#OccupyWallStreet: A Radical Perspective

October 17, 2011Jake Olzen

Post image for #OccupyWallStreet: A Radical Perspective

“I am convinced that if we are to get on the right side of the world revolution, we as a nation must undergo a radical revolution of values. We must rapidly begin the shift from a “thing-oriented” society to a “person-oriented” society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered.”

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., “Beyond Vietnam: A Time to Break the Silence”

To be radical—stemming from the Latin radix meaning root—suggests that it is about getting at the heart of a matter. Dr. King cut right through to the source of injustice and over forty-five years later, are we witnessing the rebirth of a radical revolution of values that Dr. King prophesied? Is #OccupyWallStreet and its comrades nationwide “on the right side of the world revolution?” In that bold speech Dr. King gave a year before his death, publicly breaking from the civil rights movement’s acquiescence to the status quo support of American involvement in Vietnam, King warned that “a nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death.” Has the United States, by spending upwards of $3 trillion on wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen and Libya and maintaining over 1,000 overseas military bases in more than 50 countries, reached a moral, economic, political and spiritual tipping point?

#OccupyWallStreet is well into a month of occupation. On October 1, The New York General Assembly—the “official” spokesgroup of #OccupyWallStreet—released a document, Declaration of the Occupation of New York City,” naming its reasons for the occupation. A brief glance at part of the manifesto gives a snapshot of the state of the union.

  • They have taken our houses through an illegal foreclosure process, despite not having the original mortgage.
  • They have taken bailouts from taxpayers with impunity, and continue to give Executives exorbitant bonuses.
  • They have perpetuated inequality and discrimination in the workplace based on age, the color of one’s skin, sex, gender identity and sexual orientation.
  • They have purposely covered up oil spills, accidents, faulty bookkeeping, and inactive ingredients in pursuit of profit.
  • They purposefully keep people misinformed and fearful through their control of the media.
  • They have accepted private contracts to murder prisoners even when presented with serious doubts about their guilt.
  • They have perpetuated colonialism at home and abroad. They have participated in the torture and murder of innocent civilians overseas.
  • They continue to create weapons of mass destruction in order to receive government contracts.

We, the New York City General Assembly occupying Wall Street in Liberty Square, urge you to assert your power.

Exercise your right to peaceably assemble; occupy public space; create a process to address the problems we face, and generate solutions accessible to everyone.

To all communities that take action and form groups in the spirit of direct democracy, we offer support, documentation, and all of the resources at our disposal.

Thousands peaceably assembled in more than 500 cities nationwide is a phenomenon that demands to be noticed.  The loosely-connected but well-coordinated and steadfast occupation of public spaces are something this nation has not seen since the 1960s.  Ordinary people are continuing to awake to the power of collective nonviolent action.  But do we really know what we’re in for if we are serious about getting the kind of deep, structural changes we want?

The celebratory fervor surging in America’s Left—even in the face of police overreaction and brutality—may risk mistaking the trees for the forest.  Large gatherings—protests, rallies, occupations like these—are a show of power and a shot of energy to waning movements.  #OccupyWallStreet is breathing life into a debilitated Left and worn-out Americans.

But as it stands, #OccupyWallStreet is a symbol of resistance and represents the potential of revolutionary action that can transform Wall Street and company.  It has not yet moved into the kind of active resistance—boycotts, work stoppages, noncooperation, tax refusal, disobedience, blockades, etc.—that have strategic pressure points and staying power that forces change. Even the 700+ arrests of demonstrators in New York—an amalgamation of state repression, activist courage, and social media savvy—is not yet the kind of resistance needed to take down corporate power.  But none of this is to undermine the incredible success, energy, building momentum an ongoing creativity and commitment of #OccupyWallStreet.  The movement is exactly where it needs to be as it attracts thousands, if not millions, of supporters before its propelled into its next stage of nonviolent social change.

A sobering analysis of the protracted struggle ahead—the risk and sacrifice and courage it will continue to demand—can prepare us for the long haul. A warning to us all: the oligarchs (and, perhaps more importantly, its cadre of ideological supporters) of the corporate state will not go gently into that dark night. It will go kicking and screaming, unashamed and uncaring of how many lives it brings down with it.

At its core, #OccupyWallStreet and other progressive movements—the peace movement’s plan for a Washington, D.C. occupation which began yesterday, the environmental movement’s Stop the Pipeline, a whole host of social, economic, and environmental justice groups organizing protests in Chicago for the NATO-G8 summit in May 2012—are protesting and revolting against empire and its deadly consequences, the brunt of which is born most by the poor, marginalized, dispossessed and the earth.

