Who are the 1% in real life? On the one hand, they are real people, doing real things, affecting other people. On the other hand, they are players in a game not of their own creation, only doing what come naturally to persons in their position in an economic structure that is today globally dominant and unavoidable on an individual basis. Being clear on who/what is responsible for the gross inequality and injustice Occupy and similar protests are targeting makes a real difference, both politically and in policy.

Three examples:

Wall Street as High-Income Individuals

Shaila Dewan and Robert Sebeloff’s discussion (New York City January 15, 2012, p. 1: “One Percent, Many Variations) of who the top 1% of income earners are is interesting, but misses the point Occupy Wall Street tries to make. The Occupiers are not concerned with how much more doctors or dentists make than high school dropout or an immigrant laborer; they’re concerned with how much more of the wealth of our country the holders of power in our economy have compared to the rest of us. Dentists may make 12 times the median income in Manhattan, but that’s not because the manipulate the financial system, use their wealth to accumulate ever more wealth, , use their economic positions to fool and hold down the rest of us. There’s all the difference in the world between a physician using his or her special training and skills to provide a useful service to patients, and a hedge fund manager creating derivatives to play the market and make a killing off the unwary.

The 1% – 99% slogan needs to be seen as another formulation of the Occupy Wall Street slogan: they are both intended to highlight the unfair relations of power and wealth between what generations of scholars and reformers have called the power elite, or in populist parlance the ruling class.

It’s not the simple dollar amount reported on income tax returns to the government that counts, it’s how that amount is earned, whether it’s from clipping coupons on inherited stock ownership or capital gains from speculating in the market while sitting in an office on wall street, accumulating wealth by buying and selling what others have toiled to produce. It matters whether the income comes from Bain Capital or fixing real teeth. It’s the inequality in the relations of power and sources of wealth that’s being challenged, not simply how much more one person earns than another.

Gordon Gekko had it astonishingly right, even before Occupy Wall Street popularized the 1%-formulation:

“The richest one percent of this country owns half our country’s wealth, five trillion dollars. One third of that comes from hard work, two thirds comes from inheritance, interest on interest accumulating to widows and idiot sons and what I do, stock and real estate speculation. It’s bullshit. You got ninety percent of the American public out there with little or no net worth. I create nothing. I own. We make the rules, pal. …It’s a zero sum game, somebody wins, somebody loses. Money itself isn’t lost or made, it’s simply transferred from one perception to another”.

And income reported to the Internal Revenue Service gives a notoriously unreliable picture as to this income:

“Average Americans get most of their income from wages and salaries. Almost all this income faces paycheck withholding. The result: Only 1 percent of the taxes due on wages and salary, the new IRS study reports, goes uncollected.
Rich Americans, by contrast, collect huge chunks of their annual income from capital gains, business ownership, and other sources of income that face neither rigorous reporting mandates or withholding.
Tax evasion for the income category that includes capital gains and private equity partnerships, the IRS calculates, ran at an 11 percent rate in 2006, ten times the evasion rate for wages and salaries”.

Wall Street as Avaricious Corporations

John a. powell & Stephen Menendian, in a thoughtful essay, use the term “corporate power” as the “behemoth in the boardroom,” the force, the 1% (although they don’t use that term) , that should be the target of change. They make the important point that the line (i.e. 1%/99% ) is not between private and public, individuals vs. the government. The target should not include “entrepreneurs, small business owners, farmers, workers… [who] are all swept up into the “private sphere.”

Being clear on what “private” means is very important politically and ideologically. The sanctity of the personal private is a cornerstone of democratic belief, an essential aspect of what freedom means. Applying “private” indiscriminately to Goldman Sachs, the small business owner, the corner grocer, and the individual person, gives Goldman Sachs a cloak of moral standing it does not deserve. So far so good.

But what is the line that divides Goldman Sachs from the small business owner? Powell and Menendian suggest it is “corporate power,” but they explicitly deny that their position is anti-capital: “the case against corporations is not anti-capital.” But of course it is “anti-capital:” what differentiates Goldman Sachs and the 1% from the small business owner and farmers and workers is the ownership and control of capital. “Ordinary citizens” are not “powerful corporate actors” because they don’t control capital, the wealth that would give them power. And while some, perhaps most, owners of capital use the corporate form, which is specifically designed to permit the aggregation of capital and its use to accumulate further capital, some don’t; it’s not the legal form that counts. Hedge funds control capital whether they are incorporated or not.

Being clear on the source of the undesired power of corporations is important politically. Acknowledging the reality of capital, and the capitalist system that enshrines its use, naming the system, clarifies who’s the 1%, who’s “Wall Street,” and avoids the public/private trap. That’s why conservatives shy away from the use of the words. The conservatives realize that. As Peter Dreier has pointed out,
“Frank Luntz [Republican strategist and Fox News commentator, . … urged Republican politicians to avoid using the word “capitalism...I’m trying to get that word removed and we’re replacing it with either ‘economic freedom’ or ‘free market,’” Luntz said. 'The public…still prefers capitalism to socialism, but they think capitalism is immoral. And if we’re seen as defenders of quote, Wall Street, end quote, we’ve got a problem.'"

Words matter.

A final example:

Wall Street as “intermediary.”

Adam Davidson, the Planet Money editor at NPR, asks us to imagine life without Wall Street. What would we have?

“THE POOR WOULD STAY POOR
THERE WOULD BE NO MIDDLE CLASS
LOTS OF AWESOME THINGS WOULD NEVER HAPPEN [including] Just about anything that makes you happy — whether it’s a lifesaving drug or just the artisanal goat cheese at the shop around the corner”.

And how does he come to this conclusion? By a simple parenthesis defining “Wall Street” and what it does:

“The country’s largest investment banks, commercial banks and a few big insurance companies (what we generally refer to as Wall Street) play the crucial role of intermediation — matching borrowers with lenders.”

Gordon Gekko would be surprised to hear someone describing what he does as simply “matching borrowers and lenders. Hardly what a derivative does, or what a trader at Goldman Sachs does, unless you consider what a bookie does as matching one bettor with another and thus creating a middle class and “lots of awesome things.”

The problem is in defining “Wall Street.” If you define it simply as an intermediary, doing nothing on its own account, not speculating, not creating and destroying bubbles, not playing key roles in political decisions on policy formation, etc. then you may bless it as “indispensible,” as Adam Davidson does. That simply isn’t the definition Occupy, or most of “us,” use. And it serves to reinforce the strength of the 1%.
1% = Wall Street = Power Elite = Ruling Class?

The 1% discussion that Occupy Wall Street has sharply pushed onto the political consciousness is not something new, but it seems to me striking how disassociated it is from the long history of concern with the distribution of power in society. Books like C. Wright Mills’ The Power Elite, Robert Dahl’s Who Governs?, Barbara Ehrenreich’s Fear of Falling, Michael Zweig’s The Working Class Majority, G. William Domhoff’s Who Rules America? Adolph Reed Jr.’s , the extensive work of Erik Olin Wright, Bertell Ollman, Tony Giddens, not to mention the classics, Max Weber and Karl Marx, are all directly relevant bit more theory in some of the discussions would not be amiss.

But the point is not to push for more footnotes, but to stand back and see, without a broader context, how much work like that cited above narrows the scope of the discussion that Occupy Wall Street wishes to raise. Central to that discussion are three points:
* A moral reaction to the increased inequality of groups within our society; and
* A recognition that that inequality is the result of specific actions of specific actors, and not the result of any random pattern or iron law of nature or economics, and
* That something should and can be done about remedying it.

Lack of clarity as to who those specific actors are and what they do undercuts the impact of Occupy’s work, essentially depoliticizes it

To put it bluntly: the Occupy analysis, and the long line of thinking and action that has preceded it, while disagreeing on many details, see a similar pattern:

1% = “Wall Street” = Gordon Gekko’s winners = the power elite = the ruling class.

THE OCCUPY MOVEMENT IN PERSPECTIVE: WHAT ACTIONS, BY WHOM, HOW?

The air is filled with speculation about what the occupiers of sites like Liberty Park, Frank H. Ogawa Plaza in Oakland,[1] Dilworth Plaza at Philadelphia City Hall,[2] etc. will do if they are evicted from their locations. That’s an important question for the occupiers, and a difficult one; my earlier piece has suggested a two-site or multiple site solution, but it will be up to the occupiers themselves to make their decision.

The perspective for the occupiers, however, depends more on what others do than on what the occupiers do. It is worth looking at who the non-occupiers are, how they line up today vis-à-vis the occupations, how their fundamental interests suggest they might line up, where they fit into the landscape of power within which the future of the occupiers’ message will be received. Very symbolically and very tentatively, the analysis below suggests a breakdown of the situation as it appears today. Take it as theoretical ideal states descriptions of broad categories with guesses at orders of magnitude, without empirical basis at this point.

The Range of Positions

Positions in reference to the Occupations

|-.5%-|—15%——|——22.5%———|———–20%——-|———24%%—–|—-14%——-|—-3%—–|—1%–|

The Underlying interest-based (class) divisions

The resultant strategic landscape of power

|——–15.5%——–|—–42.5%———————————-|————–38%—————————-|———4%———-|

Look at this analysis (and forgive the purely symbolic and non-empirical numbers used to categorize the positions.) Leave the niceties of definition aside, look at the big picture:

Introducing the question of power into the equation, where it belongs but seldom appears, real change will only occur when there is a real shift of power relations. For the sake of discussion, let’s say that happens when sixty percent support the left end of the spectrum; that would be “winning.” How, and under what circumstances, is such a result possible?

