As winter looms closer, mayors across Canada are voicing their frustrations at the (in)activity of the Occupy protests, and are calling for the shutting down of the camps. Yesterday scuffles between police and protestors erupted after Halifax's mayor ordered the latter's eviction from Victoria Park.
But this hardly means the protesters are getting the upper-hand, as supporters of the Occupy movement claim. The movement has now passed through the hype machine. While at first, it began slowly, it's grown in size, and now many read of the protests in the same way they read of the falling stock market, or the weather that's get colder everyday.
On one extreme, there are people who disregard the protests as nothing, a mere fad that will soon pass. On the other, there are those, like playwright Eve Ensler, who are convinced this is something that will change centuries upon centuries of civilization and human nature. Both are dangerous, but the latter more so, mainly due to a word which she champions: "ambiguity.Â"
Her series in the Huffington Post (take a deep breath, now) "Ambiguous UpSparkles from the Heart of the Park Mic Check/Occupy Wall Street" is a compendium of articles which are in fact themselves compendiums of paragraphs others have written as testimonials to their experiences at Occupy Wall Street. These columns begin with the requisite introductory paragraphs in which Ensler puts in her two cents, devoid of any sense. She speaks of things such as loving one another and mother earth, how we must be a community once more (were we ever?), and other things which may only be bearable to read with the help of hallucinogenic drugs and monotone bongo drums.
In her latest piece , Ensler speaks of the rape of women, the rape of the earth, the rape of the economy, all in the same sentence. Yes, putting the rape of women alongside with the "rape" that occurs on Wall Street. This is an egregious use of the word, a slap in the face to those who have experienced it. It's an insult to the victims of South Africa, the Congo, and Kenya where women are stoned, beaten, then raped again. It's an insult to the women of Pakistan and Iran in which it takes four male witnesses (often participants) in a court to say rape ever occurred. It's an insult to men: She claims that the general perception of my sex is that "we still expect it [rape]," and that we argue, "it's just the way men are. It's part of the human condition." Ensler may very well believe that, but rational human beings, not only men, know better. In fact, any sensible person should be indignant at such an ignorant, violent, disgusting accusation that is irrevocably a perfect example of the reverse-misogyny I suspect Ensler proudly wears around her neck like a medal.
But returning to Occupy Wall Street: Ensler is, obviously, one of its biggest admirers. Not because it offers any realistic plans for economic reform, or an actual specific mandate of how to right social inequality. Instead she admires it for people such as a man who came to Occupy Wall Street "from Chicago who had waited until he could come with something to offer and he finally had figured out what to give -- 1,500 harmonicas so that people could learn how to make music by breathing out and breathing in."
Eve Ensler, with her ambiguous arguments, and beliefs is a perfect example of why the Occupy Movement is in danger of falling apart. I've spoken before of the lack of hierarchal organization; that no one person was spokesperson to the media, that no one person set-up a manifesto. This has only maintained the hodge-podge of beliefs, arguments, and people that Occupy was criticized for at its inception. One would hope things would have changed almost a month into the protests, but they haven't, and the argument "that's the whole point, it's a movement that's open to every issue and every point" is not only proving to be tedious, but detrimental as well.
With nothing but ambiguous statements to report, random cheers and jeers against the current financial system, treatment of the environment, social inequality, capitalism, etc. what tangible thing is there for the media left to speak of?
Well, Occupy is often criticized for not having accomplished anything according to their "demands," but they have accomplished a great deal to demonstrate why these protests shouldn't be taken seriously.
In her naïve, clinical, gut-wrenching way, Eve Ensler speaks of the beauties of Occupy Wall Street in terms of donated harmonicas, but in reality the movement has been rearing what can only be called its ugly head in cities such as New York, Los Angeles, and Vancouver. There have been reported cases of rape in the camps. A group of protesters have abandoned the General Assembly and formed the People's Forum because they refuse to follow a code of conduct which makes drug and alcohol abuse prohibited at the protests sites. A female protester in Vancouver died allegedly from a drug overdose; and occupiers have attacked the police, sending two to the hospital, merely for trying to put out a fire. (I ignore the argument that the fire was a sacred Aboriginal one. It's hard to believe that such a level of respect for our First Nations would have been observed had the fire not taken place in the Occupy Vancouver camp. Sad, but true.) An officer's ammunition cartridge, meanwhile, was stolen. Hundreds of syringes litter the grounds in front of the Vancouver Art Gallery. And of all places, this oughtn't happen in Vancouver, a city known for burning cars and inciting riots because of losing a hockey game.
But these are the tangible things the Occupy Movement has achieved. These crimes, these demonstrations of violence, forgoing the initial spirit of peace--these are what are being reported. So far, the protesters have demonstrated nothing to incite change, besides a feeling of having been cheated. Is it really any surprise then why the Vancouver, Halifax and Victoria camps are on the verge of being shut down? This is the fundamental flaw of having a so-called "open" movement: The floodgates are open to everyone. From a worthwhile, well-meaning college graduate to a prowling pervert who will grope an eighteen year old after helping her set up her tent.
