As I’ve experienced it in San Francisco, the movement also deserves support because of the tone that it has established. Both when I participate in General Assemblies and talk with individuals, including those who are exercising leadership in this so-called “leaderless” movement, I am reminded of how in Why Tribe Gary Snyder said that we could recognize fellow members of that great underground counter-culture that has challenged dominant cultures since the beginning of modern civilization by a “bright and tender look; calmness and gentleness, freshness and ease of manner.”
That description sums up my impression of the San Francisco occupiers. An undercurrent of anger runs through the occupation. On occasion, one hears expressions of rage about what is happening in this country. But that anger is not predominant. It seems that more so than any movement that I’ve experienced in my 47 years of activism, these occupiers are able to set their anger aside, tap even deeper feelings of love, and allow that positive energy to be their driving force. After all, it’s that love that prompts us to get angry. But unfortunately, it’s easy to get stuck in anger. These young men and women seem to have largely learned to avoid that trap.
Even Michael Moore is caught up in the joy of the movement. When he spoke to Occupy SF for about 15 minutes yesterday, he was downright giddy. His written work can sometimes get too carried away with vitriol for my taste. But his humor was on refreshing display at Justin Herman Plaza.
“It’s already so big, and it’s not even organized,” he said. “The media wants to know who organized this. I’ll tell you who. Bank of America organized this. Chase organized this.”
He gave the California audience a hard time by reminding us, “You gave us Reagan and Nixon.” I shouted out, “We’re sorry.” He replied, “On behalf of America, I accept your apology,” and I bowed to him. This kind of exchange was typical throughout his appearance.
At the end of his talk, he offered some very important recommendations concerning strategy. “Beware of any leftist group that wants to co-opt this. We have the support of the majority.” I take this warning to affirm a non-ideological approach that respects majority opinion, which is important if we want to help empower the 99%. Since we say, “We are the 99%,” the movement would do well to emphasize messages that are simpatico with the mainstream.
Moore also wisely qualified his statement when he said, “This movement is not about getting behind a politician or legislation right now (emphasis added).” He used that qualifying phrase once again as well. Who knows what might work in the future, especially if the Democrats take back the House. After all, many Democratic politicians have given important support to the movement. So it makes sense to begin to develop consensus now about what concrete proposals for action we might present to Congress after the next election.
For now, however, Moore wisely reinforced the tendency throughout the country for Occupiers to focus on banks. Occupy SF, for example, is distributing a large quantity of posters and fliers calling for a mass march on “Move Your Money Out of Banks Day,” Saturday, Nov. 5, 3 pm, urging people to withdraw their money and deposit it in institutions like credit unions.
“We the people want to occupy our economy,” he said, and pointed out that Occupy SF is in the midst of big banks like Bank of America.
.
But unless the movement corrects certain flaws in its strategy, it is unlikely to evolve from a cultural phenomenon into an effective political force.
Particular problems include the lack of agreement on its mission and principal methods, the reluctance to delegate responsibility, the resistance to establishing and enforcing rules of behavior, the insistence that anyone can participate in any decision, and giving 11% of the members the power to block a decision.
These conditions enable a minority of members to disrupt the community, create chaos, or establish their own unendorsed agendas. The Occupy communities have not yet demonstrated that they can govern in a safe, orderly, respectful manner.
Yesterday I tried to help address these issues by distributing “Occupy SF: Proposals Concerning Structure.” That proposal has received strong support from several individuals, but I am not optimistic. The disorganization that is driving away potential active supporters is deeply entrenched and there is little agreement about how to get better organized.
The disarray is reflected in the handling of money. Up to $20,000 went missing in Portland. San Francisco has had trouble getting representatives from the Finance Working Group to attend General Assemblies (which has delayed important decisions), no financial statement has been posted, minutes aren’t being posted to the Web, and the administrators of the website aren’t available to work out problems.
