99% Spring – An Occupy-Like Movement For People Who Like To Be Told What To Do?

(4 pm. – promoted by ek hornbeck)

What would you say if someone asked you what the keys are to the Occupy Movement’s identity?  You might mention some of the slogans, like “We are the 99%,”  or perhaps their statements against corporate personhood or the actions of occupations of public spaces and the calls for economic justice and accountability for the banksters that caused the recent economic crash.  Those are among the hallmarks, but probably the biggest part of Occupy Wall Street’s identity is the General Assembly process.  

The general assembly process is what sets Occupy apart from any other movement going right now.  It is what defines the movement as a “horizontal movement” or a “leaderless movement;” that is, a movement whose ideals and actions are broadly agreed upon by the entirety of its membership.  It is what makes Occupy a (small d) democratic movement.

This consensus process is what Occupy stands for and wants to transmit, a process for creating a durable democratic infrastructure, a basis upon which useful, inclusive, democratic institutions can be built.

As it says in Occupy’s Statement of Autonomy”:

Occupy Wall Street is a people’s movement. It is party-less, leaderless, by the people and for the people. It is not a business, a political party, an advertising campaign or a brand.  It is not for sale.

We welcome all, who, in good faith, petition for a redress of grievances through non-violence.  We provide a forum for peaceful assembly of individuals to engage in participatory democracy. …

Any organization is welcome to support us with the knowledge that doing so will mean questioning your own institutional frameworks of work and hierarchy and integrating our principles into your modes of action. … Those seeking to capitalize on this movement or undermine it by appropriating its message or symbols are not a part of Occupy Wall Street.

So, I’ve been seeing all sorts of information about this shiny, new 99% Spring movement and how they have a goal to train 100,000 people in non-violent, direct action.  They are supported by a wide variety of liberal organizations and the prime mover behind organizing them is MoveOn.org.

The 99% Spring movement will be training people in non-violent direct action, and appropriating the symbols and some of the language of Occupy. The 99% Spring website says they are “inspired by today’s brave heroes in Occupy Wall Street and Madison, Wisconsin,” but apparently they are not inspired enough to appropriate the part of the Occupy movement that empowers the individuals within it to direct the movement.  This “Occupy inspired” movement will be top-down rather than, “questioning your own institutional frameworks of work and hierarchy and integrating our principles into [their] modes of action.”

It appears that what might be inspiring these organizations most is the effectiveness of the Occupy movement in getting committed activists out into the streets.  I suppose you can’t blame them, waving a group of thousands of agitated, politically-aware citizens committed to non-violent action in the streets at a bunch of organizers causes about the same level of predictable response as tossing bloody chum into shark-infested waters.  Further, many of the vertically organized groups that are participating in this knock-off effort are generally pretty well-intentioned organizations.  

One may reasonably wonder though, based upon MoveOn.org’s close association with the Democratic Party and it’s coordination with the White House what it’s intentions are in organizing this movement:

The Common Purpose Project meets “every Tuesday afternoon at the Capitol Hilton” in Washington, DC, and “brings together the top officials from a range of left-leaning organizations, from labor groups like Change to Win to activists like MoveOn.org, all in support of the White House’s agenda. … the Common Purpose meeting has involved a White House official, communications director Ellen Moran, two sources familiar with the meeting said. It’s aimed, said one, at ‘providing a way for the White House to manage its relationships with some of these independent groups.’ The group’s founder, political consultant and former Gephardt aide Erik Smith, described it in general terms after others had confirmed its existence. ‘The goal is to convene a group of people that identify the most effective progressive messages and to advance a progressive policy agenda,’ said Smith. … Its political director is another former Obama aide, Miti Sathe. Part of the group’s role is to enforce a kind of message discipline.”

Could the intent of MoveOn.org in organizing this be to, at a critical time for the Occupy movement as it is gearing up for a major spring event, the May Day General Strike which is part of a much anticipated “spring revival” of Occupy activism – to draw away participants and momentum from Occupy and channel the activism ultimately to benefit the Democratic Party?  It seems a fair question given the circumstances.

Of course, it’s a question that can’t be conclusively answered without inside information about the intent of MoveOn.org and perhaps others of the participants.  There is however, another question that is probably of far more importance than the intent of the 99% Spring organizers, which would be about the desires of the people who come out to protest.  

There has been much ado in the press about the interminable period that it has taken Occupy (now ironically less than a year old) to create a structure that produces demands and the sorts of activism that are more traditionally associated with parties  – proposed legislation, candidates, etc.  Perhaps the most important question is do the folks who are doing the protesting want a process like Occupy offers, wherein they are the leaders, they determine what actions the movement takes and creates the infrastructure to repair or replace our currently badly functioning (not really) representative governance with something more useful, inclusive and democratic – or would they prefer a more efficient, top-down model where they are told what to do and when.

There are advantages to both models. Vertical organizations run by tightly-controlled elite groups can make the trains run on time and when they fail to produce the sort of results the people want, there is someone to blame.  Horizontal organization, if it can be made to work in a timely way for such a large group of people could create a more equal society wherein the people are more fully empowered to determine the path of their own lives and structure their social environment.

There are two approaches on offer here.  It will be interesting to see how this shakes out.

 Loading ...