted (in the right time and place), nurtured consistently, and protected from harm. Plus, you don't plant an orange seed if you want a mango tree. So, given the well-documented discrimination (and I would also include violent anger) inside the anti-Vietnam war movement (to name one among maaaany others), whose cause was just but whose methods ultimately contained the seeds of its own dissipation, it seems to me that focusing on the methods and process of an action is right on the mark. Because, really, you're changing your life. As a political action it may seem less direct, more chaotic, less media-friendly, but the people who participate are actually co-learning/co-creating a way to be which, in the measure that they share it with more people, can lead to long-term change, in the long run.

I mean, in South Africa under apartheid you could simultaneously have a specific demand, like the release of a particular political prisoner (aka financial transaction tax), and at the same time hold the long-term goal of radical systemic change in the form of the abolition of apartheid (overthrow predatory capitalism). Learning from that example it's also essential to think, plan, and prepare long and hard for what comes after you get what you want...which seems to be part of the good work the Wall Street Occupiers are doing right now.

I reiterate that for this seed to continue to grow I think it will require a deeply unifying connector for strong roots of inner strength and sturdy leaves of outer solidarity: God/Spirit/Ethics/Wisdom and Song. Or do all us postmoderns want to ignore the fact that the American Civil Rights Movement was deeply spiritual, and filled with spirituals?

OK, enough armchair bloviating (for today), let's hear from someone who was actually there.

Take it away, Brian!

"Some thoughts on Occupy Wall Street
by Brian Pickett

I confess: I’m smitten with “Occupy Wall Street.” I don’t think I have
ever witnessed such political imagination unfold in this city or country.
Now you may have heard that, from the NY Times for instance, that there
isn’t a clear agenda, etc. That is false.

During the General Assemblies (open meetings held each day) there has much
talk about the many grievances we all share against Wall Street greed and
the possible demands the group would make. But specific demands on the
current system are only part of what is being imagined at Occupy Wall
Street. And the agenda is simple (and quite clear to those who take the
time to check it out): to change the nature of how decisions are made in
this country and on a global scale to include the majority of people.

Organizing the protest on terms of mutual cooperation and collective
decision making is precisely the point. Much more so than a laundry list
of demands that may still emerge. Imagine if every community across the
city, nation, and world, held nightly or weekly “general assemblies” to
decide what they wanted. We would no doubt see an increased sense of
cooperation and a greater level of participation in the decisions that
affect our lives.

Currently, we relegate most of the important decision making to the
political and economic elite. Think about who most effects policy
decisions. Is it you? Mostly not. So Occupy Wall Street isn’t about
affecting policy decisions, but about challenging who makes those
decisions. The beginning of that challenge involves creating small
encampments in which a more directly democratic process of decision making
and mutual cooperation can be practiced. This is direct action. This is
“what democracy looks like.”

Last night while waiting in line for some really tasty homemade food, I
was getting cold. I turned to a friend and said I was thinking of going
across the street to buy a cheap sweatshirt. Reminding me of where I was,
she suggested I go over to the “comfort committee” and ask to borrow one.
In a few minutes I returned wearing a new hooded sweatshirt, much warmer,
with no money exchanged and rethinking business as usual. Imagine the
possibilities…"

Occupy Wall Street #2: Come see Big Mark at the Red Thing

Disclosure:
I am geographically and otherwise unable to attend/visit/participate in the New York occupation. My thoughts and perhaps criticisms are coming from a sympathetic non-activist receiving information via relatively vanilla sources on the internet. I may be a bellwether of what similar people are perceiving outside the bubble of Liberty Plaza and/or indymedia sources.

My friend Sophie in New York sent me this:

"Went down to occupy wall st today for the first time to join some folks in a theater of the oppressed workshop.

Before going down there, I was listening to the news, then starting to read articles, then starting to read the twitterverse and watch the live feed, listen to friends' accounts. But then I started reading the meeting minutes. And that's what really impressed me.

http://nycga.cc/2011/09/30/general-assembly-minutes-930-7pm/#more-825

It seems radically functional."

I read them too, and I agree. They are evidence of a well-organized, human, instant, participatory democracy. There are teams for Internet, Facilitation, Legal, Translation, Direct Action, Security, Finance, Sanitation, Outreach among others. A new account at a credit union, at least $20,000 in donations and evidence that every effort will be made to manage those funds transparently and efficiently. Consensus decision-making. A serious endeavor that includes the whole person.

Regarding the whole person--

"We are translating our materials into as many languages as possible, If you would like to help us do this, we meet at the red thing after the general assembly."

"Matthew – I’m gonna be here tomorrow morning at 9am to do 99 sun salutations everyone is welcome all you need is your body"

"QUICK ANNOUNCEMENT FROM SECURITY – AYNONE SMOING HERB OR DRINKING IS NOT SECURITY. SECURITY IS ABOUT PROTECTING EQUIPMENT NOT POLICING THE COMMUNITY> KEEP AN EYE ON COMMUNITY.. ANY PROBLEMS COME SEE ME OR BIG MARK"

Occupying Wall Street #1: Non-violence? Demands? Song?

A new post which started in the comments of the last one on Greed.