New York has collected more than $400,000 and spends about $2,500 per day, mostly on food. But the entire General Assembly that is open to anyone must approve expenditures of more than $100. Getting approval requires one to get a form from the Finance Working Group and then gain approval from a working group, then Finance, then the Facilitation Working Group, and then the General Assembly, where details can be micro-managed at great length.
The underlying problem is hyper-individualism. As stated in the “quick guide to starting a General Assembly” linked to on the New York General Assembly website, the predominant philosophy is “Every person is free to do what they wish.” Or, as one Occupy SF member stated at a meeting that addressed how to respond to disruptive individuals, “We should speak to them as a free, sovereign individual not as a representative of the community enforcing rules.” But no individual is sovereign, holding ultimate power over others.
The facilitator of that meeting, a strong leader in the community, opened by saying that we need group agreements that aren’t policies or rules but are “our expressions of our intent in terms of how to relate to one another that are never formalized (in writing) and are ever evolving.” She also said that these agreements should never be enforced by kicking someone out of the camp, but should merely be tools for communication.
This approach takes self-empowerment to the extreme and undermines community. Instead, the tension between the individual and the community needs to be resolved with a proper balance and mutual respect.
“Occupy: Your Guide to the International Occupation Movement of 2011” distributed by a member of Occupy Santa Cruz reflects this same hyper-individualism. It asserts, “It’s a movement inspired by the advances of communication that have allowed us to function without authority, allowing every voice to at last be weighed truly as equal (emphasis added)…. There is no…governing body.”
But, given that authority is “the right to act in a specified way, delegated from one person or organization to another,” without delegation anyone can have a voice in any decision at any time, which in large groups leads to chaos. Instead, we need to hold accountable those to whom we delegate the authority to make decisions.
The doctrinaire, hyper-individualistic rejection of all authority carries over into the political stance asserted by many occupiers. As the document from Santa Cruz states, “It’s a movement that doesn’t bring a list of demands to the powers-that-be but instead suggests that we can build a different society…. They (“the 1%) don’t matter. We don’t need them. We are the 99% and we are more powerful than they’ll every be.”
In The Guardian, Patrick Kingsley, concluded: “If anything, the camp itself is their demand, and their solution: the stab at an alternative society that at least aims to operate without hierarchy, and with full, participatory democracy http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/oct/20/occupy-london-st-pauls-protesters?newsfeed=true.”
But the very sensible “Principles of solidarity – working draft” that was accepted by the New York City General Assembly on September 23rd does not reflect those utopian, hyper-individualistic notions. And that statement declares, “…demands will follow.”
As Jo Freeman described in the 1970 classic “The Tyranny of Structurelessness” a minority of occupiers is trying to hijack the Occupy movement and establish their own hyper-individualistic agenda, without the consent of the movement.
On the New York General Assembly website About page, Deborah Celentano has posted an insightful comment, “Occupy Wall Street – Leaderless, consensus-based participatory democracy and its discontents.” She points out that “direct democracy” practiced on a large scale tends to put
effective power disproportionately in the hands of extroverted, energetic, and charismatic individuals with a knack for persuasion. The opinions of introverts and those of us who need a good deal of time to mull things over tend not to be fully included into the decision-making process. So these people (most of us, I think) must go along, their views systematically underrepresented until the rule of the pushy yammerers becomes too intolerable and they leave. Exit is more powerful than voice if voice is not your strong suit.Celentano argues that this effort “to persuade Americans to adopt a wholly different and better way to live with one another…is bound to fail. Even if consensus-based, leaderless participatory democracy could work on a grand scale, Americans aren’t interested.”
It is my belief that the Occupy movement could build a political community that reflects the kind of society we seek if we focus on the corruption of government and the concentration of wealth and income. But any effort to meet unmet needs by building a complete alternative society in public squares will be swamped by individuals who are profoundly troubled or seriously antisocial, and will likely soon collapse in frustration.
If we the 99% want the Occupy movement to reflect our convictions, rather than those of the rabid hyper-individualistic minority, we will need to make our voice heard. But that’s hard to do when one must sit through endless meetings seven days a week to have a real voice.