Three conclusions seem to flow from this analysis.

1. It will not be the strength and strategies of the occupiers that will determine the outcome;
2. The sympathetic but inactive (as to the occupations) low-hanging fruit must be picked;
3. The hostile but against-interest supporters of power must be disarmed, the hard-shelled fruit must be cracked.

1. Not just the occupiers will decide the outcome. The future of what the occupy movement stands for is not primarily in the hands of the occupiers, but rather depends on how those groups, sharing interests and understandings with the occupiers, mobilize, support the goals of the occupiers, work together, and confront issues of power as well as structure.The occupiers are a very small fraction of the population. I have seen no numbers, but the biggest turnout explicitly in their support, perhaps 130,000 in New York City on September 17, would be 2.5%, and New York City is hardly typical of the country as a whole. Thus the .5% symbolically used above. Their explicit supporters and sympathizers number perhaps 15%, the minority of whom are organized and effectively active. The hard core of these is not strong enough to achieve change by themselves; they are rather I have suggested the spark for a movement for radical change than its vanguard.Yet that for which they stand, have made explicit, what they have put on the national agenda, is supported by much larger numbers. Again symbolically 58.5% or so of the population, and ultimately up to the 99%, including all those who are not members of the 1% and thus at least in theory potential allies. The decisive question thus is: how is the message of the occupations getting through to those who are not members of the 1%, most of whom are sympathetic. The future will be determined by the non-occupiers: what they understand, what they do, how they deal with the message of the occupiers.When we read headlines that speak of how the labor movement has been re-invigorated by the occupations, how the campuses see renewed militancy, how political leaders make reference to the “understandable feelings” of the occupiers, even in passing, when we see the occupations considered the counter to the tea parties, the occupations are doing their job.
2. The 42.5% of passive supporters must be mobilized and become active: those who theoretically should be in support, and are almost there. The low-hanging fruit must be gathered.Power will only shift when the bulk of the 99% demands it. That means that a substantial portion of those who are already vaguely supportive, and whose interests lie in the direction of change, but who have not drawn the conclusions from their situation that would lead to active engagement with the Occupy agenda. If some are short-changed in the manner of production and distribution of goods and services in the prevailing society, the deprived, then the emphasis will ultimately be an economic, a material one; as long as the system delivers them the goods, they will be hard to win. Thus questions of inequality and the potentials of other modes of organizing production and distribution must be highlighted. ­If others (and the categories overlap) are insecure, discontent with their lives and their opportunities, aware of suppressed potentials for happiness, then the sources of that discontent must be highlighted.But in both cases, the mobilization must come from and be led within the group itself; the occupiers cannot be looked to to do that job. It is conceivable that Occupy might play the role of an umbrella to bring many of such individuals and their existing organizations together to formulate common demands. There is already a multiplicity of organizations sympathetic to the cause, and many others, in the multiplicity of associations, clubs, and organizations that are a feature of every-day life. Maybe they can come together around the kind of specific demands that are consistent with the Occupations’ purposes. Occupiers may stress the commonality of the causes of their problems, and their structural nature, and consistently raise questions of power and justice; but the basic work must be done in the groups themselves, not by the occupiers.The occupiers are very much aware of this. They interact with and extensively support the oppositional activities of the 42.5% who are not themselves occupiers but are sympathetic to the occupation. Rather than tell the occupiers what to do, criticize them for not formulating demands for either short-term feasible changes or long-term desirable changes, that is the appropriate role for the sympathetic non-occupiers. Sympathetic non-occupiers belong to churches, to unions, to organizations of the elderly and of youth, meet in neighborhoods, work for charities, run for and occupy public offices, write letters to the editor, blog and twitter and use Facebook, go to classes or teach them, run businesses, work for businesses. They include academics, intellectuals, experts in many fields, writers and artists, organizers, professionals in many fields. Peter Dreier, in The Nation, gives examples of many such activities, and speaks of them as “the other wing of the protest movement.”[3] They have the responsibility of formulating their own demands, criteria, statements and manifestos, providing details for the message of the Occupations, formulating concrete demands, organizing lobbing and public relations. The controversial counter-temps between the Oakland occupiers and the Longshore Union shows the type of problem that can arise when the respective roles are not clear; the support by occupiers of the Take Back the Land movement, occupations of foreclosed homes, joining picket lines at strike sites, spreading information provided by supporters of universal health care, supporting documentation by others of levels of inequality and injustice, are examples of the positive relation between the occupiers and many of their sympathizers.

   The political argument for the involvement of the non-occupying sympathizers, is overwhelming. If the battle is left to the occupiers themselves, .5%, it is lost; the richest 1% will defeat them every time. They have the money, the media, most politicians, the power; the occupiers inevitably, have less of all that. While they speak for the interests of the 99%, they hardly have them all on their side; to the contrary, it is precisely in the battle for the hearts and minds of the 99% (realistically perhaps 96%) that, at least in a society with a still functioning if imperfect democracy, that the war for the occupiers’ goals will be decided. The situation is different in many countries, e.g. Syria or Egypt or Iran, where rule by the unbridled use of force is prevalent. Force also plays a role in many U.S. cities, viz. New York, Oakland, Chicago, Atlanta, Seattle, but it is still limited and subject to a significant level of legal constraint. By the same token, physical resistance will be more important symbolically than practically.

3. Strong inroads must be made in the 38% hostile, those presently seeing themselves, contrary to interest, as antagonistic to the occupiers and their goals. The 1% and their dependents and lackeys have every reason to be hostile to the occupiers and their goals. Their position in society, their material wealth and political power, are threatened by the Occupy movement. Occupy Wall Street is a potent slogan; unlike Occupy City X or Occupy Institution Y, Occupy Wall Street sets the line between friend and enemy, names the center of power whose role is being challenged. The rest of the population, symbolically 96% or even 99% in long range terms, has no such real interest in sustaining the status quo, but a great many have nevertheless spoken and acted as if they did. Why? The answer is complicated, and includes the overwhelming impact of the mainstream media, enjoyment of some of the material benefits of advanced capitalism, and social-psychological reactions to situations over which they exercise no control, repressive though they may be. I have discussed some of those mechanisms in an earlier piece, trying to understand what made the tea party tick. Consumerism plays a large role; the system seems to “deliver the goods,” and nourishes the appetite for more and more of those goods, as Herbert Marcuse repeatedly pointed out.By the same token, however, the belief in the status quo is ultimately fragile, as its promises fall short of what is really wanted, deeply felt, in terms of the full development of all human capacities, the full enjoyment of the richness of life, from the physical and sexual to the cultural and aesthetic. The potentials of alternate forms of social and economic organization of society have barely been scratched, as things are. It is in the hands of those who are aware of this gap between the existent and the possible, the world as it is and the world as it could be, that the conversion of the opponents of the occupiers to their supporters lies. And gaining the support of a significant part of those opponents, of the 42%, is thus a major task for the occupiers and their supporters. Two approaches are possible; both are necessary. One is to emphasize the immediate common interests of the two sides, occupiers and tea partiers; the other is to confront directly the common origins of their common problems, and be explicit in exposing the fundamental natural functioning of the capitalist market system that the tea party mistakenly supports.For example, in the first approach: both opponents and supporters of the occupations are hurt by the bailout of the big banks; protest against Bank of America might become a common enterprise, punitive action against the greediest of Wall Street, with their gold-plated bathroom fixtures, yachts and mansions. Even militant actions such as re-occupation of foreclosed homes should not be ruled out. I know of a few efforts in this direction; they are likely to initially be small and local. In one picket line of a branch of Bank of America in which I participated, on a busy through street, people in pickup trucks with signs supporting local Republican candidates honked their support as they drove by.But efforts in the second approach can have a negative impact on the occupiers’ position as well. Using the word “capitalism” pejoratively with tea partiers is likely to attract the label “socialist” automatically and pull down a wall that makes further discussion with them very difficult. Thus it is often scrupulously avoided in discourse at occupy sites, and absent from posters and signs and placards. Somewhat parallel, in their mammoth rally in Tel Aviv after the occupations of Rothschild Boulevard, it was agreed not to mention Palestine, the occupation of the West Bank, or the role of the ultra-orthodox in Israeli politics, all for fear of breaching a unity of action on a broader base. But in both cases, fundamental issues are swept under the table, and opportunities to confront issues and change minds missed. The question is not whether to raise these fundamental issues, but how. All possibilities need to be explored.For instance: The large majority (96%?) condemn the greed of bankers; occupiers and tea partiers might join in the condemnation. It is a logical step from there to question whether it is individual greed, or systemic pressures, that lead bankers to do what they do. A majority of Israelis undoubtedly criticize the shrinking of welfare provisions in governmental policy. And hawks as well as environmentalists criticize urban development policies in the country. It is a logical step from there to ask if settlement policies in the West Bank do not contribute to the problems, and to ask whether the favored status of the ultra-orthodox politically does not block action for change.

   Other instances: Confronting Republican headquarters in the primaries o caucuses, ather than denounce, suggest signs: DOES YOUR CANDIDATE FAVOR THE 1% OR THE 99%; WILL YOUR CANDIDATE STOP FORECLOSURES? DOES YOUR CANDIDATE FAVOR FAIR TAXATION? When protesting a particularly corrupt political act used to denounce all government, ask: is the corruption better or worse than in the private sector? Who has the gold-plated toile fixtures, a government official or a private entrepreneur?

