On Friday, I woke up and visited the Occupy Wall St. protest on its 13th day of action. I listened to many speeches and joined their march on the NYPD headquarters. I think everyone supports what these protesters are standing up for. It’s hard to find a soul who wants MORE corruption and severe inequality. I don’t think they lack for sympathy or moral support. The sheer diversity of the protest grounds tells you all you need to know: everyone is at least a little pissed off. Everyone agrees that change would be good.
Friday was the day a hoax about Radiohead making an appearance caused the camp’s numbers to swell. The ones making speeches did little to throw a blanket over the hype, but a roaming sign-holder gave off another sentiment. The sign told everyone who came for the band to go home. It illustrated one divide amongst the congregated diversity. Some welcomed awareness in any form, while others were fighting for something real, something uncorrupted by celebrity or gimmick. Something naive.
The same criticism is on everyone’s tongue; the protest lacks cohesion. It is leaderless by self-attested virtue and the movement means different things to different people. The labor unions showed up and talked about worker’s rights. Speeches were made about police brutality, minority discrimination, and just plain old love and beauty. It was a protest so nebulous that anyone with any beef could have tagged along and felt right at home. Some say this is its strength. Some say otherwise.
Every revolutionary dreams of the day when he is in charge. In its current state, Occupy Wall Street is the Twilight of protests; so vacuous and ill-defined that anyone can see themselves as its leading face.
What is a protest, anyways? Are we merely raising our hand and declaring our displeasure with something? If so, mission accomplished. Or, do we want to enact change? I would hope so. If that is indeed the case, we must answer two very important questions:
1) What is the exact change that we want to enact?
2) What action will realistically lead to that change?
Neither of these questions have been answered, so while the protest grows in numbers, several very bad things are likely to happen. First, the movement risks being co-opted by any one of the various causes that have joined up in “solidarity” (the Friday word of the day) with the original movement or by an outside party. Let’s not forget how the tea party protests were co-opted by conservatives. Feel-good, symbolic protests are fodder for the greater game at hand. Hell, even larger, more successful protests can end ugly if they are not driven by a plan. Just ask Egypt’s military when they plan on giving up the power they happened to walk into. They’ll answer, “Not until the people get their shit together.”
Second, whatever optimism this protest is drumming up is empty without a plan of action. Establishing that plan of action is also the first moment of truth that this movement will face. Throughout history, different parties have never had trouble seeing eye to eye on what was wrong. The issue that causes the divide is the plan for how to enact the change. Once the goal and methods are set, then Occupy Wall St will see how many allies and fans it has. I think too many people are afraid of pushing this issue.
Third, without a plan of action, people will simply get bored. The young ones will look around the camp and see wonky vets three times their age, brain-fried hippies and anarchist punks and then they will look at themselves and ask, “is this really who I am?” Sure, there will always be a core group of die-hards, but as the New York City winter sets in, they’ll be driven to enduring some very harsh weather and they will either be forced to take decisive action or their membership will wither away.
There is another school of thought that laughs at this incessant need to devise a plan, as if there is a method to certain madness. “Don’t let the media tell us that we need a cohesive message,” one speaker said, “that’s their job.” What? Clearly this speaker took no responsibility in making sure their message was understood. See the result? To the guy with the sign telling me to leave “his” protest because I wasn’t legit enough... To the guy who mocked me for being skeptical about a movement with no course of action...
It’s democracy we want, right? Well let me be heard. I want what you want: a revolution. I just want it driven by people who know what they’re doing.
At the protest, a sign read: Dissent Is Patriotic
Shouldn't this work both ways? Shouldn't I be allowed to criticize the movement that I want very much to succeed?
Thank you thank you! I can't believe I just found this blog. I have people on this one forum I go to telling me that this movement is all about anarchy and communism because of the few people who started it. It's pure BS. This movement has potential, it has passion. It needs to start recruiting more pissed off moderates, of which there is a substantial amount of. In short, this movement really does need to speak to the 99% of America.
ReplyDelete