The Bishop and the Butterfly: Murder, Politics, and the End of the Jazz Age
    Elusive Trope's picture

    The Elusive Point B

    By Elusive Trope on Wed, 10/26/2011 - 10:43am |

    There are two basic groups of citizens when it comes to their evaluation of the socio-economic and political state of the country: those who are satisfied and those who are dissatisfied. Within each group, one can further categorized them between the somewhat (dis)satisfied and the very (dis)satisfied.

    Now I doubt there would be much argument about an assertion that said most people in this country are located somewhere in the dissatisfied group.  And with each passing day, it would seem that more move from the somewhat dissatisfied to the very dissatisfied.

    Now when it comes to the difference in evaluation between someone who is satisfied and someone who is dissatisfied there are key two areas under consideration:  the perception of the current and future state of country.  The very satisfied person in general can be said to not only find the current situation highly acceptable, but perceives that in the future the situation will either be the same or better. 

    The very dissatisfied person, on the other hand, not finds the current situation unacceptable, but sees either no improvement in the future or a worsening of the situation.  It would be impossible to put an exact percentage on how many Americans have reached the point where they find the current situation unacceptable and believe things will get only worse, but I would assume it has reached a majority.

    The question that begs to be answered for each of these individuals is who or whose system and way of doing things is to blame for the mess.  A fundamental difference between many of those who would be characterized as somewhat dissatisfied from the very dissatisfied, is the former believe that while things may not be superduper, when all things are considered, the current and future situation is about as much as one might hope for.  There might be those who are to blame, but replacing or removing them from the picture would not change the picture much.   

    The somewhat dissatisfied can imagine an ideal Point B that would be an improvement  over the current Point A, but assume it is probably unrealistic to think it could be achieved or at the very least not worth the try.

    Many of very dissatisfied, however, see that Point B and believe that it is within the grasp of the country if only those who are to blame (along with their system and way of doing things) are effectively dealt with.

    The questions then become what does Point B look like and how does one get to this desired but allusive Point B.

    The Occupy actions across the country have been one such answer.  Much of the debate on the blogosphere and in cafes is what extent it is a good answer to both of these questions.  I would say it is impossible to make any comprehensive assessment, in large part because the actions have not ended. 

    But one of the questions that has continued to rise to the surface for me recently is why is it perceived necessary that in order for the movement to be successful in the long run (i.e. arrival at the Point B or something close to it) there has to be these 24 hour encampments.

    The actions have definitely impact the public / media discourse.  "The 1%" and the "The 99%" have entered into the realm of popular dialogue.  Just one example, watching Morning Joe while getting ready for work, they had the other author Chuck Klosterman joked about his recent success that he was now part of "The 1%."  The others sitting around the table laughed and then moved on with the questions.  The point being everyone knew what he was saying without having to go into any explanation.

    The Occupy actions can be seen as a success in this regard.  Yet as the events in Oakland reveal, there are limitations to what the actions can achieve.  It becomes one phase in a long unfolding effort to get to Point B.  While the argument over public space is one facet of a larger debate, and a significant facet, it is not the Point B.  I would argue that at this stage the continued confrontations between the Occupiers and the local governments and police will only serve to send the debate and the unfolding on a path to a Point C or at the very least a sustaining of our residing at Point A.

    What is crucial at this point, in this country, is that there is not a whole lot of agreement between the very dissatisfied about what Point B looks like, and when there is agreement (or something close to it) on this front, there is disagreement about how to get to it.

    The quest at this point is in large part moving more of the somewhat dissatisfied into the very dissatisfied camp.  It getting people to not only believe that something better is out there - that allusive Point B, but that it is realistic to think it can be achieved.  This has to be done at the same time while a sizeable portion of the very dissatisfied reach some kind of agreement about Point B.

    Calling for the end of the occupying and a shift to some other form of citizen engagement is not a criticism of the Occupy actions.  It is acknowledging the actions' successes and limitations.  It is not a call to end all types of nonviolent direct actions now or in the future.  But as the saying goes, people need to keep their eyes on the Point B.

    Comments

    Trope, this is rather tough to argue, since as you note, Point B is so vaguely defined. But it seems to me that you could raise the same criticism of any opened-ended protest.

    What is the point of camping out in a square in Cairo night after night? Occupying a lunch counter all day long? Marching with signs in Washington? Staging a sit-in in a university's offices? Marching without weapons against British soldiers? Holding a hunger strike or lighting yourself on fire?

    Such protests are by their nature sensationalistic provocations that do not directly accomplish anything. They are effective to the extent that they attract attention, galvanize support, and provoke a reaction. Indeed, it's often the reaction to provocation that catalyzes change more than the protest itself. Think of DD's post about Kent State and the Boston Massacre.

    The successful protests work in 100 different ways, and the failures fail in a 100 different ways. But the point is that if you look on with disdain, shrug your shoulders, and demand, "What's the point?" you will not observe any difference between protests that go nowhere and those that change the world forever.


    by Michael Wolraich on Wed, 10/26/2011 - 11:32am

    They are effective to the extent that they attract attention, galvanize support, and provoke a reaction. Indeed, it's often the reaction to provocation that catalyzes change more than the protest itself.

    One of the points in my mind is if one wants to attract attention, provoke a reaction, and, probably most importantly in respect to the Occupy movement at this stage, galvanize support is to decide whether it is necessary to have 24 hour occupations.  Can one be even more successful doing a 6 am to 10 pm occupation?  Or even by moving toward different forms of actions?

    In other words, should there be a dialogue about the issue of tactics, which is not begun with the presupposed superiority of the 24 hour occupation of public spaces and the assumption that packing of the tents now is somehow an acknowledgement of defeat.

    Each protest has a point. They are never pointless.  Yet they are as we can agree not the end all to be all.  So I suppose one thing I am asserting here is that I am seeing the Occupations themselves becoming an end in and of itself for some.

