![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Okay, I have to get this out
I read the Occupy TO Twitter feed and immediately felt like an irrelevant old fogey.
Part of it is because I'm in an extraordinarily bad mood, compounded by the fact that sickness and circumstances are preventing me from participating as much as I'd like. But part of it is attributable to a hipster mindset of hearing things that I and fellow windmill-tilters have been saying for years. Today, for example, is the 10th anniversary of another Bay Street occupation in Toronto, after which we were derided as anarchists and terrorists for making the same critiques as Occupy Together is mostly lauded for.
And part of it is just that there's so much self-congratulation and so little analysis. For example, most of the Twitter feed is people talking about love, but then there's this:
O RLY? Because here's what a Metis activist on Facebook had to say:
I'm almost positive that these were the guys that I mentioned in my public post about the march. (I saw very few First Nations people at the march and occupation; two small groups had flags, but the one guy had a megaphone.) They had valuable contributions that were shut down in the name of symbolism. So much love and multiculturalism!
Another exchange between long-time activists:
Which was the problem, too, back when I used to be involved in anarchist groups. Like Occupy, we were primarily white, privileged, and young. We did a terrible job of engaging marginalized communities or supporting their frequently less glamorous struggle, even while we paid them lip service. We were students of history, emulating the methods and imagery of turn-of-the-century movements, but we had little connection with older generations of activists, who we tended to deride as sectarian and irrelevant. Now I feel like one of those old sectarians myself, though, of course, I will continue to participate, and my criticisms will be kept private to avoid detracting from the people actually putting their bodies on the line.
Don't get me wrong. I'm so glad Occupy is happening. Even if I have critiques, it's already so much more than I ever imagined I'd see in my lifetime. But if it's going to work, there has to be linkages made between existing social movements, especially the struggles of people of colour and immigrant communities, First Nations, and stodgy boring old labour. Until that happens, it might look like a revolution, but it's still a protest that stayed up past its bedtime.
Part of it is because I'm in an extraordinarily bad mood, compounded by the fact that sickness and circumstances are preventing me from participating as much as I'd like. But part of it is attributable to a hipster mindset of hearing things that I and fellow windmill-tilters have been saying for years. Today, for example, is the 10th anniversary of another Bay Street occupation in Toronto, after which we were derided as anarchists and terrorists for making the same critiques as Occupy Together is mostly lauded for.
And part of it is just that there's so much self-congratulation and so little analysis. For example, most of the Twitter feed is people talking about love, but then there's this:
For the first time in #CanadianHistory, the different cultures off this nation (incl. 1st nations ppl) found a common voice in #SOLIDARITY
O RLY? Because here's what a Metis activist on Facebook had to say:
I was disgusted 5 minutes after I showed up to Occupy. Some "marshall" walked up to a Native warrior group that had brought a flag and megaphone to speak and the fellow demanded that they do the "people's mic" nonsense. I have no idea what my cousins wanted to say but they had no chance to say it. I tried to catch up so I could film or ask them but I couldn't walk fast enough and they left before the march began. I suspect they wanted to talk about "de-colonizing" and what's wrong with occupying occupied land. I'm not impressed.
I'm almost positive that these were the guys that I mentioned in my public post about the march. (I saw very few First Nations people at the march and occupation; two small groups had flags, but the one guy had a megaphone.) They had valuable contributions that were shut down in the name of symbolism. So much love and multiculturalism!
Another exchange between long-time activists:
M: "its like every time new people join the movement they have to go through the same dumb stages. They seem to be learning fairly quickly ."
A: "why wouldn't you expect new people to go through the learning process?"
M: "I would expect them too. But reading a book or maybe talking to someone experienced would help them get through a lot quicker. or thinking for a second- 100% consensus is clearly never going to happen, which would be obvious is someone thought about it in detail for a few minutes"
Which was the problem, too, back when I used to be involved in anarchist groups. Like Occupy, we were primarily white, privileged, and young. We did a terrible job of engaging marginalized communities or supporting their frequently less glamorous struggle, even while we paid them lip service. We were students of history, emulating the methods and imagery of turn-of-the-century movements, but we had little connection with older generations of activists, who we tended to deride as sectarian and irrelevant. Now I feel like one of those old sectarians myself, though, of course, I will continue to participate, and my criticisms will be kept private to avoid detracting from the people actually putting their bodies on the line.
Don't get me wrong. I'm so glad Occupy is happening. Even if I have critiques, it's already so much more than I ever imagined I'd see in my lifetime. But if it's going to work, there has to be linkages made between existing social movements, especially the struggles of people of colour and immigrant communities, First Nations, and stodgy boring old labour. Until that happens, it might look like a revolution, but it's still a protest that stayed up past its bedtime.
no subject
1) wealth concentration distorting the democracy, which makes it impossible to do anything about:
2) lack of economic opportunity, or economic uncertainty for those who have found opportunity, driven by:
- lack of jobs
- high costs of entry
- economic predation.
It's not about remaking society on a fundamentally more egalitarian or humane line. It's not going to be about those things, ever. It's not really going to be intersectional because it's so narrowly - or if not narrowly, essentially - economic.
It's about making bourgeois society "work" again. It's fundamentally unradical. But that's also the secret of its appeal. They - we - may even get something out of it - shift the great ship a few degrees to port.
And it's not like radicalism staying true to its radicalism has - at least in North America - gotten anyone anything except self-righteous.
no subject
no subject
This is true.
At the Toronto one, there was a lot of talk about remaking society, songs about revolution, anti-capitalist signage and so on. I don't think it's the message that's unfocused—there's a message, and it's not a bad one, but it's certainly one that could benefit from understanding the successes and failures of previous struggles.
no subject
Here (London) someone on the news was saying it is about the lack of democracy due to corporate influence in politics, which I thought was a good place to start explaining what it was all abotu to my boyfriend (who is uneducated in these matters). But I got stuck after that. I just vaguely felt glad more and more people are protesting about crap, but convinced very little will come of it because the majority of the protesters will be appeased by small reforms.