Invoking “empire” is sure to elicit a knee-jerk reaction of being “too revolutionary,” not only from detractors of #OccupyWallStreet, but maybe even from some its ardent supporters in the mainstream Left. Consider some of the more vocal “demands” that have surfaced around these nationwide occupations (it must be noted that no “official” demand(s)—for better or for worse—have been issued by #OccupyWallStreet; see Mark Engler’s summary of the demands issue):

  • End Corporate Personhood
  • Forgive Student Debt
  • Stop Home Foreclosures
  • Tax the Rich

Demands such as these seem radical—revolutionary even—but from the perspective of global capitalism, they are not. The demands are oriented toward reforming the less noble parts of American democracy and stabilizing an economy that works for the 99%. John Nichol’s reporting for The Nation quotes a number of mainstream liberals—congressional leaders and union presidents—indicating growing support for #OccupyWallStreet among certain segments of business leaders and politicians. But lest we be deceived, be wary of such support. Consider how support for the occupation is framed:

“It’s clear what this movement is all about. It’s about taking America back from the CEOs and billionaires on Wall Street who have destroyed our nation’s economy. It’s about creating good jobs. It’s about corporate America treating its workers and customers with honesty and fairness and paying its fair share to stimulate the economy,” Teamsters President James Hoffa

“We have been inspired by the growing grassroots movements on Wall Street and across the country. We share the anger and frustration of so many Americans who have seen the enormous toll that an unchecked Wall Street has taken on the overwhelming majority of Americans while benefiting the super wealthy. We join the calls for corporate accountability and expanded middle-class opportunity.” —Joint Statement by Co-Chairs of the Progressive Caucus

Nicholas Kristoff’s op-ed in The New York Times that simultaneously celebrates #OccupyWallStreet and affirms capitalism is revealing of how political liberals are characterizing the protests: “if a ragtag band of youthful protesters can help bring a dose of accountability and equity to our financial system, more power to them.” But there is a problem—global capitalism cannot be reformed to work for the 99% and that is the nature of empire: it does not share power, especially the multinational corporations. In this current historical milieu, empire means global capitalism and its stalwart supporters in the power elite—governments, corporations, religious and education institutions, and the militaries of the world.

The scholarship of Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri has been invaluable in contextualizing empire outside of the traditional nation-state framework by situating power in the intersections of globalization’s multinational corporations, constitutional entities (domestic and international polities), and democratic spaces (the United Nations, NGOs, etc.). That is, empire today is more than just America. It is deeper, more pervasive—touching every part of our lives. The reach of global capitalism and the institutions that support it, justify it, and defend it are powerful indeed—and, important to note, not totally evil.

At the height of the Roman Empire, the seat of power and authority was centrally located—”all roads lead to Rome.” The empire of global capitalism—which is much more amorphous and porous in a predominantly post-modern society than its antiquated predecessors—resists centralization. Wall Street is a symbol of global capitalism. No doubt, there are very real manifestations of empire’s largess in Manhattan’s business and cosmopolitan districts: luxury condominiums, extravagant restaurants and shopping, an onslaught of media-driven consumption, advertisers technologically painting the streets and the skies with commercials.

But behind the image of Wall Street are people and institutions that are engaged in power relations to protect the vital interests of global capital. An ideology has been created out of these power relations that is so powerful, so dominant, that even as the #OccupyWallStreet protests unfold, it is near-impossible to name it. Maybe that is why the movement has been so reluctant to making demands. How do you demand the end of empire? Really. How does one realistically make that demand without sounding absurd and without being a hypocrite? That’s the point: you can’t. But it must be done.

The question, then, is one of vision—of dreaming—that #OccupyWallStreet must consider: How far are we willing to go? And is the support from the power elite of union bosses and politicians complementary to that vision—will they join us in that paradigm shift away from empire and global capitalism into something new, something unknown, something that is being formed as we speak? These protests are not about handouts or specific policies, even though debt relief and ceasing cuts to social spending would undoubtedly make life easier for all. Rather, #OccupyWallStreet is about a paradigm shift of how power is conceived and consolidated in politics, economics, social relations, and society in general. It is about King’s revolution of values: a comprehensive shift away from racism, militarism, greed and poverty to a vision of community, economic and environmental justice, equal rights and responsibilities across racial, gender, class, sexuality, and religious differences. Indeed this is a revolution—but the real struggle is just beginning.

Post republished with permission.

  • WesHB

    Excellent piece to generate deeper thought, Jake. One can see the liberal Powers seeking desperately to co-opt this movement. The diffuse and, to date, merely rhetorical nature of the #Occupy movement leaves it susceptible to this kind of takeover.

    One of the beautiful things about the Catholic Worker movement (as you know) is its long-standing practice of what Catholic Social Teaching calls “subsidiarity”: doing things at the most local possible level. On this note, I’ve been interested lately in the work of Paul Cienfuegos, who has been working tirelessly to activate local communities in practical resistance to corporate power. See, e.g., http://paulcienfuegos.com/node/3. There are a couple of excellent podcasts of him at Alternative Radio, too: http://www.alternativeradio.org/products/ciep002.