Although of course the pepper spray videos obviously implicate the NYPD in brutish foolishness (yet again), the image that stunned me in those videos was the protesters shredding their vocal cords screaming "WE ARE BEING PEACEFUL!!!" with rage and fear in their voices. I fully support those protesters, but they are going to consume themselves without some serious discipline--is this about "letting off steam", or is it about changing reality? Because systemic change requires a long, arduous, disciplined (i.e systematic) haul.

So, I've been wondering these days how these occupywallstreet protests will sustain themselves without a serious, coordinated, trained and disciplined non-violence. Which can present some difficulties--to me it means believing in something bigger than yourself (secular difficulty #1), and being willing to suffer for it (materialist difficulty #2)--in the most brutal moments relying on the hope, love and righteousness that come from that bigger belief rather than collapsing into the hatred and despair that can arise from the self-interest of everyday existence.

Plus, where is the singing??? Not 2 line chants screamed out (which are great, too), but actual songs with meaning and melody. It seems to me a successful non-violent campaign needs God (or Equivalent) and singing, to fortify, unify and testify.


Bert Stabler says, "I support them too, in that Wall Street corruption is bad. But capitalism feeds on revolution-- and some anarchists will throw bricks, just like some Tea Party shitheads will wave nooses (which is worse, but the effects are sort of parallel if not similar).

Pepper spray is vicious, but they don't actually have any concrete realizable demands, do they?"


...(possible answers in next post!)

Greed

I grow weary of reading, especially from good writers who are in the thick of it all, like Glenn Greenwald, about Wall Street and Greed. Greed did not cause the financial disaster. Greed is simply (one) part of who we are. Knowing that violence is a potential we all have inside us, we create, sustain and actively reinforce systems from micro to macro to mitigate our violent tendencies. Of course our systems aren't perfect, but we generally agree that violence is something we don't want too much of, and so we can appeal to these co-created systems--laws, customs, religious convictions/commandments, personal principles, interpersonal relationships, to protect ourselves and each other from the very real violence that can well up inside each and every one of us and gush out into the world.

No, it wasn't Greed that caused the crisis. The creation, sustaining, and expanding of systems that enable our Greed was what caused the great cave-in of 2008 ('09,'10,'11...). Or, we could say that the roof fell in on us due to the deliberate and collectively unchallenged dismantling of the societal systems that had been keeping our own Greed from devouring us. I pat myself on the back for the timely mining metaphor. Down there, you ignore the systems that keep you safe at your own peril. We correctly call this reasoned caution 'Conservative'. Of course, like in our mining metaphor, most of us are down there, in the mine, and are rightly conservative with the conditions of our own well-being. Predictably, the few radicals, or Neoliberals (who are to Liberals what neosoul is to soul) interested in ignoring the safeguards are up top, and too big(-headed) to (consider the catastrophic consequences of their actions which will fall onto others if they) fail. Sometimes they even convince a miner or two (or millions) of their quaint/crackpot/dangerous management theories. For the most part though, down in the mine you know that if that roof caves in it doesn't care whether you're a foreman or a grunt, a newbie or a 40-year veteran about to retire (or for that matter any other kind of "difference" you can think of). It turns out that the systems we create to safeguard us from the most destructive parts of ourselves work best if we're all inside the same room, facing the same consequences. Some used to call it "society".

In the leadup to our present morass, and apparently seductive enough to weather a modicum of international scrutiny and a light, brief public flogging, some societal systems directly rewarded Greed in the form of enormous short-term benefits, like young broker pay incentives, to name but one example. Some ideologies lying around, (like a club, ideologies are desirous of being wielded), most notably The Friedmanism, pretended to believe that "greed is good", *, that somehow a "market" (a term which, by the way, refers to the collective known as 'all of us', to varying intensities, depending on our wealth and how/where we invest it) unrestrained by societal forces that mitigate greed would alchemically turn shit into gold bars with which we could beat the shit out of each other, in order to have more shit to make more gold. I know, it sounds like a child made it up. That is, a poor, brutish child who has suffered many hardships and privations (like, say, the Industrial Revolution, or the Twentieth Century). But, in some sense of course, that is who we are.

A teacher of mine in high school once clarified for us, "Here in America we have the notion that everyone can be a billionaire. That's just not true. Many complicated factors notwithstanding, it is true that anyone can become a billionaire--but not everyone." Imagine 300 million billionaires. What would it mean, then, to be a billionaire? $16,000 muffins. Nope, it's a game of contrasts, and most of us delude ourselves to some degree into investing our precious emotional, physical and mental efforts into playing that lotto, hoping for a miracle, imagining our feet up on the desk in that single wide trailer, smoking a cigar, watching the miners go in and out of that dark hole, basking in the cheap cologne smell of our self-evident exceptionalism, barking orders to the foremen down below to ignore the rules that keep them and the men and women they are responsible for, and with whom they will live and die, safe.

Now, some might say we should go up top and kill that son of a bitch. While I can comprehend the presence of that kind of anger, I'm telling you that to go and nurture it, even for a second, to cultivate it into bloodthirst, is indefensible. We all live and die together in this mine; to fortify the very behaviors that would tear us apart doesn't make any sense. No--we all have a part to play: after all, in our modern world we need administrators!

No--I say we just go up top and move him and his double-wide back down into the mine.



* (thank you kindly to anyone who could please direct me to writing on how an extreme "Christian" Evangelism coexists with raggedy Randy Ayn?)