In its effort to distance itself from a
corrupt political system, Occupy missed a crucial opportunity to marry
libertarian support for Occupy with liberal ideals that could have
served as the basis of
building the mass political movement with the potential to Take Back
America for the People. We cannot afford to miss such opportunities to
forge links between the self-identified Left and Right if we are serious
about wanting revolutionary change.
You say you'll change the constitution. Well, you know, we all want to change your head.
When
Adbusters proposed the idea of Occupy they suggested that the movement
focus on
campaign finance reform through constitutional change and the curbing the power of the banksters. This sensible idea
was
almost universally ignored by those who responded to the call to Occupy
America in favor of an amorphous form of protest billed as direct
democracy, where any idea supported by a general assembly was afforded
equal weight to any other.
It is obvious that both of the major political
Parties have become so dependent
on campaign funding by corporations and the rich that the only way to
alter or
abolish the corporate monopoly on political power is to demand that
politicians of all parties and independents support a
constitutional amendment that would end the of ability of the wealthy
and
powerful to buy the loyalty of candidates for Congress. This is the
essence of the Pledge to Amend campaign, which aims to make support for
such an amendment a litmus test in all congressional elections by 2014.
Until Occupy or its successor can find unify around this core issue that
is at the root of all the others on its agenda, it will continue to be
dismissed as a protest rather than a call for a peaceful democratic
revolution.
The revolutionary
movement in the 60s was unified by opposition to a
war that personally affected every member of the generation then coming
of age.
When the US government called for war this time, a
small proportion of American youth would bear the burden for all of us.
This
encouraged Americans suffering the consequences of an economy wracked by
corporate excess to put aside concerns about the wars to focus on
surviving the resulting economic calamity. In the process, those who
were seduced
into the idea that by fighting a "war" on terror they were serving the
interests of freedom were also largely forgotten.
Had Occupy heeded the lessons of the Vietnam
protestors
they would have put more emphasis on the fact that all wars in the
modern age
are fought for corporate Empire, tying the issue of another unpopular
war with the economic and social costs of living in a nation whose
government is one of, by and for corporations. Had Occupy focused on the
connection between corporate power over the US government and war, lack
of access to health care, the destruction of the environment and the
economic crisis bringing the US to its knees, it would have gained
rather than lost momentum in its first year. If individuals and groups
working on all these issues come to recognize the purpose in rallying
behind the issue of constitutional reform, Occupy can yet realize its
potential.
But when you talk about destruction, don't you know that you can count me out.
Occupy has failed so far because the anarchists and the black block faction
demanded that their goals of instant gratification and the use of property
destruction be accorded the same or more respect as the ideas of those who they
disparaged as reformers rather than revolutionaries. This was the same split
that fractured Students for a Democratic Society, which was for a time co-opted
by self-styled leaders who demanded that others follow their dictates. A modern
parallel is the stubborn insistence of well-established groups and associations of groups such
as Move to Amend that only by following the strategy of the few who
claim to speak for the movement can we realize our mutual goal of constitutional
change.
In suppressing dissident voices in the amendment movement they claim to lead, a small
number of self-proclaimed leaders have missed the opportunity to play a part in
influencing the Occupy movement. They failed to realize that eventually, those
who endorsed their efforts would realize that the "leaders" did not necessarily
speak for them because their goal was to build a network of followers who would
not question their decisions on strategy and tactics. They not
only failed to learn the lessons of Vietnam but did not grasp the opportunity
to ride the wave of Occupy in rejecting the simple notion that no
individual, group or association should be allowed to co-opt a revolutionary
movement.
The answer to the question "can Occupy
succeed?" is a
resounding yes, but only if those who refuse defeat can stop demanding
that
others follow their strategy, listen to each other and develop a plan
that
the movement can rally around. First and foremost, we must refuse to
accept
that violence against people or property can ever achieve their goals,
as the
frustrated revolutionaries who gave in to violence in the Vietnam era
learned
to their everlasting regret. Violence was met by overwhelming violence
by
the government they sought to overturn. As we have seen, the threat of
state violence to crush nonviolent resistance to a system that serves
only the interests of those in power is just as real today.
The first American Revolution was born
in violence because the colonists had no choice. In this era, the fact that the
struggle must take place in occupied territory demands that we avoid violence.
In order to assure that those who fought and died for the ideal of freedom did
not do so in vain, we must also realize that radical change must begin from within the
system if we are to replace it with one in which liberty and justice
for all is a reality and not just an empty promise.
Don't you know it's going to be all right....
The
American Revolution could not have succeeded in defeating the forces of
British
fascism in the 1700s if the colonists had not realized that their common
enemy was an unholy alliance of corporate and state power. When a
critical minority convinced a doubting majority of the necessity of
overthrowing the government, Americans recognized that they had to put
aside their differences in order to
defeat the might of an Empire built on the idea that a privileged elite
had the
divine right to rule them.
The dream of democracy was born when the
Enlightenment for the first time awakened people to the idea that they
could
create a government of, by and for the People. Because Americans were
willing to talk
to each other they were able to develop the consensus needed to stage a
successful revolution.
It was in putting the interests of all over individual interests that
the American character was defined. If we can return to that ideal, we
can still realize the dream of democracy and assure that the last, best
hope for Mankind does not perish from the Earth.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).