These are all tough arguments, with high emotions involved, and need to be conducted positively and with consideration. But if they are not undertaken, the possibilities for long term change will be very limited.

And economic and international crises may create the conditions in which an opening for discussion can emerge despite the hardened positions that need to be overcome. But the impact of crisis can go both ways; celebration seems a bit premature right now.

The conservative Republican majority in the House does not seem to be affected in the slightest, and the European developments are at the most ambiguous.[4] Logic is with the occupiers. The hard task of organizing to pick the low-hanging fruit and crack the hard-shelled varieties remains to be done, and not by the occupiers alone but by all their sympathizers and supporters, each in their own way.

The occupation of key public spaces by Occupy Wall Street, as a means of calling attention to more basic problems, raises questions of the role of public spaces that need to be urgently dealt with. The basic questions about the organization of society, democracy, inequality, social justice, public priorities are deep-going and require long-term answers. They should not be pre-empted by the immediate needs for space, not should any space be fetishized. But spatial issues need to be dealt with immediately and urgently.

* * * *

The need for, and the function of, public space, raised by the Zuccotti Park affair, is an issue that should be confronted directly as an issue in democratic governance.   While other city departments are also necessarily involved, the focus here is on the appropriate concerns of the City Planning Commission and its staff, as one entry point in its consideration.

It is axiomatic, we believe, that the concern of city planning is not only promotion of the efficient use of the city’s built environment and the health and safety of its users, but also the extent to which that environment, and generally planning for and allocation land uses in the city, furthers the interests of democracy and participation in the affairs of the community.

The Zuccotti Park affair, and similar forcible evictions of protestors from public spaces in cities across the country, reveals a deficit in the provision and management of public space. The courts may ultimately rule that the constitutional provisions guaranteeing the right peaceably to assemble and petition for the redress of grievances implies a constitutional duty on states and their cities to make such assembly possible through the provision of public space for its exercise. Until there is a change in the composition of the U.S. Supreme ‘court, however, it is left for other branches of government to accept that responsibility as a matter of good democratic policy. The following discussion suggests the possibilities in New York City.

The occupiers of Zuccotti Park clearly had a message they wished to convey to the wider public, one that concerned issues of governance, social justice, public policy, the conduct of the affairs of the city. It was perhaps a controversial message, one affecting a wide range of subjects. There is widespread interest in at what the occupiers have to say, both pro and con. They have found Zuccotti Park a feasible location in which not only to express their opinions but to discuss them, look at alternate formulations, educate themselves on the issues, and in the process develop a model of discussion and transparent decision-making that is itself of significant potential value to the development of urban democracy. They claim the right to occupy a particular space not simply on First Amendment grounds – they do not wish simply to yell and scream for its own sake, but to participate in the democratic governance of the society in which they live.  They are in a notable modern tradition of the use of central spaces for democratic action, going from Plaza de Mayo to Tahrir Square, including in the U.S. spaces such as the mall in Washington D.C. An even older tradition goes back to the Athenian agora and the medieval cathedral square (as St. James in London today). Their availability for political use is generally taken for granted, if sometimes limited by undemocratic regimes or used for repressive purposes, as with Nazi plazas and Soviet squares.

In a city as dense, and with the kind of market-dictated property values it reflects, there is a real need to face the lack of such spaces directly and to plan for their use as part of the essential city planning process and governmental regulation of land uses. The Zuccotti Park affair highlights the urgency of the need to act.

We believe that the city government should, in confronting uses such as those of Occupy Wall Street, welcome their initiative for public involvement and consider carefully how the city’s planning process might promote the occupiers’ ability to participate, actively and peaceably, in the city’s public life

How might this be done?

An open and democratically-motivated city leadership might provide communications facilities, radio and TV access, sponsor public fora, have transparent discussions on the issues being raised  in governing circles, call for open and imaginative and constructive supportive conduct by city officials in all matters related to the occupiers abilities to make their voices heard, encouraging a public debate around their views. But even short of such actions, making space available for such activities is a primary need that should be addressed by the City, a need that requires it to examine the possibilities for the use of space within the city to encourage democratic activities.  The demands of the First Amendment set a minimum threshold for the exercise of the right to free speech, but what is needed is not the ability to speak freely out in the desert, inaccessible to most and heard by few.  Rather, what is needed are publicly available spaces that can fulfill the functions of the traditional agora, places where free men and women can meet, debate, speak to and listen to each other, learn from each other, confront issues of public concern and facilitate their resolution.

Zuccotti  Park was not ideal for the purposes of speech and assembly, but by almost heroic effort it was made into one in which such uses thrived. The City could have supported them: it could have done things as simple as provide sanitary facilities, as it has in other parks; it could have provided sound systems that would both facilitate wide participation and minimize disturbance to neighbors; it could have consulted on health and safety measures, provided fire extinguishers, safe connections to power lines, even efficient sources of heat and protection from the elements. Facilities for the provision of food and water could have been provided, as they are in other parks. It could have arranged with the occupiers that they could speak and meet in safety and security.  The availability of spaces such as the atrium at 60 Wall Street might be a model. But the City did nothing along these lines at Zuccotti Park; it did not even explore their possibility.

But it is not too late to recognize the problem and plan for its immediate amelioration and long term solution. We could learn from Zuccotti Park what is needed and plan how to provide it.  The city has developed other plans which include provision of public spaces, and has had them since the city was founded. But those plans need to clarify further what those publicly available spaces are for what, purposes they should serve, where they should be located, how they should be designed and equipped. We have plans for the spaces and the facilities that have been shown to be needed for other purposes. We have waterfront plans of which we are proud, transportation plans, environmental plans, social service plans, recreational plans; we need public spaces as part of a democracy or public participation plan, one which would look at the spaces and the facilities needed to make a healthy democracy thrive.  We are able to plan and make space available for ticker tape parades, community gardens, street fairs, farmers’ markets, political rallies; we provide for commercial and recreational use of parks; we even arrange for seating for large numbers in the middle of times Square in the heart of the city’s busiest intersection at the peak of rush hour. We build and/or subsidize convention centers and sports arenas for large crowds. We plan special restrictions and special opportunities for various holidays. We provide office space and meeting space in numerous locations for the transaction of city business, from Community Board meetings to public hearings to electoral events, and we rent space in municipal properties and on public sidewalks to all kinds of activities, public and private, and at all hours of the day and night.

Further, the City through zoning regulations, building codes, tax and subsidy policies, anti-discrimination laws, environmental controls, infrastructure provision, transportation policies, and the exercise of other normal governmental functions, has substantial control not only over publicly-owned space but also over privately-owned space. Many of these deal explicitly both with restricted and with favored uses, whether negatively as with nuisances or positively as with theaters or community facilities or spatial bonuses for open spaces and public facilities. Spaces for public uses may be publicly owned, or privately owned and subject to public influence and regulation; it is the use, not the bare ownership, which is the issue. A Public Spaces Plan concerned with the spatial requirements for the exercise of democratic functions should deal with both. .

For many of the city’s spaces there are already appropriate time, place, and manner regulations governing their use, and such regulations, if reasonable, may be applicable for spaces appropriate for democratic assembly and speech, keeping in mind the constitutional importance of the particular uses involved and their adoption through open procedures consistent with democratic decision-making. The issues involved in dealing with Zuccotti Park are all within the City’s power to manage, and relatively easily. In Newark, for instance, “the city’s police chief… said she would waive the permit ordinarily required to assembling in Military Park, telling protesters that her officers’ task was ‘to make sure you’re safe.… members of the city’s Municipal Council said they supported lifting the 9 p.m. curfew that typically governs the plaza.”[1]

Should we not plan ahead to do the same kind of planning as we do for other spaces in the City to provide space for the functioning of the democracy to which we are constitutionally committed? Should not the imagination, the technical skills, the design experience, the collective experience of the diverse body of our citizenry and our guests,  the knowledge of our educational institutions, the competence of our business community, the creativity of our artists, be now harnessed in that effort?

In implementing such a Public Spaces Plan, consideration must be given also to criteria for the management of such spaces. Tw o different groups or individuals cannot conduct two different activities in the same space at the same time, certainly not without careful prior understanding as to their rules of behavior. Developing  or applying such rules is a common everyday task for those in charge of many spaces, both public and private; the examples above suggest the many situations in which such rules are already established and enforced as to public spaces, streets, parks, with relatively wide public agreement.

The Zuccotti Park experience suggests two points that require special notice. One is that in determining priorities among possibly conflicting claims on the use of a particular space, a particular priority should be given to uses which increase the ability of the populace to participate actively and with information in the democratic governance of the city. Detailed research would be useful to see how criteria are now framed in various cities for the regulation of various types of spaces.[2] Transparency and ample opportunities to be heard should be a sine quo non for the adoption of such rules.

The Zuccotti  Park case also shows the potentials of open discussion among users and affected non-users of public space to deal with arrangements for use. The agreements between the occupiers and Community Board 1 for the regulation of noise at the Park show that even in difficult circumstances discussion can achieve satisfactory results. The experience at Zuccotti  also shows that the absence of discussion can have very undesirable results, as the clearance of the Park at by the City in the dead of night, without notice and or oversight, with substantial property damage and infliction of unnecessary personal hardship,  demonstrates.  Occupiers waive no rights by entering into negotiations over time, place, and manner regulations on their use of a particular space at a particular time in a particular manner. The rights of free speech can be adequately protected in such circumstances; the cases are legion.  The City, on its side, should be sympathetic to the prospective users’ needs, and not meet them with expressed hostility. Agreement with their goals is not a requirement, but civility and common sense are.

