Print this post.The danger of co-optation from getting into bed with Democratic party appendages is growing by the minute, and the pressure will intensify as the system deploys harsher repressive measures to snuff it out. The heart of the dilemma is how can unions and [established] political organizations and politicians lend support to Occupy Wall Street without killing it?
By: Diane G
RECOMMENDED CROSS-READING: Occupy Wall Street, by Michael Rectenwald
(Editors note: The title at dKos was changed to The Tension Between Institutional Support for #OccupyWallStreet & Co-opting a Democratic Movement… because they shy from the F word there, whereas we relish in it. Heh. Furthermore, not only can MoveOn.org dilute the instinctive radical rebellion we observe in so many expressions of the current #OccupyWallStreet, but the Daily Kos itself can play or reinforce that role, since the blog remains a DNC appendage and a big disseminator of reformist policies that obscure the systemic nature of the crisis. If #OccupyWS movement allows itself to be derailed into such politics it will mean the end of its short life as a vibrant departure from politics as usual. In a future post we’ll analyze the options and threats facing this movement, and the possible tactical solutions to those dilemmas.)
Reprinted with the kind permission of The Troubadour aka David Harris Gershon
Many people are beginning to ask this question: how can the Occupy Wall Street movement embrace support from unions, politicians and political organizations without being co-opted? How can the movement maintain its democratic, non-partisan character as large, hierarchical structures add their boisterous voices of support?
It’s an important question as Occupy Wall Street expands beyond anyone’s wildest imagination, with events and occupations planned in almost every corner of the country, and with both local and national media looking for people who can “explain” what is being witnessed.
Politicians have begun stepping forward to express support for #ows. Unions have stepped forward in great numbers. And political organizations, with clear party alignments, have stepped forward to support the movement. To be sure: all of these developments are positive, and reveal the power of this expansive revolution. However, such support from entities that are organized from the top down, and which have loud, strong voices, does present perilous problems for a General-Assembly-driven movement.
This tension being felt by #ows activists between a) appreciation for support of the movement, and b) dismay at attempts to co-opt the movement is well represented (though neither diplomatic nor GA-approved) by the below image:
It’s important to note, given the subject of this post, that no General Assembly in the movement approved the above image. (Thanks to artisan for making me realize this caption needed to be added.) That said, the image does represent the tensions that currently exist, regardless of whether or not it has been “approved.”
“We’re very excited to have our union brothers and sisters march on the heart of greed,” spokesman Patrick Bruner told HuffPost before a 10,000-strong Wednesday march organized in coordination with labor.
“We don’t necessarily think that the way they’re structured is the best,” Bruner said, referring to the unions’ top-down organizational style. “But we believe the 99% needs a voice, and they’re one of the few remaining.”
Here is another (in response to Ben Bernanke’s mention of #ows on Tuesday):
“Nice to know he feels he has to say that,” replied David Graeber, an anarchist anthropologist who has been involved with the protests from the beginning. “Otherwise meaningless.”
“Obviously we welcome support from anyone,” Graeber continued in an email, “but yes, [being co-opted is] a serious concern because a huge part of our message is our own internal democracy. The moment you even have a funding base it seriously limits what people feel they can say and do. And a top-down organization will always try to co-opt you. So we have to be very careful and insist people come on our terms or not at all.”
This question of co-opting is one that is particularly prescient, as we at Daily Kos – a blog which [unfortunately] explicitly aligns with the Democratic party – become intensely focused on Occupy Wall Street.
Not only have we occupied the Rec. List in recent days, Daily Kos itself has (to my great joy) begun to help with the organization of occupation events around the country
The work Chris Bowers has done, and is doing, is tremendous, and should continue. However, as it continues, a parallel question should be asked: how can unions and political organizations and politicians lend support to Occupy Wall Street without killing it?
How can we fan the flames of revolution without extinguishing them with our own breath?
DIANE GEE is a senior contributing editor to The Greanville Post, and editor in chief of The Wild Wild Left.
ADVERT PRO NOBIS
¶
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
IF YOU THINK THE LAMESTREAM MEDIA ARE A DISGRACE AND A HUGE OBSTACLE
to real change in America why haven’t you sent at least a few dollars to The Greanville Post (or a similar anti-corporate citizen’s media?). Think about it. Without educating and organizing our ranks our cause is DOA. That’s why our new citizens’ media need your support. Send your badly needed check to “TGP, P.O. Box 1028, Brewster, NY 10509-1028.” Make checks out to “P. Greanville/ TGP”. (A contribution of any amount can also be made via Paypal and MC or VISA.)
THANK YOU.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________