    Street protests are necessary to raise the voice of the multitude above that of imperial propagandists. But as both ancient Israel and the early churches knew, real change happens on the ground in transformed and liberated communities.

  • ric hudgens

    Thx Jake. This is a great summation of what is going on, what obstacles lie ahead, and one path for moving forward. I also agree with Wes’s comment that real change happens on the ground in real, material communities. In all the excitement of vicariously occupying Wall Street we better not forget to literally occupy our own.

  • Andylewis

    Here’s a response from an anarchist who who the occupy Chicago liberals tried arresting. http://anarchistnews.org/node/15481

    “is the support from the power elite of union bosses and politicians complementary to that vision—will they join us in that paradigm shift away from empire and global capitalism into something new, something unknown, something that is being formed as we speak?” – Hell yes they’ll join you as long as you’re arresting anarchists and protecting their property!

  • http://profiles.google.com/jake.olzen Jake Olzen

    What an interesting response! While I don’t support the OC calling the cops, nor the property destruction and ensuing violence, this is an incredible time for anarchist thought and influence to shape emerging paradigms. While the state and capitalist classes will always seek to de-legitimize the anarchist critique in varied ways, the Occupations can be places for anarchist critiques and alternatives that are carefully crafted and patiently articulated to maybe take root.

    • Anonymous

      The Occupy movements from what I am reading are using some very anarchist like strategies for organizing and decision-making. Is it an anarchist movement through and through? No. But does it have elements worth acknowledging? I most certainly think so.

    • Ujive2

      This is exactly my motivation for getting involved here in Philly….to add, I like what Zerzan had to say on his radio show: “We may not get infinite chances”…to nurture radicalism in the (more or less) mainsteam, to grab a modicum of power and self-determination back from the system…and yet one has the sense that this whole Occupy movement is a pseudo-event, a scripted re-run of 60s counterculture politics…one last thing, a quote I just read in Eric Wolf’s preface to S. Diamond’s IN SEARCH OF THE PRIMITIVE: “Our politics oscillate between the consolidation of bureaucratic controls and outbursts of impotent, if symbolic, fury.” So get out there and raise up some fury!

  • Ron Olkiewicz

    Tax the rich? They already pay most of the taxes in this country as it is. Forgive student loans? Somebody has to pay. Taking from the rich and giving to the poor is never a real solution. Does not the scripture teach us to be content with what we have? I think God knew what He was doing when he invoked the 10th commandment. It was John Adams who said many years ago …”because we have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

    Freedom demands we take responsibility for ourselves, and if we don’t the first strong tyrant will do what we refuse to do. The issues at occupywallstreet is really a heart issue, both with the rich and poor. And until that issue is resolved within each of us there can be no true social justice.

    • http://twitter.com/thejoeturner Joe Turner

      This is rubbish on many levels, Ron – and could only be written by someone living in smug luxury whilst others suffer.

      • Josiah Keen

        There are numerous Americans, perhaps Tea Party supporters, who would echo Ron’s sentiments. And it isn’t a result of “smug luxury”. The 10 poorest states are solidly Republican.

        Many Americans are being duped into believing that if we just cut programs, cut regulation, cut taxes . . . we can focus on rebuilding and strengthening American “rugged individualism” which will result in a return to prosperity and liberty. I’m over generalizing but this is a myth attracting a lot of support.

    • Josiah Keen

      I agree with your point that there needs to be a resolution within ourselves. There needs to be an interior revolution of the heart in each person. Consumerism and materialism needs to be repudiated and Christians should be witnesses against this idoltary.

      I agree that Americans in general could learn to do with a lot less. However, your post also sounds a little too much like the standard “pull yourself up by your own bootstraps” response. Forgive me if I’m wrong.

      All the statistics pointing to the growing income inequality over the last 30-40 years should be enough to convince anyone that there is something systemically wrong with our economic and political structures that needs addressing.

      Also, it wouldn’t be hard to argue that the “whale through the net” is the multinational corporate elite that are fueled by nothing but unrestrained “avarice and ambition”.