    There is a difference between utilizing the forced removals to participate in acts of non-violent civil disobedience as a means to attract attention, galvanize support, and provoke a reaction; and choosing to confront the government forces in attempt to secure continued presence in these public places. 

    This struggle to sustain a presence for political ends in public spaces is in my opinion not only a interesting issue, but one which has some significant value.  And ultimately it is related to the control of the 1% which drove the original OWS.  But engaging in this battle at this stage will serve to divert continued attention on that original issue of the 1%. 

    So it is not with disdain that I look upon it, nor do I think "what's the point," but rather is it the point one wants to be making at this time.


    by Elusive Trope on Wed, 10/26/2011 - 12:00pm

    the presupposed superiority of the 24 hour occupation of public spaces

    I wouldn't call it "presupposed." Here are a few good reasons:

    1. Many protests incorporate some sort of endurance test--be it a hunger strike or a sit-in. Such tests both symbolize and authenticate the protestors' degree of commitment. In OWS, the endurance test is sleeping out on the cold ground night after night.

    2. The metaphor underlying the protests is occupation, which implies a constant presence. There could have been other metaphors, but this is the one the protestors chose, and it seems to have been effective.

    3. Protests generally push the boundaries of social comfort. To the extent that the protestors insist on occupying public spaces all night long in defiance of authority, the protest will likely be more effective.

    That is not to say that the protests cannot survive if people leave the public spaces at night, but given the publicity and thematic advantages of 24-hour occupation, I see no reason for them to call off the occupation as long as there are enough people willing to stay.


    by Michael Wolraich on Wed, 10/26/2011 - 12:26pm

    I think the three points you make are valid ones and definitely worth considering.  By presuppose I mean I believe we shouldn't enter the dialogue saying since those three are valid points we shouldn't entertain the question of whether there might be better course of action at this point for the Occupy movement. 

    This comes back to the Point B issue.  Even if there is as much disagreement as agreement on the definition of it, each of us do have our own ideas about it, and how best to achieve it. 

    I look at something like this as reported in the LA Times discussing the Oakland event:

    On Oct. 17, the first sexual assault was reported. But camp leaders declined to allow police and fire officials to conduct patrols.

    By the following day, city officials said in a statement, "We began to receive numerous complaints of threatening, intimidating behavior…. public health and safety requirements were being ignored."

    More sexual offenses, fighting and public drunkenness were reported. Officials also said one resident of the encampment had been severely beaten.

    On Friday, Oakland demanded that protesters cease overnight camping. After a brief warning before  Tuesday’s raid, about 30 of the 350 people present left voluntarily, officials said.

    Regardless of the veracity of the details, it is these kinds of things which undermine the galvanizing of support.  The longer these occupations last, the more likely these types of situations will arise.  And I can just about guarantee the more confrontations that occur, the more likely those who are just looking for a fight with "The Man" are going to start showing up. 

    I would argue there are other ways to show one's endurance and, thus, commitment.  "Sleeping out on the cold ground night after night" is one way, and up to now has been effective.  But one needs to acknowledge the possibility that a tactic that was successful at one point, may not be effective at another point.  Or it might be effective.  The point is that it should be up for discussion without those claiming a particular tactic has run its course are somehow being defeatist.

    And the occupation metaphor has been very effective, in spite of the misgivings about it from some people who are sympathetic to and participating in the actions.  And yes there is an implied constant presence, but I think one can look at the idea of what is presence - there are other kinds of presence that are not physical.  And again the fall out of events like Oakland may begin to lessen the effectiveness of this metaphor among both the choir and those outside the choir.

    And so on.

    I can understand someone looking at all the sides of the issues and come to the conclusion that the past strategy should be continued - that this is best way to the allusive point B.  What is important I think is that such a conclusion not be based solely on past success but on perceived future successes, which are not going to happen by virtue that there were past successes.

    One quick example comes to mind.  In the beginning tree spiking was overall effective tactic used to protest the logging actions of corporations.  But after awhile, the danger posed to the loggers (who are afterall part of the 99%), undermined the effectiveness because it began to turn public sentiment against the protesters and diverted attention away from what the protesters were protesting.

    One can argue it is far early in the Occupy actions to come to any conclusions.  But it would just that - an argument.  The Oakland incident to me is a sign of things to come as cities attempt to reassert their authority.  The last thing cities like Oakland want is to give folks the right to establish tent cities.  Even if they are sympathetic to the particular cause of the Occupy actions, if they allow the Occupy people to continue, they lose the authority to deal with the next tent city which may have a different political agenda or no political agenda at all.


    by Elusive Trope on Wed, 10/26/2011 - 1:05pm

    I agree that public drunkenness and sexual assault are counterproductive. If these phenomena become widespread, rather than isolated incidents, then I expect that some of the protest leaders will start rethinking the occupation tactics. But these are problems that they can address when and if they become real problems. I see no reason to disband the occupations on the assumption that such problems will get worse in the near future.

    On the other hand, if the cities evict the protests, the publicity works in the protestors favor, so municipal authorities' comfort level with the protests is certainly not a reason to voluntarily disband.


    by Michael Wolraich on Wed, 10/26/2011 - 1:15pm

    the publicity works in the protestors favor,

    I don't think one can operate from a the adage there is no such thing as bad publicity (which I'm not saying you're proposing).  I come from the view point that most (or nearly most) people, even the very dissatisfied at this stage, tend to look for a reason to discount protesters, regardless of their particular ideology or position.  The reason is the act of protest like those of Occupy has among all the other explicit and implicit messages that everyone should be joining in the struggle.  And most people in varying degrees don't want for whatever reason to disrupt their lives, to choose added discomfort for whatever comfort they might have at the moment.  In many cases, because the situation is not good for them, they feel they already have enough discomfort in their lives. 

    The moment there is anything that smacks of violent resistance (e.g. a protestor throwing a rock or a bottle) such individuals find there reason to discount the protestors.  In other words, the Occupy movement has to maintain near perfection in regards of non-violent civil disobedience.  And the muncipal comfort level with these encampments, or rather lack of comfort, means that continued comfrontations will continue.

