OO has made tremendous accomplishments, but its full-speed ahead approach is sometimes reckless and counterproductive. The 19th/Telegraph occupation is an obvious example. There’s no upside to this frontal assault approach, because: 1) An encampment won’t be established; the police will prevent it. Will that result in a violent confrontation (which hurts growing the movement), or will OO-ers leave peacefully (no benefit to movement building, but may hurt it because the public has turned against encampments)? 2) From the larger movement perspective, it’s more strategic not to establish a camp, because a) Oakland-ers have turned against encampments as a result of OG Plaza. b) Uptown residents and merchants obviously are strongly opposed to it, c) it’s not the best use of energy and resources for OO, and d) all that means it would hurt movement building.
Occupation is a tactic. It shouldn’t be a goal. Obviously, encampments were vitally important because they helped Occupy get everyone’s attention. But we need to be fluid, not rigid, in this fight, and know when to adjust strategy and tactics according to changing circumstances. This is one of those times. We can still bring the fight to the estabishment without 24/7 occupation, and if we do it right, we’ll gain more supporters and participants.
Thus far, Occupy Oakland has demonstrated amazing energy, resolve, and ingenuity, but its primary weaknesses include a lack of a broader strategic focus and a lack of critical self-analysis.
Before deciding on any proposal, the question that should be thoroughly discussed is: will it help to grow the movement. Such discussions are impossible at GAs, however, because the format limits in-depth dialogue. Decisions are made after only brief pros and cons. Such a process does not allow for needed discussion, let alone understanding, of the broader impacts.
The fight to change the world is a 15 round slugfest between the ultra-heavyweight 800 pounder and a pesky flyweight that must get hellaciously stronger very quickly (i.e. movement building). In such a fight, it’s critical to know when to go forward, when to go sideways, and when to step back. Round 1 has just started, but OO seems determined to come out swinging and keep swinging, no matter what
Proposal: OO should:
- Adopt a resolution that growing the movement is a top priority goal and assess all actions with regards to whether it helps achieve that goal or not.
- Restructure GA meetings to allow for in-depth discussion and analysis of key issues.
- Establish or encourage the establishment of a strategic planning committee.
The outcome of the movement’s fight against the establishment will be determined by whether enough power has been developed, how that power is used, and whether the movement is long-lasting. For Occupy, power is primarily about increasing the number of its supporters and participants far beyond current numbers. This must happen if the movement is to be successful.
Success means reversing current trends so that ordinary people are better fed, housed, cared for, educated, and employed. Success ultimately means dismantling plutocracy and cannibalistic capitalism, and building a system based on participatory democracy and economics that is humane, equitable, and ecologically sustainable.
Everything that the Occupy movement does should be done with the primary (but not exclusive) goal of growing the movement.
I agree with you. Something that is often overlooked is that when we say, “the whole world is watching,” that means they are watching us, too. It actually DOES matter what we do and how we look to the rest of the 99% who have not joined us yet.
Do we actually want this movement to grow? Or so we wish hold on stubbornly to our personal agendas, sacrificing the greater good of making this movement a success?
If we are going to be a success, we need many, many thousands more people to get active in this movement. Otherwise, this is all a waste, and the 1% wins. How we are perceived is directly related to our success or failure.