Activist Headquarters
Related: About this forumWhere are the 99%?
OWS attempted to shut down all of the West Coast ports from San Diego to Anchorage today. The OWS groups in all the major West Coast port cities agreed to join in the protest, as did Houston and even OWS groups in a few landlocked cities decided to participate by blockading Walmart stores.
While the action was ambitious, aggressive, and partially effective (several terminals in various cities were closed and their workers sent home for safety reasons, according to the San Francisco Chronicle), it suffered several substantial flaws.
The first problem was that OWS did not have the support of the unions. In fact, none of the unions officially supported the action, while some union members were outright hostile, claiming their unions hadnt even been consulted by OWS. Many said they sympathized with OWS, but felt like this was attack on their livelihood rather than a direct hit on the 1%. Others called the protest presumptuous meddling by outsiders (see here and here).
The fact that the ports sent workers home and did not try to have the police break the pickets indicates that they believe their employees will blame OWS for their lost wages and not the terminal operators. Furthermore, it suggests that they are willing to lose some profits for a day if it will help discredit and crush the OWS movement.
Even so, the pickets were not sufficient to shut down all the terminals at all the ports. In order to completely shut down a port the workers themselves must to refuse to work. Citizenry can picket and try to blockade the port and hope that workers will honor their picket. However, if the workers want to work and the police break the picket, the best they can hope for is a disruption or slow down. In contrast, if the workers refuse to work nothing gets done except by the few scabs who manage to squeeze past the picketers.
Clarence Thomas, President of ILWU local 10, in Oakland, said he wouldnt cross the picket line and he thought his ILWU brothers and sisters would honor the picket, as well, since his local had a long and proud history of honoring pickets, even community-based ones. He also felt that the unions reticence reflected the conservativeness of their leaders, and not the sentiments of their rank and file.
All of this highlights the fact that neither the OWS movement nor the unions are doing much organizing. The OWS movement seems to think that all they need to do is put out a tweet or a facebook call, and thousands will understand their goals and tactics and readily join in. They claim they represent 99% of Americans, yet even at their strongest, they have only mobilized a tiny fraction of the 99% in any given community to show up to their encampments and demonstrations. In the case of the West Coast port shutdown, it was clear that many of those whom they claimed they were supporting (i.e., union members) didnt understand or appreciate the support.
OWS is in essence a vanguardist movement: a small group decides what are the appropriate tactics and demands, and calls on everyone else to follow (or join in). The movement mushroomed from such a call on the internet by Adbusters to go out and occupy Wall Street. The sentiment that the rich are too rich and jacking the rest of us appealed to the majority of Americans for very good reasons: They are jacking us. But it is a big leap to assume that this, alone, is sufficient to get the 99% to take collective action.
This is not Egypt, Tunisia, Libya or Syria, where people have lived under brutal dictatorships for generations. Most Americans still believe in the existing form of government and the prevailing economic system. They still believe that voting can resolve their grievances and that bosses create jobs and consequently financial security for us.
This belief is nowhere more evident than in trade union movement, where organizing has been virtually abandoned in favor of supporting political campaigns. If they were truly organizing their members, educating and mobilizing them, the unions would be able to launch massive strikes quickly and often. Taft-Hartley, which criminalizes General Strikes, would become insignificant because a well-organized and educated rank and file would see the power of a General Strike and would consider participating, even if their union leadership remained silent or oppositional on the matter. This may explain why there was a 15% increase in absenteeism by Oakland teachers during the attempted General Strike last month (according to the New York Times): Oakland has numerous veteran organizers in their teachers union who have been calling for a General Strike since last April (see here for one example).
Organizing is a slow, painstaking process. One cannot simply call for a strike and expect 80-90% of the people to be on board. Yet if you dont have this level of solidarity, the strike is unlikely to succeed.
