Need to be Creative... Not About Camping But Economic Inequality

Excerpt: "Does a movement to redress income inequality have to camp
overnight in public squares to succeed? I don't think so."



Occupy Movement at the Crossroads

by Randy Shaw

Beyond Chron - San Francisco's Alternative Online Daily
November 15, 2011




Two months after launching, the Occupy movement faces a
critical test. Since drawing worldwide attention to the
unequal distribution of wealth in the United States, and
becoming a powerful voice for "the 99%," the movement has
become ensnared in local battles over the right to camp in
public places.

For some, the control of public space goes to the heart of
the Occupier's agenda, as the guardians of these spaces are
seen as also protecting the 1%. For others, battles with
local governments and police forces distract from focusing
on Wall Street and the economic elite.

Regardless of how one comes down on this question, the
media coverage and messaging of the movement has shifted
from the 1% vs. 99% struggle to battles over the right to
camp. And energies devoted to battling police at Occupy
Oakland, Occupy Portland and other spaces are not being
spent occupying banks, hedge funds, foreclosed homes, and
other tangible targets of the initial Occupy drive.

Successful movements must be flexible enough to change
tactics in the face of roadblocks, and activists' camping
in public spaces is not strategically necessary for the
movement's success.

In the past few days, police actions in Oakland and
Portland (and at Wall Street's Zucotti Park this morning)
have highlighted the shift of media coverage of the Occupy
movement from struggles by the 99% against the 1% to
battles with police and local governments over the right to
camp in public places. Public discussion of Occupy is also
focusing on the struggle by campers to hold their turf,
with abuses by financial institutions a secondary topic.
Public Squares vs. The 1%

Does a movement to redress income inequality have to camp
overnight in public squares to succeed? I don't think so.

Occupy galvanized the nation by highlighting the obscene
control of the nation's wealth by the 1%, and our political
system's inability to correct this. The takeover of a
private park near Wall Street offered a perfect symbol for
Occupy's economic inequality message.

After Occupy Wall Street, activists in hundreds of other
cities sought to replicate its transformation of a public
space into a campaign headquarters. While many questioned
sustaining such campgrounds come winter, the more imminent
threat came from local authorities that did not want
overnight camping in their public squares.

If the Occupy movement had originally emerged as a strategy
to takeover public squares rather than to redistribute
wealth, it would not have so captivated the world. Yet now
we have activists across the nation rushing to defend
Occupy campgrounds against police evictions, with many
suggesting that reclaiming public space, rather than income
inequality was what the movement has always been about.

These expressions of solidarity with Occupy campers are
understandable. But if the movement spends the next weeks
battling police and local governments over public spaces,
critical momentum will be lost and potentially dramatic
direct actions highlighting inequality will not occur.

With many religious groups, unions and nonprofits backing
Occupy, there are plenty of available buildings in which
activists can operate local chapters of the movement. The
African-American civil rights movement, anti-war campaigns,
and nearly every other social justice struggle has grown
without supporters camping out in public places, so it is
not clear why some believe Occupy's success depends on this
tactic.

A Movement in Infancy

The Occupy movement is less than two months old. Its
remarkable success in its short life can cause us to forget
the normal time trajectory for successful social
movements.

The Civil Rights Movement had proceeded for decades before
Rosa Parks? refused to move to the back of the bus in 1955,
and it took another nine years after the Montgomery Bus
Boycott? for the key federal civil rights bills to pass.

Cesar Chavez? began his quest to organize a farmworkers
union in 1962, and it took thirteen years before the
California Agricultural Labor Relations Act was enacted.

The list could go on and on.

In every successful movement, tactics and strategies change
as the situation demands. This flexibility overcomes
roadblocks, and puts authorities on the defensive as they
try to anticipate what activists will think of next.

The Occupy movement's takeover of public spaces worked for
a time, but has now become a diversion. There is no shame
in abandoning a fight over camping in public spaces that
was always a means to an end.

Wall Street does not fear battles between police and
activists in Oakland's Frank Ogawa (renamed Oscar Grant?)
Plaza. But it has to be concerned when thousands of non-
campers march as part of the November 2 Oakland General
Strike, raising the specter of ongoing direct actions
targeting the 1%.

