"The strength of any movement, regardless of tactics, is its ability to disrupt the smooth functioning of the existing order." (Mike King, Counterpunch 4/17/12)
No. Disruption is not the goal. The goal should be to replace the existing order, to assume responsibility and leadership, and to quite simply do it better and for the benefit of more people. A group whose entire focus is on disruption has nothing to offer the great masses of people but disruption. What the hell good is that? Of what value to the general public? You can't eat disruption. It won't put a roof over your head. It won't create a job for you to feed your family. This is a misguided philosophy that seeks disruption for disruption's sake and in the end offers nothing in terms of real solutions to the crises facing most people.
This is not a small point or a misunderstanding based upon semantics or language. This is the anarchist political philosophy put into practice, a dead-end political philosophy that cannot work in a modern nation state. Anarchism is the root problem underlying the failure of the Occupy movement. The protests were hatched mainly by anarchist factions, and these uncompromising anti-statists do not seek political power because they simply (and simple-mindedly) don't believe in political power or the legitimacy of government - any government.
A significant number of anti-statists has guided the movement into politically untenable waters, squandering the momentum that the initial protests had generated. None of this potential was exploited and turned into electoral victories, as was done in the Tea Party movement. None of the responsible government officials have been replaced. No political party has emerged with prospects for taking away seats in the houses of power.
Anarchism is a political farce and not what the majority of the population would support, and do not support. The 99% are not anarchists, will not become anarchists, and generally see the benefits of having a functioning government despite its numerous drawbacks and abuses. Anarchism is the fly in the ointment, the elephant in the room and the barrier to moving forward in a coherent, coordinated manner. Disorganization is not a political strategy. It is a strategy for self-marginilazation.
The end result is that Occupy has faded into the night, having squandered its opportunities to unite and organize a political opposition and a party that elects responsible non-corrupt representatives. The anarchist ideal has led to wasted opportunities: the "opportunity costs" of doing it the wrong way. As long as the people pursue false solutions and false gods, the elites can comfortably continue with business as usual. Politics is a dirty, ugly endeavor, and those who play it know what they're doing. Underestimating the enemy is a mortal sin in this game.
Ranting or raving in the park has no bearing on those in charge, which should be plainly obvious. Sleeping in a park was never going to bring down the existing order. That's a silly pipe dream. Where is the cause and effect chain?
If you want real change you need to replace the existing representatives, not disrupt a city park. You need to understand the issues and offer better solutions. You need to convince the masses to turn out and vote for you. You need to create organizations that work toward these ends and that will endure for the long haul.
Disorganization is a path to oblivion.
The Occupy movement seems to be lost in cognitive dissonance on this question. It could be a matter of different factions pushing mutually-exclusive ideas. On the surface, the protest against Wall Street points to the need for more government regulation of Wall Street, necessitating a state, and not just a state, but a strong state with the authority to regulate. On the other hand, anarchist elements denounce all things "capitalist" and "state" with some implication of returning to some ad hoc barter system. Some denounce all authority, with the idea of violently clashing with police as a principled political position.
The interplay of these two sides -- the reformers vs. the barn burners -- has helped to marginalize the movement and render it isolated from the mainstream discourse. It has come and gone in the major media like any other fad, although MoveOn.org now seeks to revive the Disneyfied plastic version of the movement for its own electoral ends. In sum, a sad state with very little hope of real, needed systemic change.
Leftist commentators lionize the Occupy movement exaggerating its so-called "achievements" and significance. All the good wishes and positive vibes won't overcome the fundamental political conflicts inside the movement nor transform it into an independent political force that wields any real power in the society. It has blundered, died, and its zombie carcass is being propped up by a Democratic front group for the benefit of reelecting Mr. Hope and Change. And I'm afraid a lot of the blame falls squarely on the shoulders of those who profess that we should all live in some anarchist utopia that will never exist, can never exist, and would be a monstrosity worse than what we have now even if it did come into some sort of mutant existence. Joe Giambrone is a filmmaker and author of Hell of a Deal: A Supernatural Satire. He edits The Political Film Blog, which welcomes submissions. polfilmblog at gmail.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
2
2
1