Community organizing, which OWS needs to do if they want to get larger numbers of the 99% to join them, is very similar to union organizing. Contrary to popular misconception, organizing is NOT simply getting people to show up to a demonstration or picket. This is more accurately classified as Mobilizing, something that is much more effective if preceded by organizing.
A good organizer starts by making connections with individuals, listening to their concerns and grievances, supporting them and building trust. When possible, the organizer helps resolve some of the smaller grievances. A union organizer, for example, might help get a broken tool repaired or replaced. A community organizer might help an evicted tenant access the community resources or a pro bono attorney. This not only builds interpersonal trust, but it also makes the union or whatever the larger organization is seem like it has the organizees back, rather than simply wanting something from them.
Once a positive relationship has been developed, the organizer can start educating the organizee, easing them beyond their current comfort zone, encouraging them to take part in low risk collective actions, like wearing a button or t-shirt or joining in a picket. After this, once the organizee trusts the organizer and the organization and feels self-confident participating in low-risk actions, the organizer can educate and agitate further and encourage the organizee to participate in more aggressive and risky tactics like strikes, occupations and civil disobedience.
Obviously, the time required to get an individual ready and willing to participate in the more risky and aggressive actions varies from person to person, but could take months or even years for some people. Add to this the fact that a given organizer can only reach so many people per week and the fact that it is much easier to build trusting relationships through one-on-one meetings rather than by speaking to large groups.
All this is to say that we have a long way to go before OWS or the trade union movements will be able to mount any sort of effective direct actions against the ruling elite. Of course, it would also help if there were some concrete demands associated with the actions. Protests can be fun, exciting and empowering and sometimes worthwhile for these reasons, alone. But for all the commitment and risk involved, a lot of people are going to want to feel like there are some attainable goals that can be achieved through their efforts.
Modern School
http://modeducation.blogspot.com/2011/12/where-are-99.html
progree
(11,463 posts)I've often been concerned that if I show up for some Occupy protest, would I be pressured to be involved in some illegal and/or disruptive action that I strongly feel is counterproductive?
A peaceful demonstration of tens of thousands is much more effective at demonstrating the power and support of our ideas than 200 yahoos running around deliberately blocking traffic and people's livelihoods.
Old Union Guy
(738 posts)TBF
(34,315 posts)but the propaganda is just as thick. Our union membership is down to maybe 10% now, with many low income people tuning into FAUX news and spouting off about the ills of unions. That really hurts us because it is going to take discipline and some amount of order to mount any sort of defense against the 1% - and unions are a great way to organize. Unfortunately the 1% realize this and own the mass media - so they concentrate on pitting us against each other. It is very effective for them to have us all at each others' throats fighting about whether someone in the next cubicle makes more money than you, has your "family values" etc... it takes the heat off them.
The things we can take from OWS are leaderless organization, mobility, and social network. We can still communicate via the internet (so far), and somehow convincing folks that service employees need to unionize is probably the best thing we can do in terms of organized resistance. I see it getting much worse (economically) in this country before it gets better, but eventually folks will wake up because they have no other choice but to fight back. I'd prefer it be in a non-violent way, but the worse it gets the less likely that becomes.
srjmsbnd
(24 posts)Since US unions gained the right to collectively bargain under the Wagner Act Labor law has been corrupted, so that at this point unions have less representation of work force than when they were working outside of the law and illegal.
In this small town I get contacted regularly via internet by those who have became most recognized as the US's "left" for the most part they are clueless about what they are talking about and have no ties in the community as they are all out of town automatons who can not even call someone up for a real relationship and conversation.
So if you see any of these OWS, 99%, Move On, ACORN types tell them I serve strangers refreshments on the porch while I wait in exile for a real progressive American dialogue that is sorely lacking.
TBF
(34,315 posts)Instead of just taking pot shots, why don't you tell us what you think is lacking in progressive or leftist (two different things btw) "American" dialogue.
Modern School
(794 posts)I've addressed some of your question in my latest post: What's Wrong with 99% Spring.
