Street Occupiers

From the DAILY BEAST:

At times, Occupy Wall Street has been electrifying: the epic stand on “sanitation day” in October, when Mayor Bloomberg announced he would close Zuccotti Park for “cleaning” as a means of evicting the movement only to back down when occupiers furiously scrubbed the sidewalk through the overnight, and thousands joined them to defend the park at dawn, filling it to bursting; the Oakland solidarity march when occupiers lifted the orange “kettling” nets away from the NYPD in an elating moment of triumph over the NYPD, Bloomberg’s “army”; the triumphant return to Liberty Square on eviction day. When it’s right, Occupy makes you believe in its power to change the world. It comes down to something more than a standoff with the local police, a sense that larger issues of economic fairness and citizen enfranchisement are at play, that we can reclaim our government and our commons from the moneyed interests that have co-opted both, and that what had seemed like pipe dreams are moving into reach as the movement’s message spreads and its numbers grow.

Those moments alternate with deflating ones, when Occupy feels like a depressing reminder of the world we’re stuck with now: tepid protests where unions and the street team of the Democratic Party try to assume the mantle of the occupation, like the “march” outside the Mitt Romney fundraiser at the Ritz Carlton this month where a small group circled the block holding up preprinted signs; a hackneyed TV commercial; the Occupy-themed book parties where the city’s aspiring intelligentsia drink and mingle; and perhaps worst of all the “occupied office” that mirrors the way of life and social organization so many of us are fighting to move past.

Occupy’s big tent—its aspiration to represent the vastly varied 99%—and its leaderless movement’s need to respond to the state’s shifting tactics to regulate dissent make some of these missteps inevitable…

Click here to read the full article.

EDITOR: Contrary to what outsiders often write, the difference between the Occupy movements and traditional efforts is not that they have no leaders but how the leaders have to lead.  They cannot dictate; they have to listen, discuss and mold.

It is far more challenging and at times highly frustrating.  In ways it is representative of our changing times as pre-Second World War pyramidal organizations of business has been replace by a disbursement of responsibilities and decision making among the highly educated organization.

As for “Radical chic”, if it exists with Occupy DC, our on the scene associate Kevin Zeese has not brought it to our attention.  He, Margaret Flowers (MD) and others are experienced and successful activists.   With such advisors, the DC effort is likely to impact movements throughout the nation.