Who Are the Occupy Protesters?

[chebob]

Problematic since the beginning, the so-called "99%", has peaked curiosities, irritated, inspired and been derided. Perhaps most vitally though, it has folks talking, participating, resisting, seeking alternatives, inspired, and attempting to change their worlds. In particular, it has raised two valid and often repeated questions: Who are they? What do they want?

To some, the answers to such questions seemed self-evident. To others, the answers are still vague. And to still others, the vagueness has created a space in which discussion, debate and dialogue are taking place which has not been possible inside in liberal capitalist society ("spectacle dialogue" within the narrow spectrum allowed for by our media does not count as actual civil dialogue.).

Although it may be late in the game, perhaps such a discussion would be fruitful for Occupy Missoula. Perhaps this is already clear to most and it does not seem a priority, however, I believe this question is crux of the biscuit.

I ran across an interesting exchange between Chris Hedges and Canadian Broadcasting Commission News Corespondent Kevin O'Leary. In it, Chris Hedges generates a description with which, I believe, most Occupy Protesters identify. While I find problems with Chris Hedges' analysis, I believe it is an important point of departure for discussing the identity and direction of this historical moment.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=MAhHPIuTQ5k

[Jim C]

Odd video with the iTrade stock ticker running right below Hedge's head. Good stuff though! Hedges is articulate.

[casey]

Who we are is a question that you should show up and ask of individuals since we vary greatly. The strength of our movement is the fact we are so different and yet we see our common problem. We are the people! What do we stand for? Our decleration is really well done, approved by consensus, and available for all to view on occupymissoula.org. Hope that helps.

[chebob]

Having such a small percentage of actual participants speaking on behalf of 99% of the American population needs to be appreciated as such. It is a symbolic declaration. As is the declaration ratified in Missoula. Honestly, it speaks for those who have been able to participate in this movement. The vast majority of voices have still not been heard...which is, likely, impossible.

So don't massive assumptions have to be made in order to boldly claim who the 99% are? I'm not opposed to someone claiming that 99% of Americans are widely less powerful than the top 1%. That can be quantified. However, what these 99% of Americans ideologically believe and accept as reality, varies wildly! For that matter, my experience in the camp in Missoula is that the ideological divergence is profound. Perhaps not enough for a group of Missoulians to get together and draft a declaration based on the effects (objective realities) of our economic system. But what about appreciating the causes? Many participating in the movement blame banks, corporations, greed and corruption and make these symptoms the basis for a declaration. However, the failure to see beyond the superficial manifestations of a profoundly flawed economic system (capitalism) means playing into the hands of perpetual injustice.

I have shown up. I have participated (perhaps much less so than others). But I remain ideologically outside the narrow spectrum of the declaration. I am a worker (teacher and coach). I bust my butt many hours per week, am alienated by post-modern society, am overloaded with student loan debt, cannot buy a home, have health care debt, am powerless to affect real change, etc., etc. This identity makes me clearly a 99%er. But, ideologically, the declaration believes falsely and naively that we should reform liberal democracy to work "for the people." It cannot and will not succeed. Furthermore, I do not hope that it does, as it will prop back up the capitalist system to work for a privileges sector of Americans and recreate the middle class. But, what it will not do is what really should scare us all:
1. It will not end wars...it will make them inevitable and necessary.
2. It will not stave off the imminent ecological crisis...it will expediate it.
3. It will not allow for democracy (now or in the future).
4. It will not end wage slavery.
5. It will not end the brutal exploitation of the Global South.
6. It will not end the logic of accumulation, profit for profit's sake, surplus production.
7. It will not end overpopulation.
8. It will not end starvation.
9. and on and on and on.

In fact, it will further institutionalize class structure and simply make capitalism leaner and meaner.

[katydid]

I do not in any way think the declaration is stating we should keep our current system. If you would like the declaration to say something that it does not than bring that to the GA. You have equal power and voice in the occupy movement. I for one would agree that capitalism is a flawed system. But I do think for the people by the people is the way to go. We are the 99% does not infer that we speak for every single person in the 99% only that 99% of us are getting screwed by the 1%. Of course the declaration is a statement of those who drafted it and those who agreed to its ratification. It is still and will remain an open document for change. Please continue to lend your voice.

