In an effort to move the Occupy movement further, there are a lot of discussions going on all over the US. This author provides some that are, no doubt, being seriously considered. But, I am bothered by what I detect as a gatekeeper function that seems to inform his discussion. He seems intent upon containing the options of OWS within ruling class political processes which he sees as realistic.
If the Occupiers stay contained in their familiar enclaves, or steer people away from electoral participation, they risk helping those at the top prevail even more.He then continues on with the usual threats of the greater evil being elected--hence we should be engaged in the electoral process which, of course, has been designed by the ruling class and vote for the lesser evil.
That’s a real possibility given the blanket dismissal of voting by far too many of the Occupy participants I’ve spoken with, or at least of voting within the two party system.
But, perhaps he redeems himself when he concludes with the following paragraph:
Like participants in previous movements for justice, the Occupiers need to avoid the false choices between protest and organizing, community building and electoral involvement, surrealist theater and the grunt work of change. The criticisms they raise go beyond any single election, Congressional bill, or policy shift. They need to keep raising them, but in ways that keep spiraling out. If they can trigger enough conversations in communities as yet untouched by their voices, they have a chance to prevail. But they have to recognize that the powerful public presence they’ve created is just a beginning.I would feel better if he had developed this theme further, because any participation in ruling class institutions is at best a holding action to provide more time to organize real power from below. There is room for all kinds of discussion about real change, but I do not think it is "realistic" to close off radical changes, because that is what it is going to take to create real change in our lives.
