user preferences

New Events

North America / Mexico

no event posted in the last week

Occupy is Dead. Now What?

category north america / mexico | community struggles | opinion / analysis author Thursday December 27, 2012 11:39author by Colin O - Rochester Red & Black, Common Struggle - Libertarian Communist Federation Report this post to the editors

How do we move beyond movement moments, and start taking strategic advantage of the moment in such a way that strengthens our efforts decades down the road? Did we gain strength from involvement in the Occupy Wall Street movement, or not? Is the idea of Occupy Wall Street a short-sighted route to building mass revolutionary movements?

The Occupy Movement is a thing of the past. I think it’s safe to say that now. I don’t say this to be a downer on the movement or to destroy the momentum that we may have built. These moments of accelerated activity for the left are important, but they aren’t all that we are. And so, I don’t see the Occupy Movement coming to an end as a bad thing for us as radicals. But, we should recognize it so that we can begin to move onto new phases and next steps of our continual growth as a movement.

To do this, we need to look back briefly and reflect on Occupy and what it teaches us. My experiences were largely with Occupy Rochester, and most of my reflections will begin from there. But in my conversations with many people that participated in other Occupy’s, I don’t think that what I saw in Rochester was unrepresentative of many Occupations around the country.

As with any movement, we should start with what we’ve gained over the course of the moment. With Occupy, there seem to be a lot of fairly vague things gained. Economic inequality is now a national talking point. Moderate to liberal politicians and mainstream media have been forced to recognize economic inequality as part of the conversation, even if superficially and through the same flawed, capitalist lens that they have always seen through.

For some of the more militant elements of the left in the country, we also discovered that there is some validity to the idea that courageous and militant actions that step outside of the typical venues for social change are in fact capable of inspiring mass participation and self-organization.

But, in some of the more objective outlooks, it doesn’t seem to me as if we’ve gained much. It doesn’t seem as if any of the various Occupy groups have spawned sustainable organizations capable of continued resistance to the structures that cause the inequality that Occupy originally identified as much of the problem. So while we may have inspired ourselves, which should never be dismissed, it also doesn’t look like we’ve become much more widespread in our organization or in our collective power.

The trajectory toward revolutionary change is a long one, and we have moments that may be revolutionary or they may just be moments that we should strengthen ourselves – building new combative organizations and growing the membership of the ones we already had. From where I stand, it seems as though we missed that moment. And, what worries me, is that in my short time of involvement in these sort of movements, that seems to be a regular feature of the US left.

As the global justice movement in the US slowed, it didn’t seem like we had built a stronger left. The energy of this movement, however, did flow nicely into building a large anti-war mobilization movement. Unfortunately, that also didn’t seem to build new or strengthen many existing organizations and resistance movements.

To me, this is central. These movement moments require a great deal of resources. Time, energy, and money are required to build these huge mobilizations. In most movement moments it seems that a lot of activists simply burn out, having put in more energy than they really had. If our movements cost this much, we need to come out on the other side stronger and better suited for the next fight.

So, what is it that leads us to miss these moments? I’m sure there are dozens of answers, all of which are just as partially correct. The part that I’m hoping to contribute is that I think we often display a sort of notoriously short American attention span. We get excited about the exciting portions of movements, but don’t commit ourselves in a massive enough way to the more serious, harder part of building movements – targeted outreach, consciousness raising, analysis development and organization building.

Activists in US-based movements see mass protests in Egypt, student strikes in Quebec, workplace takeovers in Argentina and leap to saying that we have to do those sort of actions. They’re right, partially. In the US we absolutely need movements that can and will take those sort of actions to fight for fundamental changes in our social and economic reality. So we jump to organizing an occupation because that’s the goal and it looks exciting.

However, if we take a step back and look at the movements that inspire us, we’d quickly realize that they’re able to take these mass actions after years of work developing organizations and spreading consciousness. If they didn’t skip that work, we shouldn’t believe that we can. We live in a nation that has an incredible ability to dodge basic class consciousness, with little recent experience in mass militant protest, where people have very little sense of the actual power they could wield.