There should be an end to the handling of the democratic outpouring we have seen at Zuccotti  Park by forcible evictions and quasi-military police actions, and instead a forward-looking and responsible planning and implementation process for the flowering of a  vital and constructive democracy in the City.

* *  * *

Why, within city government in New York City, should the Planning Commission take a leading role here?

Apart from its purpose to plan broadly, comprehensively and long-term for the welfare of the city’s people, there is a realistic political argument for it to take a leading role in the matter. All political leaders have a vested interested in staying in power; it goes with the territory.  They have no incentive to tolerate protest, or certainly to encourage it, unless it may lead to a loss of voter confidence such as to threaten their continuation in office. The City Planning Commission, by contrast, is specifically created as a non-partisan commission, has very limited powers; its members are not dependent on their position on it for their livelihood or status. Those concerned about the uses of adequate space in the city for purposes that include political protest can attempt to persuade a sitting mayor that a negative attitude incurs a political cost to him or her. ^[3]  But directing their attention of the somewhat less partisan  political Planning Commission may facilitate the beginning of constructive discussion.

The Occupation movement that is spreading across the country has a number of purposes, plays a number of different roles,  in  the struggle for justice and a better life in our world.

A confrontation function, taking the struggle to the enemy’s territory, confronting, potentially disrupting, the operations at the center of the problem. It has the potential to disrupt Wall Street, by occupying space Wall Street needs to function; symbolically, hyperbolically, it waves a pointed knife over the heart of the economic beast. But it must be admitted that there is little push to actualize the potential; only in Oakland, thus far, has there been significant interference with the normal conduct of mainstream business. When neighbors complain about the noise and unpleasantness of Liberty Park’s occupiers in New York City, it is in their capacities as residents, not as business people, that they complain (see

A symbolic function, The occupations show the existence and extent of a demand for change of many sorts,  giving expression to and concretizing an inchoate but widely shared and deeply felt unhappiness about things as they are and the direction in which they are going,  actively involving bodies in a coherent movement, calling for change not only Wall Street but at Harvard, Columbia, Harlem, the Port of Oakland, Portland, Chicago. The symbolism ties in to the occupations in the Arab Spring, and a long history of social protest .

An educational function, provoking questioning, exploration, juxtaposition of differing viewpoints and issues, seeking clarification and sources of commonality within difference.  For Occupy Wall Street and many of the other occupations, the lesson is of the gap between the 1% and the 99%, often pushed to argue that not only is the gap unfair in a distributional sense, but also in terms of power, that it is in fact the power of the 1% that causes the pain for the 99%, that the wealth of the 1% is the result of the deprivation and repression of large numbers of the 99%, not some unfortunate maldistribution of society’s wealth for which no one is responsible.

A glue function, creating a community of trust and commitment to the pursuit of common goals;

It provides a way of coming together in a community for those who are deeply affected and concerned.. The close physical proximity to each other, the close working together over time, the facing together of common obstacles and hardships, the very need to endure the difficult conditions  of living together and meeting daily needs in an environment needing to be significantly reshaped by their own hands day in and day out, fosters strong reciprocal trust  and mutual support.

An umbrella function, creating a space and a format in which quite disparate groups can work together in pursuit of ultimately consistent and mutually reinforcing goals, without issues of turf or competition inhabiting their common action. In this sense, it constitutes a political umbrella, an organizing base for an on-going alliance, not just a temporary coalition, of the deprived and discontented. It provides others a non-threatening way of joining together in marches, demonstrations, petitions, campaigns, in part by the very fact of being open to multiple  demands, not forcing priorities among them, seeing them as pats of a single agenda, and not creating a separate organization.  Look, for instance, at the range of organizations endorsing Occupy Wall Street’s recent actions; it is hard to recall any previous occasion that has brought so many together for a common purpose.

An activation function, inspiring others to greater militancy and sharper focus on common goals and specific demands. The movement is concerned to expose the role Wall Street, the 1%, play across a whole host of concerns around which there has already been active mobilization: housing, health, employment, culture, inequality, non-participatory democracy, racial and ethnic and gender discrimination. Wall Street by shining a light on, attracting attention to, the relationship between the 1% and the 99%, dramatizing inequality and the abuses of power, giving intellectual and symbolic substance to the critique of the prevailing economic and political system., and thus to encourage them to act as part of a common front against a system as to which they have a common interest to change.

 And to activate not only symbolically;, and not only as an umbrella for others’ activities, but by direct support of those activities: providing space for meetings, facilitating cross discussions among supporting groups and interests, organizing marches or rallies or other events in support of those whose actions lead to the shorter term but directly attainable goals, the non-reformist reforms, that point in the direction to Occupy’s own ultimate goals of change.

A model function, showing, by its internal organization and methods of proceeding, that an alternative form of democracy is possible and the process of change need not involve a reversion to hierarchical command structures of some previous revolutionary movements. It thus creates a possible alternative model of organization, not so much of spatial organization as of social and political organization, ways of living together, diversity, democratic decision-making, mutual support, self-help on a collective basis.

The use of Liberty Park and the purposes it is being asked to serve also raises a number of important questions about the nature and uses of public space but the actual use of the park as a physical  model is limited, and is rather effective to raise issues than to present the model of a solution (although conceivably, as suggested in the Open Letter to Sheldon Silver, a positive attitude of the City towards is actual current use might forward the discussion substantially.

* * * * *

What role does space, and the physical occupation of a specific space, then play in each of these aspects?

Only in the Confrontation aspect is a physical occupation of a central specific space critical, and even here, at least thus far, more in a symbolic than in a direct fashion. At Liberty Park in New York,, there is a physical proximity to Wall Street,  but the actual physical interference with Wall Street’s functioning is very limited, affecting more residential than business functions (see Open Letter below), sometimes almost apologetic, and strictly contained. Ultimately, “occupy ” would suggest the physical occupation of the space Wall Street occupies, displacing its principals, , but that meaning is really not on the table at this point.

Except – the confrontation is being provoked as this is written. While rational ways of avoiding confrontation are possible, including some that might in fact meet the requirements of both parties, that does not seem to be happening in New York City  right now.

A recognized physical presence in a known space at a known and symbolic location can strengthen the movement’s Symbolic role. Location generally near the seat of economic power, can be important as a characteristic of such space, but for the space to perform a symbolic function it need not necessarily be occupied around-the-clock and need not be in only one location over time. Exposing Wall Street can be done in many ways, in multiple spaces, at many times. Again, if, as at the time of this writing, the established powers choose to confront the around-the-clock nature of the occupation and thus symbolize its challenging nature, they will in turn have given even the continuing nature of the occupation a symbolic importance that might otherwise not have been central to it.

A constant spatial setting can significantly increase the Glue holding together those sharing similar concerns, and in a sense the more that shared space is threatened, the tighter are the bonds tying that community together. Here the effort at permanence, the round-the-clock commitment to the space and to each other, can be very strong. But it is the social interaction that the budding community defends when it defends the space, the space being only its most visible and most threatened manifestation. For purposes of offering a political umbrella to other groups, having tents near each other is very useful, but other spatial and communicative arrangements may also serve that purpose, and perhaps even better than the by what is possible in only an occupied space.

Both the umbrella and the activation functions of Occupy Wall Street require space Staging activities, both for collective action and public demonstrations of unity and mutual support, and probably require a single larger and well known accessible area to work effectively. For such activities, which could be well served at a primary  site such as Liberty Park , although not necessarily requiring that space around the clock. But the incubator has other requirements, a space that permits quiet planning activities, out of the glare and hub bub that an encampment such as Liberty Park constitutes, a place for committee meetings, drafting of press releases, communications facilities, perhaps educational activities. Those functions could also be performed at a site separate from the Staging Site, but linked to it in convenient fashion.

None of the above suggests that the establishment and defense of occupied space is not important for the Occupy Wall Street movement, but only to suggest that the concern with the occupied space is a means to an end, and only one means among others, not the end itself.  There is no necessary inconsistency in using many different means at once, depending on circumstances.

With one exception.  Exploring the possibilities of alternative Models of organization can, in some cases, interfere with the pursuit of the other goals of the movement. Making decisions affecting a group democratically is an end in itself, with major public and political implications. Any critique of existing arrangements that cannot persuade that alternative arrangements are possible will not attract many adherents.  Thus demonstrating alternative ways of acting politically is important for each of the other values the Occupy Wall Street movement espouses. Yet it can also interfere with their pursuit under some circumstances, and can distort priorities if not carefully considered. Specifically, the defense of the permanent and round-the-clock occupancy of a specific space can lead to a fetishization of space that make  the defense of that space the overwhelming goal of the movement, at the expense of actions furthering the broader goals that that space is occupied to advance.

Three examples:

One: Confrontations with the police and negotiations with authorities are an inevitable accompaniment of movements such as Occupy Wall Street, and certainly what the major media highlight. Both relations with the police and with municipal authorities require planning, coordination, strategic decision-making, sometimes the ability to change plans quickly and to leave the other side in the dark as to what will happen. The transparency, debate, deliberation, that true democracy requires is inconsistent with the most effective handling of such situations. Model democracy and effective activism must be weighed gains teach other in practice. The best models for short-term decisions are not necessarily the best models for making democratic long-term decisions.

Two:  Take Back the Land is a militant housing movement concerned with keeping occupants in properties on which banks are foreclosing. One of their strategies is keeping their owners in occupancy, even when foreclosure has been completed, or putting new residents in foreclosed homes banks are keeping empty awaiting a rise in prices. They call such homes “liberated spaces” not “occupied spaces.” They find it more natural to speak of occupying the spaces of the banks, the 1%, and displacing/evicting them; when they come into possession of such spaces, they would rather call them “liberated ” than “occupied” .

Three: A metamorphosis of meaning emerges in some occupations. The space being occupied gets to be taken not as an occupation, in the military sense, of an enemy’s space, but rather as the creation of an alternative space.  Oddly and quite without planning, the renaming of the occupied space in New York City reflects this shift: occupying Zuccotti Park, named after a prominent real estate lawyer and power-broker in the city, is taking over a part of Wall Street’s space, a park located in the heart of the enemy’s territory. Occupying it is displacing its intended functions, de facto if not de jure. Changing its name and calling it Liberty Park gives it a different meaning; it becomes a liberated space, a space of hope, in its management, openness, users, political and social role, a model for an alternative. That it in fact takes the enemies’ space and builds its opposite within it is dramatic double victory, but the displacement it represents, the victory in a struggle, can get lost in the internal effort to develop a truly democratic organization of the space that has been won. Yet the model building need not in fact be located there; any space properly configured, open and accessible, would do: a quarter, a university, an armory, a public building, another park, a private space, a corporate headquarters, a university, would have done as well.

There is more than word play involved here. The danger in focusing too much attention of what happens to a specific space occupied by the movement is that the big picture gets lost. Attention is devoted to what goes on in that space, to how the occupants pitch their tents, survive the winter, deal with intruders, ward off the police –  yes, also in how they make decisions, but only as one peculiarity of those particular folk. But that isn’t the big picture, the measure of the importance of the Occupy Wall Street movement, its real significance. That rather lies in what others do, unrelated to the physical space the movement itself occupies. When the New York Times headlines an article in its Business Section: “OCCUPY MOVEMENT INSPIRES UNIONS TO EMBRACE BOLD TACTICS,[1]” or the New York Post finds it necessary to attack Occupy Wall Street with a front page headline, “OCCUPY MY JOB: PROTESTERS PUT FOLKS OUT OF WORK” by recounting how  a waitress at a Wall Street cafe was laid off because business was bad,[2] or students stage “occupy rallies” at Columbia and Harvard , and new occupations spring up  day after day after day across the country, those are the measures of the importance of the movement.  What particular site is actually occupied, by how many, for how long, is important, but not the main point.

Occupy Harlem concluded its initial meeting by starting a search for a store front in Harlem where it could make its base. Multiple locations in a city might be very possible, perhaps some outdoors for big events, some indoors for others. Perhaps a two-site solution, linking a larger, centrally-located, open site with a nearby indoor, more organized site, would work. Occupiers themselves are exploring such and other alternatives, and have shown the imagination with which they can handle problems. It is their impact on their supporters and on the struggles in the world around them that is in the end the real test of their effect, not how long or how well they can defend a particular space in town.

The particular space being occupied should not be fetishized, should not become the prize, the conquest of which is the goal of the movement. It is only, for most aspects of the movement, symbolic; the rise and fall of the movement should not be linked to the extent of the physical occupation of a given space.  The spaces sought for occupancy are not the prize for which the battle is being fought, but rather a terrain on which that battle takes place, and a more or less important source of support to facilitate the achievement of objectives more important than the command of a particular piece of ground.

 You complain[1] about the Occupy Wall Street protest movement at Liberty Park as raising “quality of life issues” for adjacent residents and small businesses, while expressing sympathy for the Protest movement. . Others have made similar and even broader complaints.[2] The concern seems to be about: first, the presence of undesirables attracted to the Park by the occupation, including criminal elements, drug dealers, drug users, and the homeless; second, the behaviour of some , presumably protestors, in urinating or defecating on nearby public sidewalks. And you formulate such issues as “quality-of-life” issues and ask the city to take a zero-tolerance position as to certain of these causes of complaint, presumably by means of police enforcement.. Further, the City, perhaps in response to similar concerns, has procured the removal of electric generators and electronic equipment, and heating sources from the site, despite an imminent cold wave threatening the health and well-being of the occupants.[3]

 Your concerns are understandable, but the solution is misplaced. The City should take an affirmative attitude to the efforts of the protestors to make their voices heard on matters of grave public concern, and to do so in a peaceful and democratic manner. It should facilitate that effort, not restrict it, and it should deal with the substance of the concerns of the protestors, not ignore them or denigrate them.[4]  It is not appropriate for a mayor with an estimated net worth of $19.5 billion to talk of those protesting unemployment, lack of health care, home foreclosures, as just “yelling and screaming” and telling them they ought to create the jobs that we are lacking.”[5]

 If any group has interfered with the quality of life of the city’s residents, it is much more the speculators of Wall Street than the occupants of Liberty Park. The pressure should be on the mayor to address the conduct of Wall Street, not its critics.

 If homeless individuals are attracted to the protest site at the park, it is a sad commentary on the programs the City has developed to meet its state constitutional obligation to care for the health and welfare of its residents. 40,201 homeless were in the city’s shelter system October 31, 2011; last year the number simply living on the streets went up 34%.[6] That’s were attention needs to be focused.

 If addicts seek cover at the park, it is a commentary on the failure of the City to deal with drug addiction; if some mentally ill participate in the protests, their illness is not the protestors’ fault, but that of a failing mental health care system.

 If the City is concerned about the growing homeless population, it would be better called on to develop an effective programs meeting the needs of the homeless, rather than condemning private volunteers whose respectful treatment of those homeless is experienced by the homeless as a striking contrast to the attitudes they encounter in the city’s inadequate shelter system and housing programs.  The volunteers at the park who do their best to cope with the problems of such visitors should rather be assisted thanked for their services by the city , rather than condemned for their humane results.

 If criminal conduct takes place within the Park, it is the responsibility of the city’s official criminal justice system to deal with it, when complaints are made and assistance asked. The first line of defense should of course be the effort to resolve untoward conduct on a common sense, person to person basis, and a cooperative police attitude towards such efforts should be encouraged. If official intervention is requested, it should be provided courteously and professionally, as New York City’s police motto provides. Such requested official intervention will be substantially more effective if the  relationships between the police and the residents and possible victims are positive  and mutually respectful, rather than hostile and alienated, as is unfortunately often the case.

 If the City is concerned about the quality of life in the city, and protecting the health and welfare of its residents, it would be better called on to deal with the activities taking place on Wall Street rather than putting road-blocks in the way of those protesting Wall Street’s activities.  A progressive income tax on the 1%, a progressive housing policy, adequate social services, providing help for them to keep warm, take care of bodily function, eat and sleep and discuss and, yes, protest, would be in order. The City should be concerned with dealing with the conduct of those who create the problems from which so many of the city’s residents suffer, rather than pushing punitive measures aimed at their victims.

 And perhaps you might recommend to the Mayor that he educate himself to what the occupation is about, what moves the occupiers, who they are.. His comments suggest a very deep misapprehension of the realities that others face, so different from his own. It was appropriately headlined in the New York Times as : “Gilded Blinders to the Reality of a Collapse,”[7] and included quoted comments from him such as:

 “It was not the banks hat created the mortgage crisis. It was, plain and simple, Congress  who forced everybody to go and give mortgages to people who were on the cusp.” Or his suggestion that the fault-finders should give blaming banks a rest: “It’s fun and it’s cathartic. I don’t know, it’s entertaining to go and blame people.” His proposal for a solution: the Occupy Wall Street Protestors should make a difference by opening a business.

The Occupy Wall Street movement in New York City  occupied what was then Zuccotti Park, now Liberty Park,[1] as one of its very first decision. The choice was made at a meeting of the inchoate movement in Washington Square Park, realizing that that park was inappropriate for their purposes for a variety of reasons, debating between Zuccotti Park and one other location, [2] and Zuccotti was chosen as the better because of its location, size, and configuration. That it had a complicated legal status, part private, part public, only surfaced afterward, but then it proved helpful to the continuance of the occupation after it was already begun. A huge amount of attention has been focused on that space since, both symbolically and physically. What kind of role the occupation of that particular space plays, however, is a subject that deserves clear and careful analysis, and will be a hotter (or colder!) issue increasingly with the passage of not so much more time. Would the occupiers dig in for the winter, there? Would their abandoning the site, whether voluntarily or because forced to do so by force of state action or impossible weather conditions, be a major defeat for the movement? Should alternative spaces be considered? What is the real role of occupied appropriated space in the movement, anyway? Is it essential, necessary but not sufficient, interchangeable, secondary, a distraction, in view of the goals of the movement?

What alternatives to a last-ditch effort to survive a physical endurance contest and an increasing legal threat of forceful eviction might be considered? Many are already being explored by various of the occupiers and their allies. What follows  details one plausible possibility.

