Occupy's Spiritual Quest
MARCUS DEMERY
Dear occupiers, jammers, dreamers,
Three years after the May 1968 uprising that swept the world, the great French philosopher Michel Foucault observed that a key strategy of power is to “appear inaccessible to events.” Power, Foucault argued with a nod towards 1968’s failed insurrection, acts to “dispel the shock of daily occurrences, to dissolve the event … to exclude the radical break introduced by events.”
Forty years later, in light of Occupy, Foucault’s observation still strikes home. Despite achieving the impossible at unprecedented speed – sparking a global awakening, triggering a thousand people’s assemblies worldwide, and giving birth to a visceral anti-corporate, pro-democracy spiritual insurrection – Occupy is now struggling through an existential moment. Our movement has been dealt a blow: our May 1 and follow-up events have been dissolved by power; the status quo has shown itself to be far more resilient than many of us expected.
Now a passionate debate is emerging within our movement. On one side are those who cheer the death of Occupy in the hopes that it will transform into something unexpected and new. And on the other are patient organizers who counsel that all great movements take years to unfold.

OCCUPY WALL STREET IS NOW DEAD
May 1 confirmed the end of the national Occupy Wall Street movement because it was the best opportunity the movement had to reestablish the occupations, and yet it couldn’t. Nowhere was this more clear than in Oakland as the sun set after a day of marches, pickets and clashes. Rumors had been circulating for weeks that tents would start going up and the camp would reemerge in the evening of that long day. The hundreds of riot police backed by armored personnel carriers and SWAT teams carrying assault rifles made no secret of their intention to sweep the plaza clear after all the “good protesters” scurried home, making any reoccupation physically impossible. It was the same on January 28 when plans for a large public building occupation were shattered in a shower of flash bang grenades and 400 arrests, just as it was on March 17 in Zuccotti Park when dreams of a new Wall Street camp were clubbed and pepper sprayed to death by the NYPD. Any hopes of a spring offensive leading to a new round of space reclamations and liberated zones has come and gone. And with that, Occupy Wall Street and Occupy Oakland are now dead.
The task ahead of us in Oakland and beyond is to search out and nurture new means of finding each other. We are quickly reaching the point where the dead weight of Occupy threatens to drag down the Commune into the dustbin of history. We need to breathe new life into our network of rebellious relationships that does not rely on the Occupy Oakland general assembly or the array of movement protagonists who have emerged to represent the struggle. This is by no means an argument against assemblies or for a retreat back into the small countercultural ghettos that keep us isolated and irrelevant. On the contrary, we need more public assemblies that take different forms and experiment with themes, styles of decision-making (or lack there of) and levels of affinity… Most of all, we need desperately to stay connected with comrades old and new and not let these relationships completely decompose.
— Read the rest of the this article, by anonymous West Coast anarchists, at Bay of Rage

THE OCCUPY MOVEMENT HAS BARELY BEGUN
O
ccupy Wall Street was at the pinnacle of its power in October 2011, when thousands of people converged at Zuccotti Park and successfully foiled the plans of billionaire Mayor Michael Bloomberg to sweep away the occupation on grounds of public health. From that vantage point, the Occupy movement appears to have tumbled off a cliff, having failed to organize anything like a general strike on May Day – despite months of rumblings of mass walkouts, blockades and shutdowns.The mainstream media are eager to administer last rites. CNN declared that “May Day fizzled,” the New York Post sneered “Goodbye, Occupy,” and The New York Times consigned the day’s events to fewer than 400 words, mainly dealing with arrests in New York City.
Historians and organizers counter that the Occupy movement needs to be seen in relative terms. Eminent sociologist Frances Fox Piven, co-author of Poor People’s Movements, says:
“I don’t know of a movement that unfolds in less than a decade. People are impatient, and some of them are too quick to pass judgment. But it’s the beginning, I think, of a great movement. One of a series of movement that has episodically changed history, which is not the way we tell the story of American history.”
— Read the rest of Arun Gupta’s What Happened to the Occupy movement?