    For better or worse, the actions of one Occupy action is related to all Occupy actions.  Given that it is stretching from coast to coast, in cities and town small, I don't believe such near perfection is maintainable.  And if the problems do reach that worse level in this or that spot, whether it is behaviors within the encampments or the response to authorities, then it will be too late undo the damage done in the public view.  Then the volunteer disbanding will be seen as a defeat in the general media.

    Right now there is an opportunity to claim victory and move to the next occupation phase.  One that can be more inclusive of those unable to camp out 24 hours a day.  One that can open up the creative flood gates about methods and actions that can keep the issue on the forefront.  Continuing the encampments, making the standoff over use of public places, has the impact of keeping those gates closed.  Why look to alternative methods when people are still be asked to join the encampments?

    But that is my opinion. 


    by Elusive Trope on Wed, 10/26/2011 - 1:51pm

    "right now there is an opportunity to claim victory and move to the next occupation phase". I just realized that that statement keys to an underlying fear I have that the protests will fail because shite will happen and be blamed on the protestors, leading to reverse public opinion and failure of the movement. I'm not sure if that fear is real or appropriate or just part of my legacy from my mother who lived in Iowa and had a fear of tidal waves.


    by Oxy Mora on Wed, 10/26/2011 - 3:22pm

    There is the saying: just because you're paranoid doesn't mean that they're not out to get you.

    All protest/movements/actions bring a certain level of risk.  Nothing would happen without at some point rolling the dice.  But to mix the metaphor a bit, there that line from the song: gotta know when to hold them, know when to fold them...


    by Elusive Trope on Wed, 10/26/2011 - 3:29pm

    In your opinion, if the protesters had followed "hold 'em, fold 'em" advice you have been giving up to this point .... would the successes that are now important to consolodate even have happened in the first place?

    I haven't been following stuff much of late; this genuinely is an honest question.


    by kgb999 on Wed, 10/26/2011 - 6:09pm

    who knows.  maybe not.  maybe they would attempted a different strategy and been wildly successful, or a dismal failure.  all we know is what is, and then there is plenty it seems to argue about.

    but something which I think is significant facet.  the occupy actions ended up being not a self-contained action. by that i mean people such as myself were asked to join and the success of the action was determined by the extent that those not originally involved joined in.  in other words, this success was built on turning it from an action with specific short-term outcomes to nation wide movement.  because of this - the opinions of those who would be considered sympathetic to overall long-term goals of the movement and thus forming the primary pool of new recruits - of which I would consider myself - should be understood.


    by Elusive Trope on Wed, 10/26/2011 - 7:53pm

    But, the specific success that was actually achieved and has created the impetus moving you into being a potential new recruit ... that specific successful course of action would not have been taken? Had they followed your advice, becoming attractive to new recruits would have had to be through a dynamic other than the one that exists currently?

    I only ask because, like you, I am a potential new recruit. I'd love to share a movement with you where the best of ideas win. But, it seems like along with joining up, you want to immeditely shift from a position of recommending the currently successful course of action not be followed into a position where you would like your strategy ideas to be heavily weighted - seemingly weighted more heavily than the people who's strategy is demonstratively successful.

    One of my bigger concerns for joining the movement is that it doesn't become the same old BS conservative Democratic quagmire and that we don't start in immediately by following the directions of folks who have been getting their strategy calls correctly more or less at the same rate as William Kristol.

    I imagine you can see my concerns.


    by kgb999 on Wed, 10/26/2011 - 10:27pm

    I don't really have anything to say but I really do like writing way over here on the right side of the paper like that. It's cool, Heh, heh!

    God bless America!

    --W


    by The Decider on Thu, 10/27/2011 - 1:17pm

    So... you disliked OWS at the start, then feared its violent tendencies in the middle, but now - what with the positive poll results - think it's time to wrap it up and claim victory.

    Gee. Colour me full of laughter.

    Trope. You kidder.


    by Qnonymous (not verified) on Wed, 10/26/2011 - 3:26pm

    I wouldn't say I disliked it, rather I didn't feel it would be all that effective in achieving particular outcomes, something I still believe.  It doesn't mean I believed it was a bad thing in and of itself.  Or no positive outcomes would ever arise from the actions.  And if you've read I have written in the blog and the threads, I obviously still fear the violent tendencies that can be unleashed by the movement.  In terms of overall assessment of problems the country faces, I've never had an issue with what was coming out of the occupy movement, when such positions were taken.

    We don't see eye to eye...obviously.  But in the end, you seem to be the kidder since you rather engage in the debate because I'm not the cheerleader you are, you just merely seek to undermine the messenger.  Whatever. Maybe some day you'll understand that some people with whom you don't see eye to eye do actually give a shit that we get somewhere.


    by Elusive Trope on Wed, 10/26/2011 - 3:42pm

    So.... you're a "messenger" because you're bringing tough, realistic opinions to bear on OWS. Opinions which - so far - have had the shite kicked out of them by, ummmm, reality.

    Still, that doesn't seem to havet dampened your self-image any, and so now you're proposing that they wrap this thing up while it's still a success, and move on.

    To repeat, you want them to end the successful practice, which you opposed and thought wouldn't be successful... and instead, take your advice and move on to other activities, which, ummmm, haven't been nearly as successful.

    Trope. When I look at that, what I'd hope for from you would just be the slightest bit of humility, you know? Just some sort of recognition that maybe you've not quite fully understood the dynamics in play, and thus... were gonna try and learn a bit more, think a bit more, instead of continuing to tell them what to do.

    As for me being a cheerleader, yeah, right, that's what I've been. An unthinking cheerleader. Sure. If you say so. But I'll tell you what. At least I've had the good sense, since Day One, to not go blathering on about my Grand Understanding of how this all will work out, and then - when reality drove over my sorry ass - deciding to up the ante further by telling thee kids, "Hey! Time to go home! Cause I - the guy who's been wrong all along - know what's best for you!" 