[troutsky]

In my many years of resistance I have seen lots of declarations and manifestos come and go. There will surely be more to come. The terrain where the real struggle takes place is that of hegemony; the basic values which guide our cultural and ideological articulation and how it is then institutionalized. Right now, so-called liberal democratic capitalism is hegemonic and the values that go with it. Individualism, private ownership of productive property, competitiveness, perpetual growth.

This is why it is so hard to come up with demands and a threat to back up those demands. Most people ( even in the 99%) just want individual rights, their own share of productive property, a "level playing field" on which to compete, their share of the growth, etc..

If the 99% was a collectivity united around collective ownership we would just withhold our labor and take power in one week. But that is a long term struggle for a new set of hegemonic values.

[~kathlene~]

I think of the 99% in the following terms:

We're individuals that understand the power of the group and a group that understands the strength of the individual.

Idealism? Sure. Why not?

[~kathlene~]

Nov 5, 2011 18:54:35 GMT -7 troutsky said:

SNIP

This is why it is so hard to come up with demands and a threat to back up those demands. Most people ( even in the 99%) just want individual rights, their own share of productive property, a "level playing field" on which to compete, their share of the growth, etc..

If the 99% was a collectivity united around collective ownership we would just withhold our labor and take power in one week. But that is a long term struggle for a new set of hegemonic values.

(emphasis mine)

It will make many people uncomfortable...because so many are really tied into the "security" that credit scores and paying bills on time supposedly provide...but I'm really loving the idea I read at DailyKos.com yesterday. Here's the link - www.dailykos.com/story/2011/11/08/1034388/-STOP-PAYMENT:-A-tactic-for-Occupy-Wall-Street?via=tag

April 2012....makes ya think....

[troutsky]

3+14, I agree that is a great concept, a debtors strike! And it occurs to me that if the demands for reform are met, people will understand their collective power and actually take control of decision making that affects them. Who knows where it could lead?

[crystal]

If I may jump in here, I enjoyed this article in Rolling Stone: www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/occupy-wall-street-welcome-to-the-occupation-20111110 which I learned of from an interview with the author on Democracy Now two days ago. It shows the diversity within the movement, and different factions developing. Of course we're going to have different takes on this; that's only natural. For me, it's key to find ways to keep the dialog going between us, whether we're an anarchist or an environmentalist or whatever. My recent visits downtown have been a bit discouraging, since it seems like some a lot of people have pulled their support because of certain radical elements they've seen.
I've been struggling making my documentary for class because it's been hard to find a focus. It finally came to me, the thing that keeps me tied to the movement, and perhaps, what could help bind us all together, is HOPE. Regardless of our beliefs, or how we differ, that is consistent across the board. I *hope* we don't splinter into factions. Divide and Conquer has always worked, and they know that. You know who I mean when I say "they!!"

[troutsky]

I think the radical elements need to be encouraged because they are the ones with new perspectives. The old ones have proven themselves impotent. If you understand the word crisis and the history of them you welcome someone who seeks the root of the problem.

[Jim C]

"a lot of people have pulled their support because of certain radical elements they've seen."-

Hi crystal, what do those people think are "radical elements?" To me the radical elements live and work in Wall Street towers... you know, the 1%.

And troutsky, I think the notion of "radical" among the 99% is a moniker that has outlived its purpose. Occupy has legitimized challenging wealth and privilege and power as no longer being a radical notion. imnsho...

[troutsky]

That's a hopeful point Jim. I do think within those "challenges" there are variations and degrees, for instance, those who favor reform and those who wish to replace entire structures. Or maybe I'm just attached to the word! But seriously, we always knew there would be antagonism between the folks who think capitalism must be replaced and those who think it can be worked with. This is a necessary discussion and important. I look forward to it. The 99% doesn't mean we agree on everything (hopefully!)