  • Eda Uca Dorn

    Amen, amen! Thanks for this Jake! A timely piece! I was having dinner with someone last week who suggested that the Tea Party movement was manufactured by the Republican Party as a way to radically undermine anything Obama tries to get done while the more mainstream element can keep a distance from the grotesque racism underlying so much of its tactics. I’m sure in the same way the Democrats would love figure out how to leverage OWS for their own political advancement. Unfortunately for them, whatever the truth behind the Tea Party, OWS was definitely not manufactured and delivered by a think tank. Unfortunately for us, the Tea Party’s very usefulness to the Republican Party allows for it to be tremendously disruptive on the local and national levels (or at least distracting enough that the more mainstream elements of the Republican Party can keep expanding the human rights of corporation-type people). What makes OWS awesome, organic, authentic might also be what makes it impossible to use effectively and disruptively on a national level by the people/systems pulling the strings on a national level. (Same is true for the Catholic Worker, as Wes pointed to parallels.) The question I think you’re raising in part is, can the OWS movement shift that center of power from the people/systems pulling the strings to the People. Can it? The President himself doesn’t seem to be fairing well in using that power effectively (or at least communicating its use)! Is the question, “shall we sell out at the expense of the truth and our vision and measurably disrupt things and in exchange get a few elections or pieces of legislation passed or shall we instead stay the course at the expense of effecting change on the national level?” or is that a false binary? (And I think we need to discuss whether the outcome of a few elections might be a significant win where you’re faced with the bland old lesser evils but the worse of the two believes in Christian dominionism and gay reparative therapies.) I agree with you that this is exactly where things should be now with the movement and it will have to grow to effect any kind of change. Very interesting stuff.

  • Brian

    A friend tipped me off to Jesus Radicals thinking I might be interested. This is the very first piece that I have read on the site. It is thought provoking, but is too amorphous to draw any conclusions.

    Jake, is there a distinction between corporatism and capitalism? Much of what you describe (empire) sounds like a reaction to corporatism rather than capitalism. I am also struck by the appeal to the power of the state to achieve the purported aims of OWS…
    End Corporate Personhood
    Forgive Student Debt
    Stop Home Foreclosures
    Tax the Rich

    Each of these deals with an appeal to the state to reconfigure legal constructs/contract law to achieve desired ends. This seems entirely counter to anarchist principles.

    Is the idea of private property antithetical to anarchism? If so, is enforced collectivism a better alternative?

    The appeal of Christian Anarchy for me is that it combines the axiom of non-aggression with the golden rule. It provides, what seems to me, the fairest possible construct. We should not seek our ends through force or coercion and we should love each other in the way of Jesus. It is the refutation of compulsion AND the embrace of compassion.

    I am struggling to understand how OWS isn’t simply another populist/Marxian appeal to redistribute power and authority for their own self interest. You try to refute this possibility in the final paragraph. You begin by saying that the question to be considered is one of vision, but fail to offer any clarity as to what that vision might be. Again, the only suggestions offered earlier in the article are appeals to existing power structures to redistribute power and wealth. I want to believe OWS is something of purpose, but I am dubious of the inability to articulate anything specific and positive as a desired outcome. That is the very vision you identify as necessary.

    My goal is to contribute to healthy dialogue rather than refute. I really want to understand more deeply what is happening, but when I encounter anything approaching specificity within OWS it is not speaking to my Christian Anarchist leanings.

    • Josiah Keen

      Thanks for posting Brian, I share some of your observations of the OWS movement. I am interested to see what will grow out of this display of frustration going forward into 2012. Those who are followers of Christ need to always heed Matthew 10:16.

    • http://profiles.google.com/jake.olzen Jake Olzen

      Brian –
      Apt points indeed. This piece was originally written as part one in a series (more is to follow that may or may not be helpful). Vision is coming. As the liberation theologians say, “We make the path by walking.” I do not think, at this moment in history, there is a difference between corporatism and capitalism. I think capitalism leads to corporatism in all instances. OWS has factions of Marxism, especially in its analysis, and I believe us anarchists (Christian or otherwise) need to be comfortable with that and recognize what Marx’s critique has to offer.

      The OWS movement, it seems to me, is about forming community and struggling to live in the contradictions of Empire. Negotiations and reforms of the capitalist state will make a difference in people’s lives. Is it wrong to usher those in? I don’t know. But I think people are not content with just doing that. What OWS seems to be doing to me is altering the way power is understood relationally – in society (consider the way the General Assembly tries to operate), as well as saying NO to the forms of power that operate in political and economic levels. I don’t have answers, and don’t think we need them. OWS is creating space to ask these questions in a serious way with as much democratic participation as possible.

    • Anonymous

      Hi Brian—Welcome to the conversation.

      I invite you to check out Eda’s article and follow the comments surrounding it as well since it has some critical thoughts on the occupy movement as well that I think are important. That said, my own position is that there are some things about it that are anarchistic, primarily the method of organizing, the belief that the people can be self-directed and self-governed if space is made for it, the move toward various forms of direct action as a means to address problems that are threatening people’s daily lives etc. I am inspired by it and don’t think it needs to be purely anarchist to feel that way…I know for me personally it was taking part in some of the most mainstream kinds of actions (and becoming disillusioned with and more critical of them over time) that led me into a more anarchist trajectory and I hope that can do the same for those who are participating.

      That said there are a lot of things that also make me uncomfortable with it–some of which you name and some of which is discussed in Eda’s thread.

Previous post:

Next post: