OCCUPIED!
I first heard about them last September. A group of people banding together in front of the Federal Building in downtown Chicago in support of the “Occupy Wall Street” movement that had just started in New York City. “Occupy Wall Street”, as it had been dubbed, had all begun rather quickly with a suggestion by a group called “Adbusters” that “we”, the average person, greatly outnumbered “those” that had manipulated the “system.” Those evil moneychangers that epitomized capitalism gone mad, those who had caused the economic downturn that had caused so many around the world to suffer so much. Adbusters said we should take over and “Occupy” the seat of corporate greed and corruption on Wall Street and make them listen. Make government listen. Make the world listen!
It was as if a spark had ignited a drought-ridden landscape. Suddenly, Occupy had flashed into an overnight sensation of people from all walks of life with one thing in common; we were the 99%! We were the people of the world that were being exploited by 1% of the world’s richest people. We had a voice that grew larger and more persistent by the day. We chanted, “The people, united, will never be divided” and “Banks got bailed out, we got sold out”! It was exciting. It was energizing! Within a week of the initial Wall Street movement coming into existence, people from Chicago, Atlanta, Oakland, Seattle, Portland, London, Berlin, Paris, Moscow, Tokyo, Madrid and many many more had joined in their own Occupy movements. Before long local chapters had blossomed in small rural towns that concentrated on keeping people from being wrongfully evicted as well as standing in solidarity of the oppressed. Even folks stationed in the South Pole research stations recorded themselves as having an “Occupy” movement in support of what had quickly ignited the masses into a worldwide protest for justice, equality… and soon countless other causes.
From its inception, Occupy wanted to distinguish itself from previous movements. It didn’t want to repeat the same mistakes that others had (insert TEA Party here). It didn’t want to become like all the rest of history’s movements that eventually either faded away or became co-opted by other interests, eventually ceasing to even resemble their original ideals. Occupy was going to be different. It was going to be a whole new way of doing things. It was not going to have leaders for one. It was going to be a direct democracy rather than a representational one; in other words, everyone would get to voice their vote rather than electing others to vote for us. Occupy decisions were formed in “General Assembly” daily meetings where everyone got a chance to voice their feelings and vote upon what should be done. Each person’s vote was so strong that even “one” vote against something could cause an issue to be shot down; even if everyone else agreed upon it. It had to be a unanimous decision.
Originating as a call out against global financial injustice, Occupy soon began accreting other causes to rally against as well. Anything and everything under the sun became its cause. As the movement grew, so did its needs. It soon needed to have some type of leadership. It soon needed to find a physical location to house itself rather than the spontaneous encampments that it had become famous for. It soon needed rules that governed how it operated. It soon became like every other organization that it said it would never become.
In looking at this through the lens of a “Critical Theorist” the Occupy movement was born out of a need to “emancipate” the down trodden by creating a new and fresh approach to mobilizing the masses. The movement sought to do away with all the trappings of past failures and, in a sense, re-invent the wheel in a whole new democratic approach. It endeavored to overcome obstacles by instituting cutting edge, and often not so cutting edge techniques (the “microphone” where everyone repeats loudly what is being said so that no electric amplification is needed thereby staying within the letter of the law). However in the end the movement, while still around, has been forced to adopt many of the traditional methods of any other organization. As much as they tried to be different, in the end, while certain values never changed, they were forced to adapt to societies ways and policies.
Critical Theory argues both sides of the coin in an attempt to cover every angle. Often this brings them full circle, right back to the beginning and the realization that even with the highest of ideals, something’s can’t be changed.
It was as if a spark had ignited a drought-ridden landscape. Suddenly, Occupy had flashed into an overnight sensation of people from all walks of life with one thing in common; we were the 99%! We were the people of the world that were being exploited by 1% of the world’s richest people. We had a voice that grew larger and more persistent by the day. We chanted, “The people, united, will never be divided” and “Banks got bailed out, we got sold out”! It was exciting. It was energizing! Within a week of the initial Wall Street movement coming into existence, people from Chicago, Atlanta, Oakland, Seattle, Portland, London, Berlin, Paris, Moscow, Tokyo, Madrid and many many more had joined in their own Occupy movements. Before long local chapters had blossomed in small rural towns that concentrated on keeping people from being wrongfully evicted as well as standing in solidarity of the oppressed. Even folks stationed in the South Pole research stations recorded themselves as having an “Occupy” movement in support of what had quickly ignited the masses into a worldwide protest for justice, equality… and soon countless other causes.
From its inception, Occupy wanted to distinguish itself from previous movements. It didn’t want to repeat the same mistakes that others had (insert TEA Party here). It didn’t want to become like all the rest of history’s movements that eventually either faded away or became co-opted by other interests, eventually ceasing to even resemble their original ideals. Occupy was going to be different. It was going to be a whole new way of doing things. It was not going to have leaders for one. It was going to be a direct democracy rather than a representational one; in other words, everyone would get to voice their vote rather than electing others to vote for us. Occupy decisions were formed in “General Assembly” daily meetings where everyone got a chance to voice their feelings and vote upon what should be done. Each person’s vote was so strong that even “one” vote against something could cause an issue to be shot down; even if everyone else agreed upon it. It had to be a unanimous decision.
Originating as a call out against global financial injustice, Occupy soon began accreting other causes to rally against as well. Anything and everything under the sun became its cause. As the movement grew, so did its needs. It soon needed to have some type of leadership. It soon needed to find a physical location to house itself rather than the spontaneous encampments that it had become famous for. It soon needed rules that governed how it operated. It soon became like every other organization that it said it would never become.
In looking at this through the lens of a “Critical Theorist” the Occupy movement was born out of a need to “emancipate” the down trodden by creating a new and fresh approach to mobilizing the masses. The movement sought to do away with all the trappings of past failures and, in a sense, re-invent the wheel in a whole new democratic approach. It endeavored to overcome obstacles by instituting cutting edge, and often not so cutting edge techniques (the “microphone” where everyone repeats loudly what is being said so that no electric amplification is needed thereby staying within the letter of the law). However in the end the movement, while still around, has been forced to adopt many of the traditional methods of any other organization. As much as they tried to be different, in the end, while certain values never changed, they were forced to adapt to societies ways and policies.
Critical Theory argues both sides of the coin in an attempt to cover every angle. Often this brings them full circle, right back to the beginning and the realization that even with the highest of ideals, something’s can’t be changed.