Occupy Wall Street 3: Now What?

i'm open to the possibility that the occupy folks did have a better plan. but i'm sort of doubting it.

if they wanted to "take over" a vacant building and turn it into a community center, why not appeal to mayor/aldermen/etc. to do so? draw up a plan, one that seems reasonable to most non-gov't folks. and submit it to those in power.

and if/ when they respond indifferently, then you can publicize that recalcitrance, and make the indifference of gov't to the impoverished the purpose of a march, with the community center issue at front and center.

again, poor planning doesn't "justify" police violence or lawbreaking.

but you can plan in ways that minimize the chance for violence, and that doesn't mean you're necessarily capitulating to the man.

that's kinda the thing though. deigning to the powers that be to humbly ask them to please okay a community center is one way of doing it. but why can't it also be the vague outline in my xpost with the gov't riding shotgun?

deigning to the powers that be to humbly ask them

oh come on these people aren't royalty. these are elected officials, some of whom may have even been community organizers themselves.

well part of the "problem" is that occupy's tactics are (or purport to be) tied very tightly to its opinions, for lack of a better word. that is, the decision to commandeer a building instead of going through the usual channels isn't made because ppl are lazy/greedy/stupid, it's made as an explicit rejection/indictment of "the usual channels."

similarly, the outsized police response isn't just because some cops are assholes, it's inevitable, and itself an expression of the same power structures that set "the usual channels" into place.

so when ppl say shit like "well of course the cops are gonna act like that you goons" or "god why don't you just do it the normal way," it's a pretty clear indication that ppl have missed the point entirely.

xps see shaane's idea is otm. there's no doubt that the occupiers could have done a better job of this, but poor execution of (as judith pointed out) a pretty common tactic doesn't mean the tactic itself is a bad one

xp some, yes, but the general occupy idea is gov't just hasn't been actually making shit happen over the past few years/decades. a gov position seems to have has a tempering effect on obama. can't really speak to those in municipal positions, but i'd expect those with the values of community organization to get behind or lead their occupy movement.

a gov position seems to have has a tempering effect on obama

a gov position has a tempering effect on 99.5% of change-the-system candidates

gbx otm

the fact is, nobody is against community centers

Have they tried working through the usual channels? Because it does work sometimes. I've worked with campaigners who got legislation passed that's helped millions of disadvantaged people. But it involves lots of work, organization, and know-how, and I suppose isn't accessible to everyone.

So what are they talking about re: usual channels? I'm totally confused now about what the goal is.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mrrdcLuXtZ8

like there is not some nefarious corporate scheme to keep Occupy people from opening a community center, nobody would oppose it. there might be fights about where and what kind of services could be offered, but welcome to community organizing.

xp

Park51 is open btw, because the law is on their side and everybody involved knows it

opened in September

how many riots do you think it'd take to open a community center? I'd guess about 5, with at least a dozen flag burnings, and at least one storefront exploding.

i mean, the london riots. were they a good thing? well, no, inasmuch as looting and violence are not Good Things. but were they expressions of actual, systemic Bad Things (terrible police/community relationships, poverty, etc)? yes.

i'd agree that oakland has focused maybe too much (unintentionally) on showcasing police confrontation, just because, sadly, for a lot of ppl in america, heavy-handed statist rebukes of protest elicits opinions more like "she was asking for it, dressed like that" and less like "rape is just fucking awful."

the question becomes: should the movement in general shy away from actions like squatting or w/e just because they don't play well on TV or in the court of public opinion (despite being rooted in, and consistent with, the same thinking as say occupying a public square), and provoke cartoonishly rendered examples of What's Wrong (the militarization of the police, the curtailment of free speech)? or should they accept the fact that by-and-large most ppl are gonna misread something like squatting, and try something else?

many xps

They should stay away from it, imo, because it doesn't accomplish anything. Goal: open community center. What's the best way to make this happen? "POLICE FIGHT!!!!"

Don't know why the court of public opinion is the goal, it's only a tool to be used in accomplishing the end result. Say: getting the public on the side of opening the center using publicity, community outreach, etc. Why's protesting figuring into this automatically? That's like a last resort.

the fact is, nobody is against community centers

― Full Frontal Newtity (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, January 30, 2012 5:52 PM (6 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

right, just like no one is against "education." it is, as my very awesome 9th grade civics put it, a "valence issue." no one likes crime, everyone likes health---as long as we define those things in broad strokes, and agree to disagree on the nuts and bolts of how to achieve them. but, even someone who likes, in theory, the idea of a community center on every block, might end up putting policies into place that do not explicitly forbid, or degrade the notion of, community centers, but still make the actual realization of one impossible, or at least very difficult

They should stay away from it, imo, because it doesn't accomplish anything. Goal: open community center. What's the best way to make this happen? "POLICE FIGHT!!!!"

