I have been posting articles that have reported on the positive accomplishments of this radical experiment in people power that has characterized the OWS movement; and this is especially true in New York City which is the original impetus and ideological center of the movement in the US. In contrast, this article offers some very serious criticisms of OWS-NYC that are have been picked up by other bloggers to reinforce some rather cynical views of the movement. In this article Tucker alleges that OWS-NYC is being run undemocratically, run by mostly white middle class males who are selectively using others, especially minority people, to serve their interests, are controlling large sums of money and hence are corrupt. Furthermore, he sees the recent creation of a Spokes Council as merely another ploy to consolidate their control over the movement and the money. Wow!
So, what are we, who are unable to participate directly in the movement, to make of this? I notice in Tucker's article that while participating in proceedings at OWS-NYC, he had some of his views overruled by other participants and the facilitators. Could this be merely sour-grapes on his part?
Tucker's piece is starting to circulate a bit on the internet. Probably the most serious commentator who has made reference to the article is William Bowles, a long time activist in English leftist politics. He seems to feel that it confirms his doubts about the OWS model for political activism. (Read his piece entitled, "OWS: Leading from behind?") He seems to take Tucker's criticisms at face value. He almost ridicules the OWS participants who he sees as rather naive in their discoveries about existing society:
“For the last six weeks we have been meeting at the New York General Assembly…and we get about eighty to one hundred people…[where]…we discuss the economic crisis…debt, the stratification of wealth and try to formulate alternatives to the existing system which we see as flawed and having failed us.” Marissa HolmesHe then goes on to criticize them for a lack of a political agenda:
Ok, so for weeks they’ve been talking about stuff that we’ve already spent the last 150 years talking about. But for those of us on the Left, being red-baited is as old as being a Red. Get used to it.
I hear that the NYC-GA has ‘plans’ or ‘programs’ up to the year 2014 but what these ‘plans’ or ‘programs’ consist of is a mystery to me. They could be a new layout for a tent city for all I know.It seems to me that his cool reaction to the Occupy movement is informed by an older tradition of leftist activism that was based on a vanguard organizational model. Such a model was typically inspired and led by a small group of "enlightened" political ideologues who offered a well worked out platform, principles, and agenda. That model seems to have had its day and failed miserably.
Giving birth to a radically different way of organizing people, a way that is democratically inclusive, and that can pose a real threat to the established overwhelming power of today's one percent is undoubtedly going to be a messy process. It is becoming clearer to me everyday that the movement is posing a real threat to the ruling class. They don't seem to know how to deal with it, but they no doubt will employ every means at their disposal to destroy it as they are attempting to do now. In some places they are using heavy handed police tactics to intimidate people (see video at this link regarding more police attacks in Oakland); in other cities especially in the northern US, they are quietly waiting out the Occupiers hoping that the cold weather will discourage them; in some places the authorities are trying to wear them down with all kinds of legal restrictions and obstructions; and I suspect that they are using other more subtle and indirect methods of disruption. For example, as reported the other day in Socialist Worker:
...the media's stories of crime and violence, including sexual assault, at Occupy camps may be sensationalized, but they aren't whole-cloth fabrications. In particular, tensions have increased where police have steered people with mental or substance abuse problems to the camps in an obvious attempt to stir up conflict.Other tactics that I have directly witnessed during the anti-Vietnam War activities was the planting of people in organizations who proceeded to engage in as many disruptive tactics as possible: spreading rumors and misinformation, and sowing suspicion of other activists. This in many cases was effective in undermining trust and group cohesion.
It seems to me that there really isn't any alternative to an inclusive democratic movement that can provide for equal opportunity for participation while creating practical structures that can accomplish goals. A lot of creative, hard work will have to be done and is being done by the incredible work of many thousands of activists in the Occupying movement. Only a global movement based at the grass roots has the capability of taking power away from the Empire and establishing healthy, sustainable societies. They may fail, and they will, if we don't all get involved and support their work.