    Or is this some post-modern thing you do? 

    Love and kisses,

     

    - Your Very Bestest Occupy Wall Street Cheerleader


    by Qnonymous (not verified) on Wed, 10/26/2011 - 7:01pm

    Opinions which - so far - have had the shite kicked out of them by, ummmm, reality.

    I never said that the actions couldn't get people talking about the 1%.  But please do tell me one little factoid of reality which demonstrates how these actions have in any way made the slightest dent in the actual power of the 1% to control the government. 

    Of course I don't expect any strategy to be able to accomplish that so I don't knock this particular strategy for failing.

    There have been successes in bringing together - but so did the Wisconsin actions, but the last time I looked it was still the very same system that was in place.

    were gonna try and learn a bit more, think a bit more, instead of continuing to tell them what to do.

    if you read what I wrote rather than just having a knee jerk reaction because it was me who wrote the words you would see that I am asking just that.  My voice is just that: one voice.  It is no less and no more valid as the next one.  I am asking that people take a breath and look ahead and think a bit more:  what to do next? what is the best next step? 

    Maybe the answer for this and that person is to continue to occupy spaces, and maybe it is to get into confrontations as a matter of principle with the police when they shut one down like in Oakland.  I am just saying to ask the simple question: is it time to zig when as of late we have been zagging.  People like you (should I say your ilk) immediately get up in a huff - we zagged in the beginning, we are zagging now, and gosh darn it we going to continue zagging.  A response which doesn't sound like someone who trying to learn a bit more, think a bit more.

    Of course, your rant is based ultimately that I have been wrong all along and thus I can be discounted.  Again - nothing has happened to prove I was wrong. 

    And one last thing - and the one I would seriously want a response from you: when someone takes a strong opinionated stand on something - a stand which you happen to agree with - do you put that agreement aside and deride that blogger for blathering on about their Grand Understanding? Or do only those with whom you disagree blather?

    (and yes this is actually a post-modern thing - you have now become part of my on-line performance piece....but seriously [no not really], I am post-structuralist, not a a post-modern.  let try and keep things straight, since we are doomed never to have closure in this prisonhouse of language.)


    by Elusive Trope on Wed, 10/26/2011 - 8:16pm

    Zag.

    I'm firm on that.

    Anything else is blather.


    by Qnonymous (not verified) on Wed, 10/26/2011 - 11:26pm

    But you can't have the zag without the zig

    Which at least morphs all blather into pure genius.


    by Elusive Trope on Wed, 10/26/2011 - 11:41pm

    Sorry, this is way OT...

    But I was wondering what your take on climate scientist Hulme in the UK is.

    (An actual question, Q, not a provocation, k?)


    by Peter Schwartz on Thu, 10/27/2011 - 10:23am

    OK, now I am really far out to the right. This is super cool! But I'll bet Romney replies to me so he can try to get to the right of me. Fake conservative!


    by The Decider on Thu, 10/27/2011 - 6:50pm

    The moment there is anything that smacks of violent resistance (e.g. a protestor throwing a rock or a bottle) such individuals find there reason to discount the protestors.

    This is a simplistic understanding of the way people form positive and negative opinions of a movement. If a single bad actor can wreck a whole movement, there wouldn't be any successful movements--because every movement has its bad actors.

    But people approach these things as more of a zeitgeist. Images, stories, endorsements, and denunciations all swirl into that developing pastiche. If we hear stories of violent protestors breaking the heads of nice young police officers who have adorable babies at home, then opinion will shift against the protestors. If we see images of police batons bloodying unarmed young women, then opinion will shift towards the protestors.

    So I agree that there can be good publicity and bad publicity, that bad publicity can destroy a movement, and that OWS is always at risk of descending into bad publicity.

    But that is the nature of protest. There is simply no such thing as a sweet and gentle mass movement that is guaranteed to win the hearts and mind. Such a movement would garner no publicity and galvanize no supporters. It would die a slow quiet death.

    Pardon me, Trope, but I think that if the original OWS protestors came to you for advice at the very beginning, the movement would have been a failure from the get-go. The OWS tactics have made you uncomfortable from the start. I submit that the tactics have been effective not despite your discomfort but rather because of it. Or to put it another way, you will only feel enthusiasm for OWS when it has been neutered and lobotomized, at which point it won't galvanize anyone.


    by Michael Wolraich on Wed, 10/26/2011 - 5:24pm

    Yes it simplistic, overly so, but I would say the same thing about just about every comment and nearly every blog out there on the topic.  Part of the problem is that the articulation of the dynamics of such things as mass movements in this country would just start to brush the surface before it would become too long for the blogosphere.

    And yes there are times when I personally think what is the point of engaging at this level.  We just spin our wheels and get into petty personal fights between one another.

    But hey it is entertaining.  And sometime something good arises, most of which few are aware of.

    And now here is the question:  for what end has those have been galvanized? to be galvanized for galvanized sake? 

    Part of the point of bringing up the whole satisfied/dissatisfied grouping is that is one thing to stir of dissatisfied, to give them some outlet to vent that dissatisfaction.  I have never said that this in and of itself is a bad thing.  And the Occupy action has done that.  But there are a whole lot of dissatisfied which do not resonate with these actions, even if they agree or somewhat agree on the issues.

    So let me say this: when it comes to talking about the success of the action, beyond getting some change in the current discourse, and some activist connections formed, both of which are positive outcomes, what has been really accomplished on the American political landscape.  

    Because if one looks at all those in this blog who are trying to discount what I am saying it all successes thatglie in potential somewhere in the future.

    And had they come to me - yes it wouldn't have probably happened, and those successes would have not happened.  But what you don't know is whether I would have re-directed that energy and commitment to positive change in local community initiatives which in the long run would have had greater impact in the areas of education, poverty reduction, environmental rehabiliation, and built greater bridges between the classes and other identities which keep us separated.


    by Elusive Trope on Wed, 10/26/2011 - 8:40pm

    In 2011, there is yearning for something more than local community initiatives, a sense that there is something more seriously wrong at the national level, and local community initiatives just aren't going to cut it. That's part of the reason that OWS is happening now.