The idea would be to maintain the use of Liberty Park as an assembly and staging site for Occupy activities, but open a linked site elsewhere, in a suitable structure, to act as a headquarters for the organizing and informational, educational, and political activities of the movement.  Liberty Park as a Staging Site and symbolic anchor and a Liberty Workshop elsewhere as a Political Incubator. It would not be difficult to disaggregate the activities by the characteristics of the space needed for their conduct, and Liberty Park would meet the requirements for some admirably, for others only with difficulty. While some architectural or planning solutions may help, i.e. using larger fewer larger tents instead of multiple smaller ones, there are limits to how far such adjustments can go, and a better solution might well be the use of two sites, one for larger assemblies and rallies and staging for marches, the other for the use of smaller groups and administrative and technical and organizational activities.

For analysis,  the different functions of the Occupation movement might be separated out (further discussion of these formulations “in  ”: The Purpose of the Occupation Movement and the Danger of Fetishizing “Space”

A confrontation function, taking the struggle to the enemy’s territory, confronting, potentially disrupting, the operations at the center of the problem;

An umbrella function, creating a space and a format in which quite disparate groups can work together in pursuit of ultimately consistent and mutually reinforcing goals, without i

A glue function, creating a community of trust and commitment to the pursuit of common goals;

An activation function, inspiring others to greater militancy and and sharper focus on common goals and specific demands;

An educational function, provoking questioning, exploration, juxtaposition of differing viewpoints and issues, seeking clarification and sources of commonality within difference.

A model function, showing, by its internal organization and methods of proceeding, that an alternative form of democracy is possible and the process of change need not involve a reversion to hierarchical command structures of some previous revolutionary movements.

Thus:

ONE OCCUPATION – TWO SITES.

What are then the requirements Occupy Wall Street has for a physical space? What criteria are relevant to a choice?

They may be divided into criteria for

1)       size and configuration,

2)       accessibility of location,

3)       symbolism, and

4)       availability, subject to consideration of legal constraints.

Liberty Park, it so happens, meets each of these needs, but with limitations.

1)       Size and configuration: It is large enough for many activities, and an appropriate size to provide a sense of community and boundedness to the occupation – the glue functions, but too small for other activities, the umbrella functions– expanded assemblies, for instance which have often been held at other locations such as Washington Square Park, or rallies and marches, which have begun at Federal Plaza. And it is not large enough for simultaneous diversified activities, the educational functions, such as some of the educational activities the Occupation undertakes, small organized discussions, speakers – the umbrella functions.

Further, whether the site is protected and secure, primarily in terms of inclement weather, is a factor, and Liberty Park is fine in good weather but poor in bad. The worse the weather, the more does simple endurance become a time-consuming, energy-demanding, activity, at the expense of political activity and organizing. The model function of the occupation may then become limited to decision-making on house-keeping functions (walkie-talkies for the security patrol, allocating space for different activities, hours of operations, etc.), rather than political or activist plans outside the site. questions. Dual locations, offering different levels of amenity and protection, for use at different times, may be a partial answer.

2)        Accessibility of location: clearly it is central to what Occupation is trying to do that it can bring people together, both its own participants and strangers who may be influenced by their physical involvement: the umbrella and activation functions.. That means it must be accessible, and by mass transit. That means a central location. Liberty Park is very accessible, but so are other large parts of the city.  Further, Occupiers are activists, and encourage participation in active expressions o f critical support. Their target is Wall Street, more generally, the financial 1% whose disproportionate hold on power they are challenging. A location near the center of that power, in the belly of the beast, so to speak, is this very desirable. Marches need a destination; being near an obvious target facilitates their strength. Coupled with its symbolism, lower Manhattan or mid-town would seem ideal locations.

3)       Symbolism: The confrontational function of the space, even in New York city, is not (at least a yet) a major factor in its location, except symbolically; so far, its disruptive potential has been deliberately down-played. The very name of the first movement is symbolic of its activational function, , using the designation of a space, Wall Street, as standing for the activities which are, among other places, contained in that space. (A warning on spatial fetishism in next post.) If the Occupation is indeed one focusing on the concentration of economic power, it was a sensible choice not to locate in possible alternative sites, such as near City Hall or Federal plaza, which represent at least to some extent power still subject to existing democratic processes, or near residential open spaces or educational institutions, which at worst are secondary supporters of economic power, not at their center.

4)       Availability: A vacant site, whether open space or building, is obviously eminently desirable. Inevitably, there will be some displacement; a general assembly and a baseball game cannot take place at the same time at the same place, and the amount of displacement should be minimized. The decision might also take into account who and what is displaced, frequency of use, need met by use, alternatives available. Social arrangements, such as voluntarily limiting the drumming at Liberty Park to specific hours, can also be helpful.  Absent political or legal roadblocks, Liberty Park might meet the criteria of availability very well.

But legal and political factors do have to be taken into account. The complex situation at Liberty Park, with its mix of public and private ownership and control, was serendipity for the occupiers. It is unlikely that, in a private market economy and with large investment interests in real estate, that  ideal locations can be found that do not raise issues of rights of occupancy and exclusion, including by physical force. The extent to which such limitations are confronted directly, and how, are a matter of strategic choice for the Occupation. They involve not only questions of freedom of speech and (too infrequently notice) freedom of assembly, but also of the availability and uses of public spaces in the city, the contributions and purposes of public space as such, questions relevant to recreational needs, community gardens, environmental health, peaceable enjoyment. Few desirable locations are likely to be free of such issues.

If a two site solution seems worth considering, the role of each site can  be spelled out. It would be important to keep a direct and on-going presence at Liberty Park, for the advantages outlined above, particularly it symbolic and by now historic importance. There is no reason negotiations might not provide for a stable, non-confrontational use, with agreement on hours of use, types of activities, etc. The sophistic arguments against its use need to be firmly put down; see the Open Letter to the signatories of a letter of complaint to the Mayor about its continued existence.

For the second, the Incubator, site, it is of course most desirable that a single secure site be established, linked to the Staging Site. Empty factories or warehouses, college campuses, office building atriums, churches, large empty store fronts, might be possibilities.. There are already spaces near Liberty Park being used for things like committee meetings (apparently 60 Wall Street’s atrium is one). Quite off center Occupy efforts are also in gestation, e.g. in Harlem, and  in the center of Columbia University’s campus, , but focusing (it’s too early to tell) primarily on university and academic/pedagogical issues); perhaps a thousand occupations will bloom, each with a sectoral or issue focus of its own. It would then be important to keep the role of Wall Street as a symbol of the concentration of economic power and its role in each sector prominently in view. The imagination of the occupiers has proven fertile.

What does seem clear is that Liberty Park is one site of the Occupy Wall Street movement, but not its be-all and end-all.  Only the imagination (and the balance of power!) limits the possibilities.

Occupy Wall Street’s Common Message to its Diverse Potential Supporters

In the debate about the meaning, potential, and future direction of the Occupy Wall Street movement, the issue of just who the 99% and the 1% are, and what difference it makes, is a thorny one. The occupiers themselves, as a rough estimate, comprise less than .1% of the population. What is the line of division the occupy movement is trying to get across? How can it be done?

The answer connects with the questions of demands vs. goals, the slogans the movement uses. Some sound-bite size slogans can be imagined to suggest how a real debate might be provoked and the message of the occupations spread convincingly among the large number of their actual or potential supporters.

* * * * * *

In the debate about the meaning, potential, and future direction of the Occupy Wall Street movement, the issue of just who the 99% and the 1% are, and what difference it makes, is a thorny one. The occupiers themselves, as a rough estimate, comprise less than .1% of the population. What is the line of division the occupy movement is trying to get across? How can it be done?

The answer connects with the questions of demands vs. goals, the slogans the movement uses. Some sound-bite size slogans can be imagined to suggest how a real debate might be provoked and the message of the occupations spread convincingly among the large number of their actual or potential supporters.

* * * * * *

Formulating the specifics of separate demands is not what the Occupy Walls Street movement is about. Its goal is rather dealing with the inequality between the 99% and the 1%, the concentration of power in the banks on economic issues, the lack of real democracy in political decision-making, the organization of society around the accumulation of wealth, consumerism, violence, conformity. Their goal is a different world, in which the specific demands of the 99% would be realized, together. The slogans: OCCUPY WALL STREET and OCCUPY TOGETHER go hand in hand. The Occupy Wall Street movement supports a wide variety of demands, as all of the placards and signs and posters show. But the Occupy Wall Street demand itself  incorporates those demands, but its own demand is broader, more general. It calls for a society organized around the needs, desires, dreams, of the 99%, not the 1%.

Yet there is a necessary link between the more specific demands and the general demand, and it goes from the aggregation of individual demands into a realization of their general unity and larger meaning. Judging from history, if a real revolution were possible today, it would include all the specific demands of the Occupy Wall Street signs as part of its general demand for comprehensive change. The patriots who dumped tea in Boston harbor in the American Revolution were not just after repeal of the tax on tea; they wanted independence and democracy. In the French Revolution the participants marched on the Bastille wanted not just the opening of that hated prison, and not even just, bread for the hungry, but Liberty, Equality, Fraternity. In the English Revolution the Puritans and the Levelers wanted not just freedom of religion and from feudal tithing, but an end to the monarchy and feudal constraints over-all.

But how can this linkage between the specific demands and the general goal be forged today, in practice as well as in rhetoric? The question needs to be addressed, not only to the occupiers, but to those who press for the specifics, and their organizations – the no-occupiers who are sympathetic to the occupations and constitute at least 58% or so of the total population in the United States. It seems to me that the essence of the Occupy Wall Street movement is its understanding that issues of poverty, of peace, of education, of health, of environmental change, of exploitation in the work place, dissatisfaction in the community, discrimination on ethnic and gender lines, cultural discontent, all in the end have to do with the division  of society between the top and the bottom, symbolized by the relations between the1% and the 99%, calling attention to the structural features of a system that benefits the one at the expense of the other.  It is this understanding that must be brought to inform all the specific demands that it encompasses.