The biggest problem is a faulty analysis and faulty premises about the nature of the economic crisis, its causes and solutions. I realize that progressive and leftist are 2 different things and both are nebulous terms.
Bottom line is that if we want to get the bosses or the ruling elite to listen and change policies in our interests, we have to threaten them where it hurts most: their profits. Occupying space, in and of itself, won't do this, unless the space is the workplace and the occupation involves not working (i.e., a sit down strike). Yet even this will only provide temporary relief. As long as a ruling class exists, it will bend and compromise when necessary to maintain its wealth and power and then recoup and attack when conditions are ripe again.
TBF
(34,315 posts)response. I was pointedly asking the other poster for a reason.
Particularly the last sentence - it really is the capitalism that has to go. When you reward greed it's the behavior you're going to get. We need to transition to socialism if we want any hope of saving our planet.
Chathamization
(1,638 posts)I think the former has to go, but I think the latter is a pretty decent system. But I suppose we can get lost arguing about the definitions of such nebulous terms. I think the current system, with a more progressive tax policy, universal healthcare, free state-run higher education, strong regulation of the financial sector, investment in infrastructure, etc. (insert leftist laundry list) would be good.
As to your question, I think if even 1% of the American population that's on the left was at least moderately involved in politics, we would have massive changes in this country. But look at, say, what they call the netroots. How many of those commentators do you think is active politically? In fact, I've _never_ seen a mainstream liberal blog say, "let's try to find a way to solve these problems, let's organize, let's get together and get active." It's just potshot at Santorum #75, Romney said something stupid #106. I know the extremists in this country are problematic. All of their readers know. When do we actually start to do things - or at least start to talk about things that will make a difference?
I know a lot of people on this site are pretty active, but I just want to point out that we're dealing with a handicap of no leadership on the left, and very few active people.
As for advice for people who are active?
1. Try not to be insular (I've seen a lot of groups turn inward and cut themselves off from the outside world).
2. Try to focus on small, achievable goals - a boycott of Wells Fargo won't do much good if your group is only 15 people. But delivering food to people or helping them with foreclosures can do a lot of good, and show people that you're serious.
3. Don't break the law. With all the unused tools at our disposal, I can't think of any reason why it would be justified.
4. Try to connect with other activist groups. Not everyone will want to be part of your group - most won't. But the way to get things done is through coalition building.
Well, those would be my suggestions based on my experience. I'd be happy to hear yours.
TBF
(34,315 posts)but I also see your solutions as just more of the same.
I really do want the end of capitalism - and that is going to involve a lot more than delivering food to people. That is band-aids.
Yes, we on the (far) left have lost a few generations - Palmer and McCarthy did us no favors - we really have no organized leftist force here. Liberals, yes. But we do not have organized socialists/communists who are serious about change except for small pockets.
Chathamization
(1,638 posts)If you think that, say, there's no big difference between the way the Scandinavian countries are currently run and the way that the US is currently run, I guess you can see it as more of the same. But in that case you wouldn't see much of a difference if we kept or got rid of Social Security, Medicaid, Glass-Steagall, a carbon tax, etc. I think these things are actually very important to people - at least that's what all my experience tells me.
What would your post-capitalist society look like?
TBF
(34,315 posts)That is always the first question from a red-baiter ... I'll tell you what. Why don't we save some time and end this conversation here. If I felt you were interested I would answer, but your responses tell me you're not.
crunch60
(1,412 posts)JÉRÉMIE BÉDARD-WIEN, STUDENT ORGANIZER, CLASSE: Right. Well, last week, the government of Quebec enacted a dangerous bill, Bill 78, which represents a crackdown on protests, and specifically on the student strike that has been happening in the past three months in Quebec. And today about 400,000 citizens, old and young, workers and students, marched in Montreal against Bill 78. Ironically, it was also the biggest event of civil disobedience in Quebec, since the protest was technically illegal, according to Bill 78.
http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=767&Itemid=74&jumival=8358