Don't know why the court of public opinion is the goal, it's only a tool to be used in accomplishing the end result. Say: getting the public on the side of opening the center using publicity, community outreach, etc. Why's protesting figuring into this automatically? That's like a last resort.

― Spectrum, Monday, January 30, 2012 6:02 PM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

did you even read anything

i can't speak to any specific occupy community but i'm sure a lot of people are there bc they feel disempowered. so

Why's protesting figuring into this automatically? That's like a last resort.

is the point.

as long as we define those things in broad strokes, and agree to disagree on the nuts and bolts of how to achieve them.

fwiw, this is the rotten core of politics in america.

there are totally people in this country who are against public education fyi

I don't think there's a ton of nuts-and-bolts obstacles to building community centers in Oakland. I could be wrong, but I doubt it.

did you even read anything

― i love pinfold cricket (gbx), Monday, January 30, 2012 7:06 PM (49 seconds ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

Yes, between the lines. What I got from it there was an inherent assumption that the first line of resort was protest/confrontation, and if that's ineffective, try something else. Which I think is the wrong perspective to start out with and is doomed to failure, imo.

I'm not aware of any inherent assumption, and agreed that that one-off strategy is doomed.

i would hazard that occupy oakland did not, as shaane wisely suggested, come up with a plan or draft or w/e for their community center, and that the POLICE FIGHT may have, unconsciously, been the point.

that being said, had they done that, and then gone ahead and taken over a different less conspicuous, and maybe even privately-owned vacant building (scrupulously researched and known to have nothing planned for its immediate future), what would your* opinion have been then? and what if they had been forcibly evicted?

*"your" here being a catch-all for skeptics, not necessarily anyone itt

there are totally people in this country who are against public education fyi

right, but they're not against "education," the state or action or w/e of ppl gettin' learnin'

they just think it should be left to whatever-isn't-the-public to do it

as you yourself said, no one is sitting around with steepled fingers thinking "yessssss...let's trash the environment on purpose." and even right-wing candidates are "environmentalists" inasmuch as they say stuff like "hey i'm in favor of clean water as much as the next guy!"

xps

What I got from it there was an inherent assumption that the first line of resort was protest/confrontation, and if that's ineffective, try something else. Which I think is the wrong perspective to start out with and is doomed to failure, imo.

― Spectrum, Monday, January 30, 2012 6:10 PM (9 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

this response is indicative of why i asked you that question. like, i kinda agree that maybe in this case confrontation may have been expected or even hoped for. but you haven't engaged the point i've been making pretty tiresomely (and explicitly, and not between the lines): if you think that "trying something else" = do it like every other jerk trying to open a community center, and not squatting in a building that isn't yours, then you have missed the point by a very wide margin. which, i freely admit, may speak to some weaknesses in how occupy is getting its point across.

like, Goal: isn't just open a community center, it's open a community center right now, with these people, in that thing over there that isn't being used, and without asking permission from anyone except the ppl it will serve.

from another angle: representative gov't does not have to be the only, and is not necessarily the most efficient, way to organize civil society

thank you, both of you

especially representative government that repeatedly demonstrates that it is representing money and not people. xp

like, Goal: isn't just open a community center, it's open a community center right now, with these people, in that thing over there that isn't being used, and without asking permission from anyone except the ppl it will serve.

― i love pinfold cricket (gbx), Tuesday, 31 January 2012 00:25 (12 minutes ago) Permalink

Why would this be good for society?

because you'd have a community center?

I clearly missed the point, because that's like ... wuhhh??? to me. Imagine any jerk with enough man power can pretty much do whatever they like to abandoned public property. "We, alone in this gathered group of people, think this thing belonging to everyone in the city, should be thus! And it's OUR asay! Cuz we got the people to take it over. Suck on it, every citizen in the city. If you want a say, you have to join our group and we'll consider it at the next General Assembly."

Kinda defeats the whole point of every citizen being represented. Is that really the ethos behind this Occupy thing? Sounds like it's a mini-version of government apart from the larger government, except it's governed by force. Sounds swell.

what's the point of being 'represented' by your government if your government doesn't give a fuck because you don't have a shit ton of cash to throw around for your 'representative's' personal benefit?

that's misleading - Occupy Oakland would totally get a hearing from Quan et al at this point

Quan would LOVE it, it would be a political coup for her to negotiate some kind of agreement

I clearly missed the point, because that's like ... wuhhh??? to me. Imagine any jerk with enough man power can pretty much do whatever they like to abandoned public property. "We, alone in this gathered group of people, think this thing belonging to everyone in the city, should be thus! And it's OUR asay! Cuz we got the people to take it over. Suck on it, every citizen in the city. If you want a say, you have to join our group and we'll consider it at the next General Assembly."