How?

The process of linking is already beginning, both from the side of the occupiers and their goals and from the side of the non-occupiers and their specific demands.

The occupations are already being used to inform, to share, to discuss, to criticize. There are Open Forums on a wide range of issues, little libraries in tents, innumerable one-on-one debates, invited speakers. And marches on banks, marches on neglected schools, marches on city halls, marches on centers of foreclosed homes, marches on uncomprehending and hostile media.

And there is support from many specific groups outside the occupations: unionized workers, longshoreman, service workers, teachers, retail workers, community-labor centers, neighborhood groups and members of the right to the city alliance, of National People’s Action, lawyers, nurses, neighborhood residents, students, academics, artists.

As the link is made from both directions, from occupiers to non-occupier sympathizers and vice versa. The 1%/99% divide can emerge sharply as what brings the two together within the 99%. It can be made explicit in many ways. For instance (and others can certainly improve on these examples, and these are points to be made, provocations for discussion, rather than bumper-stickers or slogans on signs):

In education:

WHERE DO THE 1% GO TO SCHOOL?

WHOSE SCHOOLS ARE FAILING? WHOSE SCHOOLS BUDGETS ARE BEING CUT?

PUBLIC SCHOOLS GOOD ENOUGH FOR THE 1%!

HOW MANY OF THE 99%  CAN AFFORD PRIVATE SCHOOLS?

NOT JUST TRAINING, BUT CRITICAL EDUCATION

EDUCATION FOR CRITICAL THINKING, NOT CONFORMITY

EDUCATION, NOT TRAINING FOR NO JOBS

WHO NEEDS CRITICAL THINKING? WHO’S AFRAID OF IT?

SCHOOLS ARE NOT TO TRAIN THE 99% TO WORK FOR THE 1%

YOU CAN’T MEASURE VALUES, INDEPENDENT THINKING,  IMAGINATION

YOU CAN MEASURE CONFORMITY, NOT THOUGHT.

WHAT TO THE 1% WANT THE SCHOOLS TO PRODUCE: OBEDIENT WORKERS!

WHAT DO THE 99% NEED THE SCHOOLS TO PRODUCE:CRITICAL CITIZENS?

In health care:

WHO DOES THE PRIVATE HEALTH CARE SYSTEM CARE FOR? THE 1%

WHO NEEDS MEDICARE AND MEDICAID? THE 99%

WHO LIKES FEE FOR SERVICES MEDICINE? THE 1%

WHO NEEDS A PUBIC HEALTH SYSTEM, AVAILAABLE TO ALL? THE 99%

WHO BENEFITS FROM INSURANCE PROFITS FROM HEALTH CARE? THE 1%

WHO BENEFITS FROM PHARMACEUTICAL PROFITS? THE 1%

In housing:

HOUSING FOR USE BY THE 100%,  NOT PROFIT OF THE 1%

NO GHETTOS AMONG THE 99% NOR ENCLAVES FOR THE 1%

LAND IS A NATURAL RESOURCE, NOT A COMMODITY

BANKS ARE THERE TO HELP THE 99%, NOT ENRICH THE 1%

WHO NEEDS PRIVATE BANKS? THE 1% WHO NEEDS PUBLIC BANK? THE 99%

THE 99% CREATE THE VALUE OF THEIR HOUSING; THE 1% SPECULATE IN IT

INCLUSIVE HOUISNG FOR ALL, NOT EXCLUSIONARY HOUSING FOR ANY.

On economic issues:

OCCUPY WALL STREET TO SUBVERT CAPITAISM

THE MARKET SERVES THE 1% BEST; DEMOCRACY SERVES THE 99% BEST

JOBS FOR SOCIAL USE AND FULFILLMENT, NOT JUST FOR SURVIVAL

THE 1% PROFIT WHEN WORKERS ARE LAID OFF, THE 99% SUFFER

IF THE 1% ARE JOB CREATORS, WHY DO THEY KEEP LAYING OFF WORKERS?

IMAGINATION AND INNOVATION FOR CREATION, NOT FOR DESTRUCTION

IDEAS COME FROM THE 99%; THE 1% PROFIT FROM THEIR MARKETIZATION

And so on.

It is important to read the 99% in all its complexity. The line between the two is not a simple quantitative one, and is not the same in every dimension of life. 58% of the population (U.S. context) may support the occupations. 86% may feel the country is on the wrong path. Obama captured 52% of the popular vote in 2008; the Republicans captured almost exactly the same percentage two year later. 66% of the population may consider themselves in the middle class; very few like to admit that they’re poor, but that undoubtedly includes many of the over 42 million who are living below the poverty level, and many who are managers, technicians, factory workers, service workers. About 30% of whites, 20% of blacks, have a college education or more; surely some are in the upper class, others support the occupations. And of course none of these numbers can capture the extent of the deep discontent, insecurity, worry, unhappiness,, that runs through all sections of society, including even some of the 1%.

The important point about the occupiers, though, is not how many they are, but that they are calling attention to a basic division, no matter how calibrated: between the haves and the have nots, the included and the excluded, the rich and the poor, the powerful and the subordinate, the plebes and the gentry, the rulers and the ruled. In an earlier post, I suggested a set of divisions along political/ideological lines. It is not neat, but it suggests the task ahead; the actual occupiers may total 200,000 or more, but in any case less than .1% of the population.  So producing change will not be up to them alone; they may be a spark that sets off a greater movement, but ultimately it is the understanding of the existence of a dividing line within the society, in which a small minority is benefiting handsomely at the expense of a large majority of the other, that is important.

The danger of cooptation remains. Joseph Stiglitz, a respected and progressive economist, said recently:

“You are right to be indignant.  The fact is that the system is not working right.  It is not right that we have so many people without jobs when we have so many needs that we have to fulfill.  It’s not right that we are throwing people out of their houses when we have so many homeless people.  Our financial markets have an important role to play.  They’re supposed to allocate capital, manage risks.  We are bearing the costs of their misdeeds.  There’s a system where we’ve socialized losses and privatized gains.  That’s not capitalism; that’s not a market economy.  That’s a distorted economy, and if we continue with that, we won’t succeed in growing, and we won’t succeed in creating a just society.”[1]

But unfortunately the point is exactly that it is a market economy, and it is capitalism.  The 99%/1% split isn’t because the market isn’t working; it’s the way, under capitalism, that it does work. That needs to be stated clearly and boldly. The question is, who is the “we” in that quote. It’s surely not most of us, and the 1% and the 99%, symbolically, play very different and indeed conflicting roles

The leadership of the fight for the demands and the goal of Occupy Wall Street is thus not simply, or even primarily, with the occupiers; it must be picked up by the much larger number and older organizations of the non-occupiers who are in sympathy with them.  The  occupiers are not the leaders of the movement, there to run it, control it, establish themselves as its forefront. They are the spark that is igniting it, not the old-fashioned vanguard called on to lead it. The question is not will the occupations grow, but will the message of the occupations grow. More important even than what will the occupiers do next is the question of what will the non-occupiers do next.

Non-occupying supporters of the Occupy Wall Street movement are critical forces in influencing the impact of the movement. The bold and brave occupiers, who put their bodies on the line for what they believe in, are themselves a tiny fraction of the discontented and exploited who seek major change, but their support reaches widely, those many that are discontent, insecure, and/or exploited, dissatisfied with things as they are, angry about the direction in which the country is going. Their support reaches into the majority of the population, even into Republican circles, even sharing some roots with some tea partiers. Occupy Wall Street will not bring about the changes that are wanted by themsleves, but it can be a force to bring about a shift from a defensive to an offensive posture, to push from radical reform rather than only amelioration at the edges.

Supportive non-occupiers can play a major role in moving in this direction. They can develop the details occupiers are accused if ignoring, organize around individual the individual concrete issues contributing to the deep discontent with the direction in which society is moving. Linking the broadly-targeting aroused occupiers to the multiple existing groups and organization already struggling for change might provide strength and energy all around.

In more detail:

Non-occupying supporters of the Occupy Wall Street movement need to reflect on just what the Occupy movements (s) are, and what they signify, for the two are not the same. Substantively, those who are occupying space with their bodies, often in the heart of the beast, are brave and largely young discontents, dissatisfied with a society in which human values are subordinate to the search for profit, opportunities for creative work are shrinking and often put in the service of destruction, war is an accepted part of foreign policy, nature is simply raw materials for production, consumption exceeds needs for some and is inadequate for a decent life for many, violence is made attractive and non-conformity punished.[1] In this they reflect what many, many, feel. But they are putting their bodies where their feelings are, and in this they are a small minority. They signify the depth of those feelings, but do not reflect on their actions the breadth with which they are shared.

