Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Dr. Peter Ferentzy

GET UPDATES FROM Dr. Peter Ferentzy
 

The Future of Occupy: Love, Respect -- and Name-Calling

Posted: 01/11/2012 7:44 pm

The Occupy movement has been busy, raising funds and forging ahead. Remarkably resilient, organised, and growing, the movement has demonstrated discipline and sophistication on both sides of the Atlantic.

Yet if you take the many media portrayals of the Occupy camps at face value, you might believe that they are (were) filthy dens of iniquity: disorganized, dangerous, unruly, smelly.

My experiences at Occupy Toronto left me with a different impression. People brought food to share, volunteers washed dishes and performed other needed functions, and people typically waited politely for their turn to speak (not always of course). Structures (such as the library) were products of both industry and good workmanship. Yet most media portrayals in Toronto paid little attention to any of that.

You'd hear talk about unruly and loud arguments, for example, or a physical scuffle. Well, plunked right in the heart of downtown where the homeless, the drug addicted, and so many others roam, such stuff could not be avoided. The Occupiers were there even after dark. Some "unpleasantries" did occur, but it's not as though the bad stuff was created by Occupy. It was there already and -- obviously -- the movement would not have emerged had everything been fine on the streets and elsewhere.

While not an overnighter, I became a regular, occasionally spending even five hours there in one day. Though politically committed, here is the main reason I kept going: Whenever I left Occupy, I was a nicer guy than when I had arrived.

That, in a nutshell, is one reason the movement will die no time soon.

Despite all the nonsense you hear, see, or read in the media, the Occupy camp provided a friendly, respectful, and loving environment. Committed to serious change, to freedom and social justice, we were on the same page and, in all but a few cases, treated each other (and passersby) with respect and empathy.

I found Occupy Toronto to be the sanest, friendliest, and most loving place in town. And I know my own city. The camp was amazing, and it never failed to soothe my soul. Many have told me they went there for the same reason.

That kind of energy can't be destroyed as easily as some might hope. They do try, though, don't they?

From Toronto's Globe and Mail:

The Occupiers are the immediate menace never mind what they denounce ... The Occupy movement is a lesson in why revolutions tend to become vicious inversions of their stated beliefs. Even as the Occupiers in Toronto, Vancouver, and other cities in Canada denounce the powers of the rich, they stationed themselves with bullying force in neighbourhoods and public squares.

Hmmm ... some say that bullshit makes the world go round. Of course, that's just a theory. Let's stick to the non-debatable.

Another reason the movement is here for the duration: We've learned. For the first time in a long time, progressives of all stripes have a clear target, unambiguous, and easy to identify.

The target has been pegged as the one per cent. A friend of mine referred to that as "essentializing" one's opponent. While we can quibble over wording, here is a political reality: For the longest time, the political right has had a near monopoly on a range of slime tactics and name-calling. They had identifiable targets: Axis of Evil, drugs, communism, socialism, welfare bums, hippies, atheists, people with AIDS, Saddam, intellectuals, addicts, illegal aliens, liberals ...

For the Occupy movement, the identification of a simple target is an ideological coup. Naysayers can harp on the differences in outlook, and on how Occupy has no official agenda. That, however, is its greatest strength. When feminists, libertarians, Marxists, Native spiritualists and so many others can cooperate, when such disparate groups can agree to work in tandem, here's what you get: We all agree that one thing is the problem, so let us put our differences aside and focus our energy on combatting it.

That isn't scatter-brained thinking. It is the stuff of which political victory is made.

As an addiction activist, I myself have identified the opponents of drug legalization and harm reduction as "abstinence pushers." See, the Republicans in the U.S. and the neocon fanatics elsewhere have taught us well. My efforts emerged independently from Occupy, but in each case someone was smitten by the same reality: We need to do what the reactionaries do so well -- call people names.

So I offer two good reasons why Occupy will not soon die:

1. It generates love and respect, with the power to provide a positive influence on the rest of humanity. The good will is too strong to be crushed, and is bound to put out roots and to grow.

2. Even though we're the good guys, we're also fed up and have learned all we need from the bad guys to kick their asses all over the map.