Kinda defeats the whole point of every citizen being represented. Is that really the ethos behind this Occupy thing? Sounds like it's a mini-version of government apart from the larger government, except it's governed by force. Sounds swell.

yes, you have very clearly missed the point

yeah i think quan is really torn by this whole situation. she used to be a community organizer, her family's been involved in the occupation, etc. but she's made one awful decision after another. maybe if she can get national leadership on the phone they can sort each other out...

lol

what's the point of being 'represented' by your government if your government doesn't give a fuck because you don't have a shit ton of cash to throw around for your 'representative's' personal benefit?

― wmlynch, Monday, January 30, 2012 7:48 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

So then the next logical step is burning the whole thing to the ground because there's a legitimate grievance. Makes sense. If Occupy Oakland is the new solution, count me out.

"We, alone in this gathered group of people, think this thing belonging to everyone in the city, should be thus! And it's OUR asay! Cuz we got the people to take it over. Suck on it, every citizen in the city. If you want a say, you have to join our group and we'll consider it at the next General Assembly."

this how loggin/mining/extracting resources works. and, like, congress but w/e

so you can't even imagine that there might be another way of doing business that isn't the status quo? cuz that's what it sounds like and i think that's kind of sad.
xp

hey Spectrum:

The truth is that while almost everyone I know in Occupy Oakland (including myself) thinks that breaking windows is tactically the wrong thing to do and very stupid, many people do not agree with non-violent philosophy. If you kicked those folks out then you would have a body of folks that wouldn't have been radical enough to even call for a General Strike. Occupy Oakland, on the whole, has a radical analysis that leads us to campaigns that others wouldn't and which also capture people's imagination. For instance, as I've said before, Gandhi was vocally against strikes because physically stopping someone from what they want to do is violent. Occupy Oakland has called for a diversity of tactics- which is different than our New York comrades, however I don't think that is supposed to mean that you use every tactic every time. We are so large here precisely because our actions have teeth. If the police blockaded at the port- we would have had 2 choices. The first would have been to let them stop us from getting there- with them thereby calling a victory against OO. The second choice was for us to quietly push through them with the shields we had in the front of the march and using our power in numbers to get through. That would, technically, not fall into non-violent philosophy. I think it is the fact that police knew that we had tens of thousands and we would push through there if necessary, that caused them to stay away. Also, everyone here seems to be inspired by Arab Spring, Greek movements, and other similar movements in Europe. None of those were non-violent in nature. The Egyptian folks burned down a police station, for instance. Everyone I know thinks that tactics like that here would cause the movement to be crushed, so those tactics are not on the table- I'm just pointing out that people are saying that this is emulating a movement which was pretty violent. But, I think the discussion is about tactics, not about adopting non-violent philosophy. On November 2nd, a large group of people with many contradictions successfully shut down the city in the biggest action with an overt class analysis in 60 years. People all over the world, all over the country, all over Oakland- are excited by this. If you are threatening to leave because, in the midst of this mass action some people broke windows and we are all trying to figure out how to work together, then you're missing the point and you'll be missing out on history. Don't let the media frame the discussion. The average everyday person was empowered by what happened on November 2nd. Every movement has contradictions, we aren't told about them so we think this movement should be different- there was violence during the Civil Rights movement. The pastor that had MLK's job before him at Ebeneezer Baptist Church had just made all of his congregation buy shotguns. The NAACP had an ARMED chapter in North Carolina. You can wait 50 more years for your perfect movement, or you can realize that it's here.

that's by Boots Riley btw and it was upthread but seems relevant here.

boots otm.

Sounds like it's a mini-version of government apart from the larger government, except it's governed by force.

this is breathtakingly, awesomely stupid btw. the loonies dancing in the street are the boot, the armored police, a human face

so you can't even imagine that there might be another way of doing business that isn't the status quo? cuz that's what it sounds like and i think that's kind of sad.
xp

― wmlynch, Monday, January 30, 2012 7:55 PM (25 seconds ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

Yeah, of course there are other ways of doing things, but I don't think we're going to see a Federalist Papers coming out of these guys, not to be a jerk or anything.

this how loggin/mining/extracting resources works. and, like, congress but w/e

― i love pinfold cricket (gbx), Monday, January 30, 2012 7:54 PM (46 seconds ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

And justifying a wrong by the wrong actions of others ... and it being the same wrong ... with the justification of fixing that wrong ... makes no sense!!!

Are these the general opinions re: occupy movement?

And justifying a wrong by the wrong actions of others ... and it being the same wrong ... with the justification of fixing that wrong ... makes no sense!!!

can you say this in another way?

I don't think there's a ton of nuts-and-bolts obstacles to building community centers in Oakland. I could be wrong, but I doubt it.

― Full Frontal Newtity (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, January 31, 2012 12:10 AM

I spent years dealing with the City of Oakland about a similar issue, and you are, unfortunately, very very wrong.