The fire in the soul of Occupy burns from Oakland to Quebec, Barcelona to Chicago, Wall Street to Moscow and Frankfurt… the question now is which fork in the road will our movement take?
for the wild,
Culture Jammers HQ
197 comments on the article “Occupy's Spiritual Quest”
Displaying 51 - 60 of 197
Page 6 of 20
Anonymous
Occupy is dead. Graduate students and academics generally, and I am one of them, are incapable of leadership and assertive change because these two things are absolutely prohibited by their very dogmas: that nobody deserves to be a leader, because this implies she has more standing than someone else, and nobody can assert change, because this implies that there are ideas that are much better than others. In the academy, everyone is equal, and equal in the subjectivity of their views. This is was Occupy was not only dead, it was stillborn. Ghandi and MLK would never have tolerated something as ineffective and useless as Occupy. They were leaders in the classic sense of the term, with a single vision that they championed. We need leaders, no occupiers. Face up to this fact, and act. If you are man or woman enough.
batman
Sounds to me like you went to a GA and got your panties in a bunch because everyone didn't fall down and embrace your obvious brilliance and anoint your ideas the solution. First of all, professor scholarly mc scholar, It isn't a question of nobody 'deserving' to be a leader., although in life, noone does. Its a belief that we are all leaders, in that we all lead. You confuse 'lead' with 'rule' it seems. And then to compound your disinformative slam, you mention MLK and gandhi. These two were not leaders in the sense you allude to , but charismatic cults of personality. And you are correct, Occupy neither has nor wants figureheads to throw up there to handle press releases, to 'speechify' and collect 'fans'. We have a group, deciding together, leading by each others example.
To close your little attack with 'if you are man or woman enough' normally would speak (lowly) for your own bias, but i couldn't resist pointing it out for those who were simply bored by your trollish remarks and cookie cutter dissension. Don't be afraid. There is a place for you in our new world. There is a place for all humanity across the globe, and that place will be at each others side, sharing and caring for each other, and taking care of this planet we all are a part of. You will be welcomed, not despite your differences, but because of them, and hopefully you will learn to throw off the shackles the machine has clamped onto your mind and perceptions, and embrace the new community-ism we will accomplish.
Anonymous
Thank you. Very well said.
The point of Occupy is that our current leaders and leadership structure have failed spectacularly and the solution is not more of the same but a new, truly democratic kind of leadership that includes every interested party. Folks who think Occupy has failed clearly have no idea what we're actually trying to do.
Gary (Akoyeh) McGee
"...embrace the new community-ism we will accomplish." -Batman
Slavoj Žižek recently asked, “What social organization can replace the existing capitalism?” I humbly propose Commitalism as a possible answer. I propose it as a vehicle toward a unique cultural transformation and genuine democracy. Essentially, commitalism is a combination of eco-moral capitalism and ego-moral communism. By eco-moral I mean holistically conscious and compassionate. By ego-moral I mean socially individuated and ethically motivated.
Commitalism combines the “heart” of communism with “the balls” of capitalism. At once ethical and spiritual, at once personal and social, commitalism is less about production that caters to materialism and consumerism, and more about creative expression that benefits the spirit of the people and ushers in a constantly evolving zeitgeist (spirit of the times).
The death-throes of plutocratic-democracy are the birth pangs of eco-moral democracy. Its vehicle is commitalism. The process by which democracy becomes eco-moral will be the shift from an exploitative system to a relationship-based system of governing. It will be the shift from a politic of greed and one-up-manship to a politic of moderation and respect.
Commitalism, it seems, would function naturally with two other similarly healthy proposals: The Zeitgeist Movement and The Venus Project.
http://letter-z.hubpages.com/hub/What-is-Commitalism
Anonymous
OMG! Are all communists against personal hygiene?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Slavoj_Zizek_Fot_M_Kubik_May15_2009_09.jpg
Anonymous
I like the last bit where you accept him or her into the tribe regardless of the horrific statements made by him or her.
Your graciousness elevates you above the masses.
In fact, I nominate YOU to become our leader!
We could look into a Sainthood as well....
Anonymous
You are certainly not a graduate student of history, I hope. Do you have any understanding of the effort and time it takes to make substantial social and political change? Do you know anything about workers' rights struggles, the history of the women's movement, or the fight for civil rights? Which of these, pray tell, had wrought major change within six months of their inception? Which of these ultimately failed, yielding no important gains? In which instance would justice have been better served if, a few months in, involved parties had pronounced their movements "stillborn" and abandoned their efforts? Um, none, of course. Real change takes time, hard work, sincere commitment, and openness to divergent thinking. None of which you appear willing or able to invest.
Anonymous
This is bullshit. Anyone who claims leaders are necessary just wants to be a leader themselves. What qualifies you as a leader? Certainly nothing in your comment would indicate you have leadership qualities or valuable ideas, other than a skewed and simple minded view of history.
Anonymous
Thank god we don't have idiots like you for leaders.
Anonymous
The less leaders, the less idiots!
Pages
Add a new comment