    The problem, of course, is that this Point B, which represents a better place where things aren't so seriously wrong, is larged undefined, and no one is quite sure how to get there. I share your concern that OWS is a rebellion without goal.

    But that is a separate issue from your concern about tactics. Tactically, OWS has been a huge success so far, and I think that Quinn has a point about your misreading of the publics response to those tactics. I too would expect you to be at least a little chastened.

    As to whether OWS is bringing us closer to the strategic goal of Point B, we won't really know that until someone explains what the hell Point B is.


    by Michael Wolraich on Wed, 10/26/2011 - 10:39pm

    The Civil Rights Movement was successful because from the get go there was at least a vague understanding of what the prize was that everyone's eyes were suppose to stay on.  As the movement moved over the years, the debates and arguments about exactly what that prize should be (and there were winners and losers in this regard) and how to achieve it (again, winners and losers) raged on. 

    I would like if you could actually detail what those tactical successes are.  I have stated there have been successes, so it isn't argument over whether there was or wasn't.  But at this stage the OWS is no more successful than the Tea Party rallies which were able to shape the public discourse.  This is no small matter, but I have yet to hear anyone say this the prize sought by the occupiers.

    I will be a little chastened when there is something that occurs that undermines my fundamental assertions.  Nothing has happened so far as a result of these action that in anyway lessens the actual power in action of the 1%.  And Oakland only reaffirms that this choice of action will lead to events of violent confrontation.  More than often it will be the resistance to protests, but the more confrontations that occur the more the "unsavory" types will find their way under the guise of protests. 

    The local community initiatives of which I speak are not a few volunteers in Birkenstocks helping out the poor.  It is bringing the CEOs, COOs, CFOs et al to the proverbial table with service providers, service receipents, and others to find ways that both the private sector can work with the public sector and the non-profit sector.  It is people stepping up as individuals and as representatives of their organization from whatever sector to make the necessary sacrifices that raises the quality of living of all.  And the achievement of success is done together, face to face, working together toward a common specific goal.

    The uberwealthy (ie the 1%) by and large are not part of these discussions.  They live in a world apart from the rest of us and always have.

    The question is whether those in the upper reaches of the 99%, the ones who make 6 figures etc identify with those below, see their quality of living tied with those below them, as opposed to those above.  I would assert that Europe made the progress it made because those who in the business class who survived WWII and cultureally passed onto the next generation the belief it does take a village, and personal achievement is only as sustainable as the society which it exists within.

    The notion that somehow America can achieve this cultural change by gathering around some tents in a public space here and there is, pardon the bluntness, laughable. 


    by Elusive Trope on Wed, 10/26/2011 - 11:18pm

    Good to see you spelling it out, Trope. 

    I can see now that you're clearly in a different kind of business. You're into a bafflegab ass-kissing thing, designed to get resources from big deal "CEOs, COOs, CFOs et al."

    Because you're far above those sorts of people and projects - how did you say it - that involve "a few volunteers in Birkenstocks helping the poor." 

    I liked that. The disdain - palpable, really.

    Which showed up again in the jibe about how "laughable" it is to think cultural change could come about by - again, you have such a way with words - "gathering around some tents in a public space here and there."

    Laughable.

    Clearly, you're a much more serious person, as you bring them together around... "tables." Not the "uberwealthy" (certainly not), but the ones in the "upper reaches of the 99%" (God, I so love how you put things), those are the ones you want.

    The ones who merely "make 6 figures etc."

    I'm sure theatre has a term for when someone makes this sort of comment, in the middle of a debate.

    Escapes me at the moment. 

    However. I'll repeat. I do think it's worthwhile standing back a bit from casting too much judgment on OWS, or working any particular theory too hard, or getting too amped up about the need to force it into any pattern. 

    That's what I'm doing.


    by Qnonymous (not verified) on Wed, 10/26/2011 - 11:52pm

    Good to see you're not getting amped up about Trope, Q :)

     


    by Anonymous LisB (not verified) on Thu, 10/27/2011 - 12:21am

    The Occupy actions can be seen as a success in this regard.  Yet as the events in Oakland reveal, there are limitations to what the actions can achieve.

    I wouldn't say anything has been revealed yet about the limitations of the movement, simply as a result of the Oakland events.   That's like saying Bull Connor revealed the limits of the civil rights movement.

    I do think it would be great if people took the initiative at this time to create their own advocacy groups, protest groups, action groups, etc. to advance their favored causes as they see fit.   But I don't think the OWS folks are going to back down as a result of police crackdowns.   It's likely just going to make them stronger.  Cities need to resign themselves to the presence of the encampments as a permanent fixture, and try to work with the OWS members to settle on a permanent location for the encampments, where they will not run into constant problems with curfews, etc.   But I suspect that most of the sites will continue to evolve so that there are relatively few people sleeping in the camps overnight and keeping them operational as living spaces, while the numbers swell during the day, during General Assemblies and during crises or protests.

    I believe the occupiers are very cognizant of the face they present to the wider community, and about self-regulating their behavior to make sure they do not become an excuse for police crackdowns.  They want to draw people in, not repel them.

    The OWS folks tend to think the the encampments are fundamental to the very nature and purpose of the movement, and are not just a means of protest.  They believe they are building a new democratic system in the encampments, and that the methods they are divising and improvising for solving their day-to-day problems are a new model of direct, non-representational democracy that can impact American society in a long-term way.  Politically, it's all about the General Assemblies.  Without these new model mini-societies, the movement itself would not exist.  There is also a cultural/spiritual dimension to the movement: the folks in it sometimes believe they are turning their back on a cultural landscpape that worships greed.

    For examples in American history that give some sense of how a lot of the participants view themselves, people might want to look at things like the Great Awakenings, not just the important protest movements.


    by Dan Kervick on Wed, 10/26/2011 - 1:56pm

    Dan, I think you hit on the key things--that OCW will negotiate for public space as footholds, and there may be less sleeping over. Also, that the protests can still be launched from these sites.