Time is running out for the Occupy Movement. Organization -- including yes, a code of conduct, no matter how "hypocritical"--must be established in order to lend these protests any legitimacy. The majority of protesters I would guess don't want them to happen; but until they realize that certain conventions must be established, no matter how damaging they might be to personal pride, this will be an opportunity squandered. After all, how can the 99% speak of solidarity after one of their protesters throws a bucket of urine into a city worker's face simply because he's doing his job?
Follow Daniel Alexandre Portoraro on Twitter: www.twitter.com/dportoraro
Occupy Wall Street's 'horizontal hierarchy' seen through prism of the Internet
Joan Baez Inspired By Occupy Wall Street On Veteran's Day
Under these conditions, an interest group begins to self-structure. The time needed depends on the complexity of the Ops (group's operational goals) and on what criteria legitimize structure (force, money, tradition, charisma, or reason).
The occupy movement is by a vast margin pacifist and ideologically opposed to monied power. It is at odds with tradition, and not swooned by charisma so far. It seems to use rational consensus (but will this stand the test of time?), which is slow, because it tries to root out perverse incentives and build structure on practical reasons.
Other movements, let's take the Tea Party, have some advantages. They start with more and set out to achieve less. Consider that the TP had common interests that were more obvious and not really new, and that most of their Ops were downwardly organized by the GOP and monied power mechanisms (Kochs, e.g.). Monied power is a rapid structuring mechanism because money represents pre-existing interests.
Occupy's goal is at odds with much of the existing power structures. Their structures must be truly innovative and somewhat insulated from the system they wish to change. That is a huge undertaking, which will take a lot of time.
It is a symptom of that system that journalists now see themselves as defenders of the status quo, rather than as the uncoverers of inconvenient truths that is the necessary condition of democracy. It is journalism that has failed OWS, not OWS that has failed the narrow narratives that journalism has constructed, like some tinpot dictator, for us to consume.
To paraphrase Hunter Thompson, the OWS wave has already crashed and is rolling back down the beach. It's only the OWSers that can't see it.
Let's be very clear, you don't represent the 99%. You are a small minority with no focus. To bad, there was a chance to really flex our collective muscles.
Sorry, wrong answer.
Perhaps, in Ensler's exposition, you recognized yourself as succumbing to the strategies that she articulates. Note, for example, what lengths you go to invalidate the Occupy movement. Your hyperbolic description of the Vancouver Art Gallery occupation has the intent of degrading the movement and its development. Only you know what danger you perceive in their being and what need you have to fend off their legitimacy. However, succumbing to exaggeration and abasement discredits your argument.
OWS is becoming its own worst enemy. The occupation camps should have been limited shows of strength, not open-ended semi-permanent urban campouts. The camps could have been a tactic in a larger strategy - based more on social media and websites than on grotty winter tent cities. A great opportunity is being lost.
OWSers: it's not good enough to just hold your ground. You have to set limited, tangible goals, grow you numbers and make things happen. You have to enlist legislators and candidates in your cause, as the Tea Party did. You have to turn you bedraggled tent camps into one Big Tent.
These are some of the central goals of the OWS movement. They require government authority to enact and maintain.
If OWS is anarchist, it has already failed.
If you took a few seconds to actually read her article, you would see that it is the former. What motivates you to spend so much time speculating when the facts are close at hand?
The incidents of rape, violence, and drug use which you cite echo the reasons countless politicians and pundits recount when calling for an end to the movement. As it stands, however, a movement that does not discriminate and welcomes every human being will undoubtedly represent a true sample of our society. The isolated incidents of criminal behavior that are relentlessly amplified by the media are, to a point, inevitable, as they are representative of the societal ills that are present in our community as a whole. Two of the movement's goals are to mitigate such occurrences internally and to explore ways to build a society in which such negative incidents no longer occur. In the mean time, we must ask law enforcement to investigate such cases happening within the movement, without creating a false correlation between these crimes and the movement as a whole.
[continued below]
As for change, you are neglecting many changes that the movement has already incited. International political discourse has radically shifted from disparate national discussions to a global focus on inequality. Bank of America pulled a huge one-eighty and reversed its decision to implement debit card fees. People of the world who had been apolitical and apathetic only weeks ago have taken to the streets.
Granted, some associating themselves with the fledgling movement, or participating in its activities, have taken some missteps which those mounting the escalating smear campaign have eaten up. As a whole, however, the movement is peaceful. The movement is benevolent. The movement is strong. The movement is growing. And the movement is not going anywhere.
Or worse, a long one.
So why are so many hoping for, betting on, and working towards OWS failure?
Because the path humanity is currently on is unarguably the path described above. And the 1% hopes like hell to survive in some relative comfort while the rest of us burn. And they believe, or at least hope, that hoarding resources, cash etc will be their buffer from the calamities that their greed and sociopathic hoarding are sure to bring to mankind.
It's a viscious circle. OWS hopes to break the chain.
The MIC has lots and lots of chain.
Good luck everybody. We are going to need it.
Sad.