On Thursday, November 17, the AFL-CIO, SEIU, CWA and the
Laborers' Union are joining with Occupy Wall Street and
groups like MoveOn.org and the American Dream Movement for
"We are the 99 percent" rallies. These events commemorate
the two-month birthday of Occupy, and will hopefully be
part of a refocusing of the movement on its original
goals.

The eviction of campers is not a "defeat" for Occupy, nor
even a setback. And if it redirects activist energies
toward the 1% and away from local police, Wall Street and
its allies will regret not pushing to allow the camping to
continue.

[Randy Shaw is author of The Activist's Handbook and
Beyond the Fields: Cesar Chavez, the UFW and the Struggle
for Justice in the 21st Century.]
__._,_.___

Let’s Review.
In November of 2000 they took away our vote, when the Supreme Court handed the presidency to G.W. Bush. Effectively this eliminated democracy and the voting process and instituted a Totalitarian State.
Then our government hurled a couple of planes at the twin towers rendering it now possible to strip us of our constitutional rights. We are now groped in public when we chose to travel by plane.
Next, they opened the flood gate for ponsey schemes, only this time they gambled with the publics money. (Funny one guy plays with the riches money, loses gets caught goes to jail… large corporations play same game, loose get bailed out from government, no one goes to jail… )
All this and we are forced into ‘The Depression II’ (guaranteed to bring more devastation and destruction than the first!!!) And when the people have finally had enough, and take to the streets, and protest all this injustice. What do they do, they send in the bunko squad, in full riot gear, common riot gear for what has been classifies in the press as ‘a bunch of hippie’s’. Where will the compromise end. And just how liberal will Boulder be perceived when the BPD start arresting it’s citizens for this time, following a peace movement (as opposed to leading as it usually has done in the past).
The Occupation is a statement. One that says ‘WE WON’T BUDGE, WE WON’T COMPROMISE OUR VALUES!’ and when we give in and once again play their game, they win we loose.

IMO occupying a public space is fundamental. It is called "Occupy" for a reason. Public space belongs to the PUBLIC, not the city council, police or mayor. If the city council, ,police or mayor try to deny us access to public space their power is illegitimate. Lets not be afraid to call a spade a spade. Lets not water our movement down because we are afraid of going to jail or losing our mainstream privilege.

To me, the idea of occupying a public space is essential. Like the two posters before me, I believe the camps are a statement of our perseverance and a symbol of democracy in action. Democracy does not close its doors at 6PM. A permanent camp site provides an area of constant conversation which I feel is key to any democracy. It also establishes a sense of community and camaraderie among the protesters.

The arrests are tragic, but reveal the corruption and oppressive nature of our government. The first amendment gives us the right to peaceably assemble. It does not come with a curfew. It does not come with a time-period. Public space is owned by the public, not the government, and we if we choose to occupy it in the name of protest, for whatever duration of time, I believe we have that right. If we are not willing to stand up for out own rights, what credibility do we have that we will stand up for the rights of the rest of the 99%?

You're right in saying that the mainstream media is focusing primarily on the arrests and not on the message of the movement itself. Don't let this deter you. The mainstream media will never focus on the message because they are the target of it. If they aren't reporting on police activity they will just go back to reporting how we're just a giant hippie drum circle, or worse, stop reporting on us altogether.

I liken the actions of certain local governments and police forces to that of the common bully. They are using a show of force as a way to control our actions. Allow me to share a personal story with you all. My first three years of high-school were hell. Not a day went by when I couldn't walk through the halls without hearing hurtful comments about my sexuality. I was scared. I gave into my fears and started trying to find alternative paths to class where I would not have contact with the bullies. It worked for a while, but the problem was still there. Wherever I went, they found me and they humiliated me. My senior year, I had finally had enough and decided to stand up to the bullies instead of shying away and trying to ignore them. I was scared as hell that they would come after me, beat me up, and ultimately I would still face the same struggles. That's not what happened. I found that when I decided to speak up for myself, others revealed themselves who were willing to speak up for me as well. Things got better. Much, much better. When you face a bully, be that the high school football team or your own government, the answer is not to run away and ignore the problem. You have to stand up and let them know that you will not let them bully you any more. Our brothers and sisters in New York, Oakland, Portland, Denver, etc are being bullied and have chosen to stand up to their bullies at great risk to themselves and their group. We are the bystanders in the hallway, the ones who must speak up and stand with our peers in the face of their bullies. Are we going to turn our backs on our friends out of fear we will become the victims?