With a quick glance at some of the many international movements that inspire us, we can see that there is considerably more to them than the mass actions that we see

Egypt – “Ash-shaʻb yurīd isqāṭ an-niẓām (The people want to bring down the regime.)”

Just a few months before Occupy Wall Street broke out, the Arab Spring was inspiring a generation of activists throughout the world. While the demonstrations seemed to begin (can we ever really say begin?) in Tunisia, it’s the mass protests of Egypt that seemed to catch the world’s attention. On January 25th, 2011 mass protests appeared in Tahrir Square to protest growing poverty and the leadership of the three decade-rule of Hosni Mubarak. These protests are largely seen as spontaneous.

However, when we look to the youth that seem to have spontaneously called this protest, we find an organization called the April 6th Youth Movement. What is the significance of April 6th? On April 6th, 2008 a series of strikes led by textile workers in Mahalla led to a national general strike and the push for a labor movement independent of the state apparatus. The April 6th Youth Movement formed from this movement as an organizations of leftists, students and workers calling for drastic social change and recognizing the power of organized people to achieve that change. Much of the groups activity was tied to a facebook group that in 2009 had 70,000 members actively participating in debate and massively extending political, social, and economic consciousness of youth in the country.

Only five days after the initial protests in Egypt, Egyptian workers saw the necessity for mass organization to coordinate their participation and formed the Egyptian Federation of Independent Trade Unions (EFITU). On February 6th, EFITU called for a General Strike and began to shut down entire sectors of the economy. On February 11th, Hosni Mubarak was no longer in power in Egypt.

Quebec – “Why do you strike when you have the lowest tuition in Canada? We have the lowest tuition in Canada because we strike.”

More recently, many of us in the US left have been inspired by the huge student strikes that have swept Quebec. What has to be remembered by all of us is that this is a dramatic surge of energy and militancy from students that have a decades-long tradition of organization. Both students and anarchists have been well organized in Quebec for years.

The more militant arm of the Quebec student movement – Association pour une solidarité syndicale étudiante – was formed in 2001 and by the time of the strike in 2012 had 50,000 members in 25 university-level organizations. The other major student unions in Quebec have a combined membership of around 200,000. Members of these unions pay dues into an organization that is then able to hire staff, maintain offices, fund organizing efforts, etc. It’s in moments of mass-movement momentum that these organizations are able to form and then again it’s in those moments that these organizations are able to grow.

Anarchists and other revolutionaries have been actively involved in these organizations and the various movements around them for years. Some of these revolutionaries act simply as participants within the major student unions and some of them coordinate as members of groups like the anarchist Union Comuniste Libertaire. The existence of organizations like this help them to coordinate the efforts of revolutionaries and actively participate in the battle of ideas internal to the student movement.

Argentina – “Que se vayan todos (they all must go!)”

Further back in the early 2000′s many of us involved in various labor and community efforts were inspired to hear about the worker recuperated factories movement and the growing people’s assemblies in Argentina following their massive economic collapse.

As the economy collapsed, many workers took over their factories and workplaces rather than allow them to close and layoff all workers. In many cases, these workplaces began to operate again under worker control. A federation of worker-controlled workplaces grew and began to organize and advocate for further expropriations. In Buenos Aires, directly democratic neighborhood assemblies appeared to organize around the immediate needs of their territory as the government went through many rapid changes. Through workplace and community organizing, movements in Argentina began to create the institutions capable of sustainably maintaining grassroots, rank-and-file power.

In many ways, these were some of the most spontaneous formations. Even here, we find a long history of mass-movement building. Most workers in Argentina already belonged to unions. Thousands of people were active in socialist parties and anarchist organizations. These organizations had participants that were active in unions and community groups before the economic collapse. So, to say that the ideas raised in the intense moments of the 2001 economic collapse and following uprising were totally spontaneous would be faulty. However, this uprising became the birthplace of totally new organizations that took on very new forms from the ones before them.