    I have forgotten where I heard this, but that one of the protest requirements is that "it disrupt business as usual". It seems as if quickly changing protests during the day could achieve that purpose without the necessity for ever larger encampments at nights. Actually it would seem to be more effective. Hit and run, etc.

    I have to say that in general I'm shocked that there are not more spaces which are public enough to hold the protestors and find shelter from the over-reacting authorities.


    by Oxy Mora on Wed, 10/26/2011 - 2:12pm

    I think there are probably lots of avaialble public spaces, Oxy, but the point is to be in a space where you will be noticed - which is in or near the center of the city.   The closer you are to the center of a big city, the more valuable that space is, and the more people compete to control it.

    I assume the Oaklanders could always find some spot to set up camp, like maybe an abandoned shipyard or some other piece of private property lent for the purpose by a sympathetic citizen.  But then they will be out of site and mind.


    by Dan Kervick on Wed, 10/26/2011 - 2:42pm

    I just posted this at Dicks blog and I think its fits better here

    Congress shall make no law respecting ........ or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

    Except the Government can pass a law, to make sure people have to leave the park where they have assembled.

    "You can only assemble or petition between the hours of 8 am - 10:30 pm  ….Effectively dispersing those assembled.

    Make no law?

    Consider: If you were unemployed and homeless, where are those like you, supposed to gather?  

    Those in power have no empathy,

    That is the grievance; but they dont care to hear it.

    "The park closes closes at........make sure your assembly is out by then"     


    by Resistance on Wed, 10/26/2011 - 2:50pm

    Just to hammer away at my point, hit and run protests that seek to "disrupt business as usual"  will most assuredly turn public sentiment against the protesters, moreover will attract the very kind of participants that the movement doesn't want: those engaging in disruption solely as means of thrill seeking (not to mention the few actual hardcore "anarchists" out there).  The police will seek to crack down even harder, setting up even more intense confrontations.


    by Elusive Trope on Wed, 10/26/2011 - 3:11pm

    Don't be surprised to hear, the riot gear dressed police, put their own plants into the crowds, so they can use excessive  force to knock a few heads together.

    Then turn the violence, instigated by the authoritarian rulers, against the protestors,  in order to garner sympathy for the authoritarian viewpoint.  

    "We had no choice but to fire on the crowd, someone threw a pebble... err a stone....No it was a boulder "  

    Remember http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_fire

    "The fire was used as evidence by the Nazis that the Communists were beginning a plot against the German government"


    by Resistance on Wed, 10/26/2011 - 3:42pm

    it wouldn't surprise me.  it is just one more reason why sustaining long-term protests against the authorities are so difficult, and so maybe just maybe, people might want to seek other avenues to seek those changes which are less susceptible to being sabotaged.


    by Elusive Trope on Wed, 10/26/2011 - 3:46pm

    Lets all form a circle?  

    Please, please, please,  hear our pleas, pleas, pleas,

    Maybe we could find our own generations Neville Chamberlain, telling  us the Wall Street/ Banker Class has no intention of taking more.  

     


    by Resistance on Wed, 10/26/2011 - 4:06pm

    Trope, I think you kind of boxed them out. No encampments. No running down and flooding Time Sqaure. No bank building protests. What does it leave them to "demonstrate" with?


    by Oxy Mora on Wed, 10/26/2011 - 7:36pm

    the less glamorous actions of engaging in local intiatives getting people more engaged in their political institutions. 

    all the talk about returning the power to the people, but they have always had the power.  one of the primary reasons that money has the role in politics it does is because most people's level of engagement is watching 15 political ads on the tele.

    and then there are the community organizing initiatives dealing with poverty, education, access to health care, environmental justice.  initiatives that bring all kinds of folks, rich poor black white athetist evangelical muslim man woman hetero homo....


    by Elusive Trope on Wed, 10/26/2011 - 8:45pm

    Just to be clear, the "limitations to what these actions can achieve" is not the same as saying "limitations to what this movement can achieve."  The movement is I believe much larger than the actions taken to draw attention, galvanize support and provoke a reaction.

    Whether one believes the cities should resign themselves to these camps as permanent fixtures on the landscape, I seriously doubt any of them will.  And I don't know of any foundation to fight the cities' rights to maintain control over when access can and cannot occur in city parks, etc.   And while I would say that the vast vast majority of the occupiers are non-violent and will strive to put the best face on the actions, anyone who has tried to maintain just an afternoon rally protest knows, there are a few folks (and sometimes more than a few) who have a different, less admirable, agenda.

    I think who are very much right on regarding many of those in the Occupy movement who see the camps as fundamental to the very nature and purpose of the movement, that it is more than an action.  And while there will be value in any effort "building a new democratic system" and through active engagement in "developing a new model of direct, non-representational democracy that can impact American society in a long-term way," this is pretty much where I would say a huge gap occurs over the view of Point B and the way to get there.

    In short, I would say that the energies required to maintain the 24 hour camps and the risks of escalating confrontations would be better served developing new networks of venues and actions that expand the direct, non-representational democracy they seek. 

    But who am I to tell them what to do.  As the saying goes, there are worse things they could be doing, and I say all the power to them if they make the choice to struggle for the permanent fixtures.  A lot of good has come from them, and I believe more good will continue.  There could be something of the magnitude of the Great Awakening just below the surface, a force which could alter in a fundamental way the cultural landscape.

     


    by Elusive Trope on Wed, 10/26/2011 - 2:58pm

    Things just got a bit worse:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/26/iraq-vet-oakland-police-tear-ga...


    by Dan Kervick on Wed, 10/26/2011 - 3:40pm

    And in all of that article, this was the closest thing to dealing with the actual issue which is driving the occupations

    "He doesn't agree with the way the banks aren't regulated, the way they drove the economy in the ground. He wants there to be regulation of the banks," Shannon said.

