Dissent Magazine: The Fall and Rise of the U.S. Populist Left

[brooklynite]

http://dissentmagazine.org/article/?article=4243

The signal achievement of the Occupy movement, at least so far, is to challenge the conservative reasoning and the narrative that accompanies it. “We are the 99%” conveys a deeply moral, democratic message that represents a leap beyond what most left activists have been saying since the 1960s. Gender equality, multiculturalism, opposition to military intervention, and global warming are all worthy causes. So was the sometimes disjointed attack on the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund that briefly shut down Seattle in 1999. But each represented the passions of discrete groups whose opponents were able to belittle them as “special interests.” For all their virtues, each cause was either absorbed into the political culture (feminism) or (as with environmentalism and the movement against the invasion of Iraq) confronted powerful enemies able to wage a grossly unequal fight.

But the Occupiers made the brilliant decision to appeal to anyone with a grievance of any kind against the visible corporate hands who helped bring us low and have suffered little or not at all for their actions. One result of this inclusiveness was a flood of new activists, some of whom had no experience with the organized Left. In Las Vegas, one of the Occupiers I spoke with on a National Public Radio talk show in October was a small businesswoman who usually votes Republican but became incensed when no bank would give her a loan and no insurance company would provide affordable care to her employees.

...snip...

Without a structure, it is almost impossible to come up with a strategy for the movement, and tactical decisions can easily go awry. Take the “General Strike” called by Occupy Oakland last November. On the one hand, this event showed the daring and creativity of a movement aware of the history of economic protest. In the mid-1930s, general strikes played a critical role in persuading Congress to enact the National Labor Relations Act and helped galvanize the surge in union organizing that followed. This time, although only a few thousand workers walked off their jobs, many businesses did close for the day, and the idea of a mass strike evoked the days when workers were the spearhead of a large and powerful Left. The local labor council and several unions were happy to endorse the protest, and some of their members came to serve barbeque and join the throng that, at one point, approached ten thousand.

Yet “strike” organizers never made clear why closing the Port of Oakland was the central aim of the day. And it led to several angry standoffs between protestors and union truckers who wanted to go home for the night and then make it back to work the next morning. Only the intervention of officials from the ILWU, the longshore union that has been a bastion of the Left since its creation by veterans of the real general strike that took place in San Francisco in 1934, may have prevented a fracas similar to the “Hard Hat Riot” in lower Manhattan during the Vietnam War, in which dozens were injured. In Oakland, later at night, a small group of protesters broke into a downtown building, set a fire in a trashcan, and scrawled graffiti before the cops arrested them. Inevitably, the media coverage focused on acts by a violent few who seemed to think that running amok would advance their cause.

I disagree with the interpretation that appealing to anyone with a grievance was a smart tactical move. It makes the crowds look bigger, but it then become difficult to build consensus (especially with the leaderless decision-making process) one one or a handful of issues to address and keep in the public eye. Is [link|http://www.democraticunderground.com/12522949|Hydrofracking] an important issue? Yes. Is it as important as Citizens United, or bank foreclosures or the other issues that Occupy first raise? I would argue not. Eight months ago, I think most people could tell you what Occupy was concerned about. Today, I'm not sure they could.

[JDPriestly]

1. Occupy was and is concerned about the corporate dominance of our culture

and politics. That has not changed.

Proof?

Here in Los Angeles, once our City Council passed the Move to Amend resolution, Occupy permitted itself to be peacefully moved away from the city hall lawn and has pretty much focused on protests against corporate entities.

Of course, the Occupy movement is not homogeneous, and what was true in Los Angeles may not work elsewhere.

But the point of Occupy Wall Street was to protest and point the finger at the outrageous greed and manipulation of our democratic institutions by big business as personified by the Wall Street "investor," trader, banker, however he is disguising his inhuman greed at the moment.

Nearly all of the most common grievances in our country have their roots in the corruption of our system by the 1% in order to dominate, control and finally crush the 99%. That's why Occupy drew such huge support. Occupy is no longer camping out in public places. They no longer need to because their ideas, their message is present in the lives of so many of us.

[Wilms]

2. I have little reason to believe a single-issue campaign would have been appropriate.

Meanwhile, eight months ago, I think most people couldn't tell you what Occupy was concerned about. Today, I'm sure most could.

Of course, single-issue voters might not understand. But that's not hard to imagine.