Even in the case of a much more spontaneous collapse and uprising, the movement forces in Argentina seemed better poised to strengthen their efforts after the movement moment. They didn’t simply wear out activists. They built new organizations, many of which have lasted for years and engaged thousands of new people and substantially built the organized power of working class movements.

Back in the U.S.A.

There is no short-cut for organizing! If we’re ever going to genuinely change society for the better, we’re going to need to build massive organizations in workplaces, communities, and schools. We absolutely should be aiming for the day when we can organize general strikes, student strikes, university occupations, and all of these exciting tactics that keep many of us so inspired by the power of everyday people to take control of the world around them. But, we also have to be real with ourselves. We need these tactics to win rather than get crushed. We need to have them build our movements rather than drain them. We need to come out stronger on the other end of the intensification of struggle.

If that’s going to happen, we need to get comfortable with the real work necessary to build organizations. We need to build a tolerance for the less-than-sexy work of decision making processes. We need to spend more time spreading our ideas and messages to people that aren’t already activists or lefties.

In short, we need to dedicate ourselves to being life-long movement builders and organizers rather than momentarily excitable activists.

Related Link:
author by Oscar the Grouchpublication date Fri Dec 28, 2012 01:41Report this post to the editors

Occupy is dead? Haha. No. It isn't.

author by coventry - ex-occupy portlandpublication date Sat Dec 29, 2012 08:00Report this post to the editors

Thanks for this article. I have a perception that the more self-consciously radical/revolutionary elements of Occupy, at least in Portland, were not prepared to engage in organizing in a populist context, yet the broader movement was in fact populist and not clearly anti-capitalist. In Portland this seemed to lead to disappointment and then separation in order to carry out more clearly anti-capitalist actions. That may have been a legitimate or even a good choice. But it was not linked to forward looking organizing that would have maintained relationships with less radical forces and maybe radicalized them.

Is this common in other parts of the country? The description of movements in other countries suggests a similar structure but a different attitude to the less radical people in the movement. Possibly also a different attitude toward demands upon the state that were short of "end capitalism"?

author by Joost van Steenispublication date Sat Dec 29, 2012 16:38author email downwithelite at gmail dot comauthor address Amsterdam, The NetherlandsReport this post to the editors

The whole article concentrates on the necessity of mass actions and organising for mass actions and neglects other possibilities. It does not question the results of the mass actions.
What were the results of these mass actions? Some change indeed but not a fundamental change. Even in Egypt the same kind of persons (the 1%) are still on top though they have ousted some of the leaders as Mubarak, also because these Mubaraks appropriated too much (also at the cost of the wealth of other parts of the 1%).
The actions did not fulfil a basic rule in actions, damage to the 99% must be minimised and pressure on the 1% maximised. Too many 99% were hurt, imprisoned and killed while the 1% could continue to live in their privileged and extravagant world. Actions took nearly always place in the centres of the towns and the places where the 1% lived remained untouched.
Occupy failed because it did abandon the initial slogan that made people enthusiast - Occupy the financial centres and got lost in partial political demands. To get real change direct actions against the 1% are necessary and mass actions are not sufficient for that.
Pressure on the 1% can be maximised by intruding in their private exclusive world. Damage to the 99% can be minimised by initiating actions of small groups (I call them Autonomous Clubs) that avoid clashes with the police and directly attack the 1%. Or as Jean-Paul Marat once said : “Revolution will be a kind of guerilla in which we can attack the enemy in all places where the army cannot be used. This means that we can deprive the enemy of all his advantages”. I have written on my blog about the how of a Fourth People's Power. And for the means I refer to an article about Autonomous Clubs :

author by Xplopublication date Sun Dec 30, 2012 10:58Report this post to the editors

Well of course Occupy is dead.

For all that Occupy pats itself on the back and pretends that it accomplished great things, it actually accomplished very little. Criminal bankers are still walking free while our corrupt government refuses to prosecute them and wealth inequality is still as bad as it was two years ago. Foreclosures are still happening, jobs are still scarce, the homeless are still homeless, we're still at war, and politicians are still threatening us with austerity.