    And chances are since all that can be said was that it was a "projectile," those who want to believe it was something done by police will believe that, and those who side with the police will believe it was probably something thrown by a protester.


    by Elusive Trope on Wed, 10/26/2011 - 4:00pm

    I don't think there will be much doubt in the end.  From the Guardian:

    Shannon said Olsen was hit in the head by a tear gas canister or smoke canister shot by a police officer. He said Olsen had a curved scar on his forehead consistent with a canister.


    by Dan Kervick on Wed, 10/26/2011 - 4:32pm

    Unfortunately, with video of it actually happening, those who wish to believe otherwise will believe otherwise. That he was vet may help a few open their eyes who would otherwise not.  But an important facet of this is that there would be those who would react differently if all else was the same but the victim was one of the youths wearing a bandana around his face. 

    Putting aside the issue of whether the police used excessive force in this particular case for just a moment, it is these kinds of incidents which sidetrack the messaging.  The point is we talking about a violent confrontation rather than the 1%.


    by Elusive Trope on Wed, 10/26/2011 - 4:41pm

    I think they will figure it out.   The mayor will be eager to meet with them to work out a modus vivendi and avoid further conflicts.  As they did in New York, the occupiers will organize teams to keep the place clean and eliminate vandalism, to avoid giving a pretext for further crackdowns.  They'll double down on education in techniques of non-violent resistance.


    by Dan Kervick on Wed, 10/26/2011 - 4:56pm

    I am not as hopeful as you are, that they will ever figure it out.

    Congress is a perfect example of where we are as a Nation.

    Neither side is open to agreement.  

    The mistrust is too deep; one side is always seeking their own advantage.


    by Resistance on Wed, 10/26/2011 - 5:27pm

    This is a good discussion.

    Chemistry is usually used as a metaphoric device to describe 'movements' like this.

    Why would three hundred thousand Germans show up on short notice just to see a candidate for President of the United States? If I recall the German leader was not exactly pleased with this 'chemical' reaction that seemed to come out of nowhere.

    Some of the bloggers here and throughout the web note that organizers will do everything they can to advertise a meeting or a protest through normal channels and 40 people show up. But these same organizers who had been performing the same duties for years turn around one day and there are 2,000 people who show up; the next day 4,000 and so on.

    Of course people will get wind of some special sale at some department store on Black Friday and run over each other (in some cases people actually die) in order to get their hands on some toy or tech game. There is a sheep-like phenomina always present among the masses.

    Besides the points made by Genghis, I would hope that 'contacts' are being made by these protesters all over the country and that this movement will spark a real interest in the voting system 12 months from now.

    In a week or so there will be a big vote in Ohio on a measure dealing with union rights. I cannot believe that the recent protests will not effect the outcome of that vote.

    Soon there will be another recall election in Wisconsin.

     

    Who knows? Maybe thousands of these people will end up helping others to register to vote under these new repub voting requirements.

    This movement sure shakes things up and makes for better reading than the normal right/left arguments.

     


    by Richard Day on Wed, 10/26/2011 - 3:22pm

    This movement sure shakes things up and makes for better reading than the normal right/left arguments.

    That is definitely true.  The pot has been stirred and is being stirred.  How it all unfolds is anyone's guess.


    by Elusive Trope on Wed, 10/26/2011 - 4:43pm

    All the stuff and all the points have value if you believe knowledge empowers individuals.


    by artappraiser on Wed, 10/26/2011 - 4:13pm

    True.  Of course then one has to deal with capacity of an individual or group being able to obtain and retain the appropriate knowledge from any particular stuff or point in order to achieve positive value.  What is "learned" may actually disempower an individual.


    by Elusive Trope on Wed, 10/26/2011 - 4:35pm

    What, specifically, in your mind do you see point "B" being. If this point is not defined, how do we know leaving it lie and heading off to point "C" might not end up being better after all?

    This post is pretty clear about a specific action you'd like to see people move away from (the definitive action of the movement, BTW - puts to "O" in OWS), but it doesn't present any actionable alternative to replace it at all. Isn't this in effect calling for the movement to simply stop ... period?

    If not, seems like you are totally over-analyzing this. Go down to your local assembly, put your ideas for how to arrive "someplace" in the hopper. Convince everyone you are right - that going home and taking mystery-action-X will achieve the results they are seeking better than the current (and seemingly successful) tactic of creating unparalleled visibility while establishing public spaces where any American can go to present ideas and add their voice to the group calling for change - and we'll be on our way. That seems to be how this thing is working.

    Just curious ... have you come up with any specific tactical plans beyond asking everyone to hand out Obama bumper stickers and keep voting for whoever wears the "D" on their chest? If not, you might try and add a bit of zing to your pitch before heading down.


    by kgb999 on Wed, 10/26/2011 - 4:45pm

    KGB, you're an idiot. 

    Point B is.... well, it's.... pretty much EVERYTHING GOOD!!!

    Point B is...  

    ... Bestnuts roasting on an open fire!

    ... Birvana

    ... Brown paper backages tied up with bling!

    ... Bangri La

    ... Buppy dog's tails! 

    ... Fresh bananas

    ... Fresh Borange juice!

    ... Barack Obama

    ... Big Breasts!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Sorry. Deepest apologies. What? Wrap it up? Oh. Ok.

    ... Bindiana!

    Point B. I can't wait. 

    P.S. Though there's no way we're letting you in KGB, you silly Bunt.


    by Qnonymous (not verified) on Wed, 10/26/2011 - 7:35pm

    hahahahahahahhahahahaah


    by Richard Day on Wed, 10/26/2011 - 8:13pm

    You are such the wit, you are.

    Of course you would mock the notion of a Point B, because that would require accepting the notion that there has to be some perceived and desired outcome to guide one's action.  Now that doesn't mean one will actually achieve it, and one may actually end up in a better place (chances are one will end up in a place one hadn't quite conceive since nothing turns out like we think it will).

