There was a parade yesterday in Santa Rosa for the 1 year anniversary of Occupy. See the Press Democrat's surprisingly positive article here. Meanwhile, I can't help feel quite disappointed that more hasn't come out of the largest mass movement on the left since the 60's. Yes, somethings were accomplished, including raising the awareness of the vast inequity of income distribution and the power of the 1%, but next to nothing has been done to change that.
When compared to the movements of the 1960's that resulted in the Civil Rights Act, ending the war in Vietnam and the creation of EPA, Occupy has not only achieved very little (OK, it's early yet) but it also shows very little persistence, despite the anniversary march. It even pales when compared to the "accomplishments" of the Tea Party. The Tea Party achieved much greater mindshare and more importantly, political power. Thankfully it is being undone by the bankruptcy of its philosophy.
All hope is not lost, and I'm sure seeds have been sown, but precious little fruit has been born so far, and its [Edit: apostrophe removed - thanks Larry!] energy continues to wane.
In retrospect I see four reasons for this:
1) No "One Demand". Rather on focusing on making a big change with the amazing swelling of passion, attention and energy, Occupy just became a new brand for a wide-array of familiar left-wing gripes, which dissipated the energy.
When Adbuster's called for the original occupation, their poster tried to help the movement to focus with the caption: What is our One Demand? They also suggested one: Get the money out of politics, or as they stated it:
I think they had it right. They correctly identified the root of the problem; the source of so many other problems. It had a beautiful simplicity, along with current villain in Citizen's United that pointed to the accumulation of judicial errors (corporate personhood and money is speech). With it, the movement could rightfully claim motherhood & apple-pie banner of Restoring Democracy. Who could ask for more?Posted in reply to the post by Adbusters:
While getting the money out politics persisted as one of the many themes that arose from Occupy, it was not dominant. It became just another of the myriad of demands, and its power was diluted.
On one hand, getting the money out of politics is a tall order, since it has now been enshrined by the Supreme Court in constitutional law, and would take a constitutional amendment to undo the damage. On yet another hand, that goal and the large majority of voters and politicians that woud be required to support it would force the movement to remain focused and be broad based. I think it was a suitable cause to get support from people on both the left and the right. That cause continues and is lead, IMO, by Move to Amend.
Even if it failed to achieve a constitutional amendment specifying what is plainly obvious, Corporations are Not People and Money is Not Speech, no doubt much collateral good would be achieved in the process of trying to pass the amendment.
2) Occupying. Way too much energy was was wasted on the physical occupation of public spaces. The writing was on the wall from the first day that that strategy, though highly effective at first to gain attention, was doomed by, if nothing else, the calendar. The camps quickly gained undesirable elements that could not be jettisoned since there as no agreed on demand. It's one thing to subvert the dominant paradigm, it's another to stand up to Mother Nature as winter bore down on the campers. Both the lack of One Demand, and staying attached to physical occupations, point to problem # 3:
3) No leadership. While the notion of not having a leader could be seen as "leaderfull", in practice, IMO, there was not enough wise, strategic coordinated leadership. The original occupations and the beautiful teach-ins, networking and brainstorming that they encouraged was masterful for both being productive, persistent and attention grabbing, however without concerted action around a key objective, no lasting change was made. Yes, there were a handful of regional occupations organized from local groups, most notable and effective, IMO, was the one that targeted ALEC, an organization that I was not aware of until then, and has since withered from Occupy's spotlight.
4) No politics. The Occupy movement as was so distrustful/disillusioned of the political process (for good reason) they refused, by and large, to participate in elective politics. I think this was a huge mistake. So many of the problems are sourced in government and laws they write, as well as the one key answer, getting the money out of politics, requires political action. No doubt many community based initiatives were born during the flowering of Occupy, and good work is being done by them, but they are working to mitigate the damage being done by of the corporatocracy, rather than working to change it.
Here we are, one year later, in the middle of presidential campaign, with a perfect foil in Mitt Rmoney (typo intended), and effect of the Occupy movement is much less that Tea Party movement 2 years ago. Yes, terms such income distribution and 99% are part of the lexicon now, but that's not a lot to show for such a powerful movement.
I can only hope that the energy will rise again another day and we won't squander that golden opportunity.
Barry