Occupy needed one of two things to continue. One was a set of concrete demands, goals, or model legislation that the American people could focus on. Countless words have been written about how making specific demands would have been a mistake (for reasons ranging from wedge issues to co-optation to not legitimizing the supremacy of the ruling class by, y'know, asking them for things), but it's obvious in hindsight that with nothing concrete to support, supporters increasingly saw Occupy as a lot of sound and fury signifying nothing.

The other was a continued show of strength. Occupy suffered a critical blow when the coordinated police attacks shut down the camps and Occupiers scattered instead of reoccupying in force - but they could have continued to force their issues (and their ideology) into the public consciousness with regular marches or rallies that showed that they still cared enough to get in the street. When even the actions stopped, supporters largely lost interest; the inspiration and energy was gone.

The handful of remaining Occupiers offer their continued association as proof that Occupy's not dead, but they're only fooling themselves.

author by Karenpublication date Fri Jan 04, 2013 16:55Report this post to the editors

It's true that Occupy is over partly because of a lack of clear ideas and organization, and anarchists can provide these. The thing is, in my city, a lot of us tried. But we're vastly outnumbered by liberals. And even more outnumbered by the millions of people who honestly don't care and are completely apathetic about politics. A lot of Occupiers, let's face it, were in this category before fall 2011, and now they're back there again - back to their normal, middle class lives, struggling economically but basically keeping their heads down. The anarchists I know do a lot of day-to-day work - but we're surrounded by a vast population that's basically conservative.

If the author is suggesting that we need to have thousands of people in formal organizations before occupying university buildings or organizing strikes, I disagree. That is a formula for never having occupations and strikes, which are obviously their own form of propaganda, and do much to inspire people to become more active and critical, much more than some website or newspaper. Occupy had a million flaws, but I'm sure more people were radicalized by talking to anarchists late into the night at camp than by some boring meeting or flier.

This page can be viewed in
English Italiano Deutsch
Rojava: Mensaje urgente de un compañero anarquista en Afrin

Front page

[Colombia] Perspectivas sobre la primera vuelta de las elecciones presidenciales de Colombia 2018

Call for Solidarity with our Russian Comrades!

8 reasons anarchists are voting Yes to Repeal the hated 8th

Comunicado de CGT sobre la Nakba, 70 años de dolores para el Pueblo Palestino

[ZAD] Les expulsions ont commencé, la zad appelle à se mobiliser

Assassinato Político, Terrorismo de Estado: Marielle Franco, Presente!

La Huelga General del 8 de Marzo, un hito histórico

A intervenção federal no Rio de Janeiro e o xadrez da classe dominante

Halklarla Savaşan Devletler Kaybedecek

Σχετικά με τον εμπρησμό

Ciao, Donato!

[Uruguay] Ante el homicidio de un militante sindical: Marcelo Silvera

[Argentina] Terrorista es el Estado: Comunicado ante el Informe Titulado "RAM"

[Catalunya] Continuisme o ruptura. Sobre les eleccions del 21D

Reconnaissance par Trump de Jérusalem comme capitale d'Israël : de l'huile sur le feu qui brûle la Palestine

Noi comunisti anarchici/libertari nella lotta di classe, nell'Europa del capitale

Luttons contre le harcèlement et toutes les violences patriarcales !

The Old Man and the Coup

Hands off the anarchist movement ! Solidarity with the FAG and the anarchists in Brazil !

URGENTE! Contra A Criminalização, Rodear De Solidariedade Aos Que Lutam!

¡Santiago Maldonado Vive!

Catalunya como oportunidad (para el resto del estado)

La sangre de Llorente, Tumaco: masacre e infamia

Triem Lluitar, El 3 D’octubre Totes I Tots A La Vaga General

© 2005-2018 Unless otherwise stated by the author, all content is free for non-commercial reuse, reprint, and rebroadcast, on the net and elsewhere. Opinions are those of the contributors and are not necessarily endorsed by [ Disclaimer | Privacy ]