    Q is all for letting things flow completely spontaneous.  Don't worry your minds, even when he claims it is time to learn and think.  Just think with the conclusions already derived.  Just learn what has already been learned.  And be free.  Ignore those who dare to question things.


    by Elusive Trope on Wed, 10/26/2011 - 8:54pm

    Jeez.

     

    And here I thought I was just trying to get to Monty Python's "Silly Bunt" joke.


    by Qnonymous (not verified) on Wed, 10/26/2011 - 9:47pm

    Jeez.

    And here I thought I was trying to take seriously a serious topic.


    by Elusive Trope on Wed, 10/26/2011 - 11:22pm

    We know the Wizard will tell us what to do


    by Resistance on Wed, 10/26/2011 - 7:49pm

    I think Wicked brings the heart of the matter more to point


    by Elusive Trope on Wed, 10/26/2011 - 11:27pm

    DON’T TRUST THOSE ALREADY IN AUTHORITY, The movement will suffer.

    Is that the message?  Trope  

    “There are many main themes in Wicked. One widely acknowledged theme of Wicked is a statement about authority or esteemed figures, and how they are not always as wonderful and truthful as everyone thinks they are."

    Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_theme_of_in_wicked#ixzz1bxP9uORT


    by RAnonymous (not verified) on Thu, 10/27/2011 - 1:37am

    Just to give you a taste of my Point B:

    There would be 95% participation in elections in an off-presidential year.

    It is not accepted, but expected that citizens engage in political debates with their friends, family and co-workers.  They would read and listen to what they can about the issues and candidates, and take time to deeply reflect on all concerned.

    Local communities have internal collaborative infrastructures in place where strategies are developed that best utilize the limited resources to implement solutions.  Individuals and organizations, from businesses to churches to schools, come to the table not because they have to, but because they have developed mutual understandings and goals in which there are win-win situations.

    By achieving this, outcomes in elections will eventually reflect this level of engagement.  Our current problem is a result of Americans checking out of politics and its long history of anti-intellectualism.  The checking out of politics happened long ago, during those times of prosperity which everyone wants to return to in the post-WWII boom.

    In all of the flurry about the OWS and its offshoots, somehow everyone seems to forget that the left was often heard to call this the US of Amnesia.  For how long have all I seen is rants about the low information voter.  Now suddenly these camps are going to flip everything on its head.  Yeah right.


    by Elusive Trope on Wed, 10/26/2011 - 9:07pm

    In terms of the tactics - just look into the realm of early childhoold initiatives going on - bring the economic movers and shakers to the same table with the ones at the bottom rung of the 99%. 

    But to get a better sense, read this report from the Annie E Casey Foundation and then get back to me:

    http://www.aecf.org/upload/PublicationFiles/SocialNetworks_FES.pdf


    by Elusive Trope on Wed, 10/26/2011 - 9:21pm

    Wow.  Funny that you wrote this, seeing as how I was just about to blog about it at Paradigm, albeit in a different way.

    I've been out of touch with politics lately, mostly by choice, but today I took Mom down to New Jersey for a doctor's appointment and I found myself reading a TIME article on the OWS movement.  This being a day after struggling to read an article about it in Mom's "National Review" magazine, which I only picked up and read because I was bored yesterday.

    Anyway, I found it enlightening to see that both magazines chose to cover OWS yet both articles basically said, in a nutshell, "It's a movement, it seems bigger than the tea party, but no one knows what in hell it means, nor what the outcome will be."

    TIME was kinder and gentler, of course.  I was able to read the entire piece without gagging, anyway.  But, long story short, while OWS is seen as big news by the media, its message still isn't getting across.  You'd think "Big Banks Suck" would be an understandable message, but apparently Republicans think OWS activists are nothing but whining Liberals and TIME thinks they are whining college students who don't want to pay off their student loans.

    Meantime, TIME did a poll and found that over 70% of Americans LIKE the movement.  So apparently the overall message has gotten across to people.  The media, however, can't seem to even get past the squirrelly points in A and a Half, let alone get to Point B. 

    Personally, I think Point B should be about getting a clearer statement out there, such as, "We are NOT whining, we have a message!" and then, of course, we have to solidify that message and plan a Point B.  In my opinion, Point B should be about dropping the big banks (moving our money - what's left of it - into Credit Unions, etc) and about getting corporations out of campaigns.  By 2012. 

    Of course, my Point B won't be someone else's Point B, and therein lies the root of the problem. 

    Good piece, Trope.  I'm glad you saved me the trouble of writing a post about it.  :)  Oh, and a belated happy birthday to you. 

    (PS:  For some reason, I am not able to sign in tonight)


    by Anonymous LisB (not verified) on Thu, 10/27/2011 - 12:18am

    something is happening with the server it appears so none of us can stay signed in.

    but any ole how thanks for a little support here.  I don't mind a little push back, and in fact invite it, but I wasn't quite ready for the total resistance to mere idea that one should ponder the current path.

    Ultimately I would say at this moment that having a majority like the OWS is the same as if one asked if one liked universal health care.  Most will say yes.  But if it requried a sacrifice in their personal household income then the answer becomes differeent.

    But you should post your take.  The more voices the better.


    by Anonymous Tropey (not verified) on Thu, 10/27/2011 - 12:38am

    Thanks.  My take basically is already written in my comment, so until I read a bit more in the days ahead, and/or get on a writing roll, I think I'll hold off on posting at Paradigm about it. 

    It just angered me that the media is covering OWS like crazy and yet not understanding the underlying message behind it.  I suppose they're too busy getting paid by the corporations we're trying to fight.  But for all of them to say that they don't "get it", when over 70% of Americans are pissed off at the bank CEO's who make millions while laying off their employees...it just makes me want to laugh (or cry, or both). 

    Again, I think Point B should be a solid step/movement towards pushing credit unions and ending corporate "sponsorship" of political candidates in the year ahead.  Two things we should all be able to agree on, given the climate right now.  Here's hoping, anyway. 

     


    by Anonymous LisB (not verified) on Thu, 10/27/2011 - 12:45am