Note, too, that I just "slimed" the enemy by calling them "bad guys." I want to thank all the reactionary, callous, and ignorant right-wing fanatics out there: You led by example, and have taught us precisely what we need to know.

 
 
 

Follow Dr. Peter Ferentzy on Twitter: www.twitter.com/PeterFerentzy

The Occupy movement has been busy, raising funds and forging ahead. Remarkably resilient, organised, and growing, the movement has demonstrated discipline and sophistication on both sides of the Atlan...
The Occupy movement has been busy, raising funds and forging ahead. Remarkably resilient, organised, and growing, the movement has demonstrated discipline and sophistication on both sides of the Atlan...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 12
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Recency  | 
Popularity
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
peter sfikas
Yia sou
06:27 PM on 01/13/2012
I agree with everything you say; except your characterization of the "bad guys". You're much TOO nice, to the scum.
I. will put it this way: They are: Wall Street vultures, Greedy pigs, Plutocrats, Oligarchs, Union breakers, Corporate fascists, Democracy destroyers. Scum o' the earth, I tell you !
photo
Peter Ferentzy
PhD Crackhead
07:26 PM on 01/13/2012
I like your attitude
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
peter sfikas
Yia sou
07:35 PM on 01/13/2012
I Just tells it as I SEES IT ! Good day !
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
thenewlibertarian
Author of The Naked Truth About Drugs
01:43 PM on 01/13/2012
I find very little to agree with here, sorry. The only thing that really matters, however, is whether or not the Occupiers turn up this November and occupy the voting booth. My firsthand experience with the sometimes serious but mostly clueless protesters in the 60s is that they won't.

Ideology aside, when you compare the comportment of the Occupiers to that of the Tea Party crowd, the Tea Partyers win handily. The Occupiers could learn something from that, but I don't eect they will.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
SayBlade
This micro bio intentionally left blank.
03:46 PM on 01/13/2012
First, you are disagreeing with someone's experience in another country. I visited the Occupy Toronto camp and got the same kind of experience the author relates.

Second, your point of comparison comes from another era. This is 2012 not 1965.

Third, where the Tea Party failed in the US was to allow itself to be derailed by all kinds of side issues and a nastiness that made it into clown circus media fodder. Occupy has succeeded and will continue to succeed because it is focused on specific issues and it welcomes people from a wide spectrum of politics, religion, philosophy and socio-economic backgrounds.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
thenewlibertarian
Author of The Naked Truth About Drugs
08:49 PM on 01/13/2012
You may want to re-read the article: While Peter writes of his personal experience in Toronto, his piece speaks to the global Occupy experience.

I believe their is an expression regarding the fact that those who ignore history are destined to repeat it. The comparison to the 60s protests is apt, in both tone and political significance. That 60s anger failed to show up in the voting booth, in both 1968 and 1972: Nixon won in 68 and was re-elected by a landslide in 72.

I'm no fan of the Tea Party or the Occupy movement. But the Tea Party had a narrow agenda, focusing on the main culprits of our financial collapse: Crony capitalism and its evil twin, corrupt government. The Occupy movement, on the other hand, and by their own admission, was leaderless and had a whole laundry list of published grievances.

And as far as success goes, the Tea Party supported and elected fiscal conservatives
to our House of Representatives. You may disagree with their politics, but the simple truth is that they were effective. Which alludes back to my original point: The Occupy movement, to have any lasting effect, or even to begin driving change, will need to show up and occupy the voting booth come November. I don't believe they will but I could be wrong. Time will tell.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Angus12
12:33 PM on 01/13/2012
OK I've critized and bashed you and that didn't work. You seem to have a conviction and a legitimate cause. If you want to be an occupier go ahead its your right. Here's an idea, why don't you form a party and create a platform and start campaiging for the next federal election. This will get you out of the parks and public places and maybe, just maybe people and main stream media will start to listening to you. Just sayin. Oh by the way I won't be voting for you. Good Luck.
photo
Peter Ferentzy
PhD Crackhead
07:28 PM on 01/13/2012
Thanks for your thoughts Angus. I wouldn't vote for you, either.
Best Wishes
Peter