3826
(1 vote, average 5.00 out of 5)
Written by Jamakaya
Nov 3, 2011
I'm a big believer in militancy and in-your-face tactics to confront injustice. There's no reason to be polite in an era of mass joblessness, historic economic inequality and government inertia. Marches and occupations are vital means of protest. They trumpet the injustice afflicting people, build solidarity among the aggrieved, confront intransigent power structures and, in the short or long term, bring about change.
I'm thrilled with the Occupy Wall Street movement and how it has sparked activism throughout the country. Apart from corporate-funded Tea Party rallies, the people really affected by hard times have seemed eerily complacent, so the uptick in resistance is a huge step forward.
However, the inevitable police crackdowns are obscuring the movement's already vague goals. "Abolish Money" one sign read, rather wistfully. "We are the 99 percent!" a protester shouted as he was taken into custody.
Well, OK, but how about something a little more concrete? Like Congressional passage of President Barack Obama's jobs bill? Or reenactment of the Glass-Steagall Act (repealed in 1999), which separated and regulated the financial transactions of investment and commercial banks? Or immediate relief for people hoodwinked into home loans with outrageous terms and rates of interest?
Mass sit-ins at the district or Washington offices of members of Congress would raise publicity and pressure for the first two demands, while similar disruptions would put a little fear of god into the worst of the bloodsucking mortgage lenders. Imagine, if instead of one nervous homeowner trying to negotiate a deal, he or she were joined by 200 neighbors – loud neighbors with signs, drums and banners! These scenarios make more sense to me than occupying outdoor public spaces for weeks on end with no discernible demands or exit strategy.
Historically, the most successful occupations have been carefully targeted actions with specific demands, like the occupations of university offices in the 1960s to demand black studies programs, or the occupation of the federal building in San Francisco by people with disabilities to secure implementation of the Rehabilitation Act (passed in 1973 but enforced only after the rousing 28-day occupation in 1977).
Activists should also look beyond the "occupy" rubric to employ other tactics. Children's marches, which dramatized the plight of child labor and led to protective legislation a century ago, could be organized to expose our disgraceful rate of child poverty and demand restoration of safety-net programs. Corporate fat cats with golden parachute payouts and decadent lifestyles should be pilloried in every way possible through the various media and in real life. And can some queer out there please write some fabulous chants or witty slogans? The current rhetoric is so uninspired.
Regarding police crackdowns: Expect more and don't be surprised by harsh tactics. Throughout U.S. history, police forces, state militias and private security firms have infiltrated groups and blackmailed, beaten or murdered people who dared to organize for their rights. In 1886, state militia shot and killed six workers and a child marching for the eight-hour workday in Milwaukee's Bay View. Civil rights workers were hosed, beaten and murdered, and the Ohio National Guard shot four students to death during anti-war protests at Kent State in 1970.
Charged to enforce the law, police protect the power structure. Post-9/11 security concerns along with new crowd-control tactics developed in the wake of angry protests at IMF and other world summits are shaping police responses to the Occupy movement.
We certainly have their attention. It's time to sharpen our message.