Numerically, the occupiers, those physically occupying space in protest, today constitute perhaps .05% of the population of the United States.[2] Much more important, however, is that from various polls a good majority of the American people agree with them.[3]

One might line things up somewhat like this – for illustrative purposes only, :

Occupiers         non-Occupiers      +    Support OWS      Republican         Tea Party     Ruling Class        Ruling class

OWS            Supporting Occupy       Republican        Not TP/ OWS                             foot soldiers      Wall Street

.05%                       55%+                          10%                       15%                  15%                 4%                        1%

Small                     majority                    small                    large                     large              small                  very small

The occupiers of Wall Street will not bring about the changes that are wanted by themselves, but they can be a great force to bring about a shift from a defensive to an offensive posture of those needing and wanting change, to push for radical reform rather than only tinkering at the edges. One might line things up somewhat like this – for illustrative purposes only :

Occupiers      Support OWS         Support OWS      Republican         Tea party

in OWS            Not in OWS          Republican        Not TP or OWS

.05%                      55%+                     10%                       15%                  15%

Tiny        majority                small                    large                  large

Ruling class      Ruling Class

foot soldiers       Wall Street

4%                  1%

small               very small

If such an analysis is anywhere near right, the real impact of the Occupy Wall Street movement  will be in what effect it has on the other 94.5% of the population (although the 4% and 1% at the top may be influenced to change their ways somewhat, not out of conviction but in self-defense). Certainly energizing the already supportive majority is highly important, and to some extent the 1% may be influenced against their will. . But the fact that a significant percentage of Republicans also express sympathy with the movement, and that there are elements within it that even resonate with tea partiers, is something to which attention should be paid. Tea partiers, after all, also condemn casino capitalism; when occupiers are accused of illegally occupying public spaces, do they not have more right to claim the tradition of the illegal dumping of tea in the Boston Harbor than the members of the law and order tea parties do? Are there any openings for discussion there?  Possibly, as the broadest yet potentially most meaningful proposal, might not the push for a millionaire’s tax be a unifying struggle, to which the occupations could give a clearer meaning Occupy Wall Street is, must see itself, and must be seen, as part of a very broad movement, one involving far more of the discontented and deprived than can occupy the spaces of the movement itself.

Putting the substantive and the numerical together, it is clear that the possibilities for real change do not rest with the members of Occupy Wall Street itself. It is misleading to measure the movement for change by the growth or shrinkage of the number of occupiers; it must be measured by the scope and effectiveness of the movement of those they represent, that are in sympathy with their feelings and in support of their goals.  It is likewise misleading to focus on a critique of their slogans, the limitations of their theoretical understandings or organization (surprisingly good, even exemplary, as it might be!), or to want them to formulate detailed demands or lobby or get into electoral politics. None of this is what they are about, nor is it the role that they want to or can play.

The Occupy Wall Street  movement It is not about to occupy the Winter Palace, charge the Bastille, overthrow Batista, or even throw cases of tea into Boston harbor. Those reactions that might eventually result from what they do, although it seems pretty unlikely right now. Where the discontent and the deprivation that their movement signifies goes next is not in the first place up to them, but up to those in  whose name they act. They do not occupy positions of influence, their work is not essential to the survival of the system, they do not command the resources that can take on the establishment and win major concessions, let alone overthrow it.

The real support that non-occupying supporters can give the Occupy Wall Street movement, then, is to draw from it the conclusion that the time is right to go on the offensive, to move from Real Politiik to principled politics, to expose and attack the real roots of social injustice rather than only ameliorate their worst manifestations. If they are being accused of not formulating concrete and feasible programs to achieve their clear goals, there are plenty of other organizations and individuals around who can do so. Rather than blaming the occupiers for not doing it, let those who are working within the system  re-double their efforts. The occupation movement is no substitute for the labor movement, for urban social movements, for radical think tanks, for insurgent political organization; it is rather a call to arms for their further mobilization.

But the immediate needs of the occupiers should not be lost sight of in the debate about how their work relates to others. Real support, not only in the obvious ways: pizza, legal defense, blankets, physical presence and encouragement. But also with shared experience, history, theory. There is incredible discussion going on within the occupied spaces, debates, experiments in organizing, discussion of tactics. In one occupation I was at the participants had divided their discussions into those requiring consensus – how to organize, how to run meetings, how to obtain, prepare, and distribute food, how to deal with individual problem – in a sense, management matters — and deal separately with those that required political action, to be decided with debate and discussion but majority vote in General Assemblies. Whether the experience in such an (almost commune-like) setting can be extrapolated to lessons in democracy at other scales is a complex question, but certainly the experience puts vital questions on the table. Such questions have been dealt with before, in much drier fashion, perhaps but deeply and extensively. And need to be faced directly now.

Certainly there are issues on which there are divergent opinions among those fully in support of the basic goals of the Occupy movement. Is the opponent greed, or corporations? Will revising the electoral system produce a democracy where all will be heard? Gross inequality is bad; is all inequality bad? Affordable housing should be available to all; can that best be accomplished through regulation, through subsidies, through non-market provision? In what sense are major corporations job creators or is their motivation to limit payrolls as an expense? What is the history of movements like Occupy Wall Street , what strategies have they historically used? What is the experience with non-hierarchical but effective forms of organization? Can encampments in public space lilke those of Occupy groups be justified in law? If in private spaces? How does “race ” relate  to anti-corporate campaigns? Immigration? Gender bias? Some Occupy groups are welcoming teach-in type forums where such matters are systematically discussed; more offers to organize such events would surely be welcomed. The movement needs theory as well as practice, information as well as feeling. Non-occupiers can surely help.

Could not supporters of Occupy Wall Street, many of whom are in education one way or another, provide opportunities for education at the sites of the occupations, perhaps offer to organize teach-ins, discussion groups? Providing reading material – would not copies of Howard Zinn’s People’s History of the United States be as satisfying to the hunger for intellectual nourishment as boxes of pizza to the hunger for physical nourishment.

A perhaps more far-fetched possibility might be the direct linking of the occupations with the existing movements and organizations of the discontented and the deprived. Might not occupiers be invited out to attend meetings of LGBTQ groups, labor union meetings, civil rights groups, homeless groups ,environmental groups, both to tell their stories and to see how others  do things? Might not educational institutions or teachers and faculty offer visits, discussions, seminars for occupiers?

The occupations will not go on forever; certainly the length of time any individual can participate directly is limited. Cannot outsiders offer opportunities for engagement outside of the space and time of the occupation, but compatible with them, for participants? Is not in fact, in the broadest sense, the promise of the occupations exactly the extent to which they will link to, inform and be informed by, ultimately coalesce together with others, in hat the 99% want and need and strive for?

If all of those who, in support of Occupy Wall Street, have put pen to paper, finger to keyboard, frown to forehead, or mouth to movement, would put conviction into action, the change for which the occupiers  have put their bodies on the line might indeed begin to take place.

Will the Occupy Wall Street movement continue to grow? I think that is the wrong question. It cannot “grow” in the sense of enlarging the area it occupies, staying longer and longer and refusing to leave. There is simply no space available where it is now in New York, the weather in winter will make it simply a test of endurance, it is more than can be asked. But there are alternative forms by which it can show its strength: marches, timed occupations, rallies, continued effective solidarity and networking. And refinement of claims, clarification of interpretations, pin-pointing of objectives and targets of non-violent action and exposure.  The attached argues:

Five alternative futures confront the movement:

• Dissolve
• Be co-opted
• Focus on specific immediate reforms
• Go for non-reformist reforms
• Push for revolution.

The strengths and weaknesses of each are analyzed, and they are not mutually exclusive. But the “non-reformist reforms” seems the most productive.

In any event, its future will hinge on the extent to which it maintains its three defining characteristics:

The common thread in the analysis of the underlying nature of the problems with which it is concerned, symbolized by the 1%/99% formulation;

• The bringing together of multiple diverse interests and viewpoints in a mutually supportive and trusting human social context; and
• The commitment to action, to exploring , physically as well as intellectually, the available avenues for implementing their desires, overcoming the obstacles they face, moving towards a better world.

Immediately, tactically, imagination may suggest a variety of new approaches to immediate action. Since continued limited occupation of a restricted site poses major problems as the sole center of the movement, imagination and spontaneity can be looked to provide alternatives to reflect the growth and wide popular support of the movement. Some possibilities are mentioned below.

The following spells out the argument.

There is a deep unease in the country, and internationally. People are dissatisfied, and are suffering. Their specific complaints have to do with jobs, incomes, housing, education, war and peace, corruption, the environment, health care, the role of government, cultural norms, injustice, discrimination, inequality. Underneath are strong if often inchoate feelings. ranging from despair to insecurity to broad discontent with things as they are, unhappiness at the direction in which they are going.  And those feelings are leading to active resistance, demands for change finding their expression more and more in communities and work places, and very visibly on the streets of our cities

Where does the Occupy movement fit into this picture? Where might it go, in the immediate future and in the long run, the big picture?? Will it disappear after its brief moment of fame? Will it end up co-opted, perhaps pushing the Democratic Party a bit to the left, joining a range of movement-type players in the political game? Might it split up into a variety of single-issue organizations, pushing certain specific reforms, lingering as one or more lobbying groups? Will it press for the most far-reaching “non-reformist reforms” feasible reforms within the system, non-reformist reforms, hoping they will lead to deeper system changes? Or will they produce a dramatic change in power structures, a revolution?

In the big picture, cooptation seems to me not be a big danger for happy and for unhappy reasons. Happily, the participants in the Occupy movements are smart, alert, aware, quite sophisticated, some quite experienced, and know who is on their side and who isn’t. Nor can they be so easily bought off, without starting on the very road they wish to go, with some fundamental changes in the economic, political, and social system. Less happily, they are not (yet?) large enough in numbers or power to constitute a threat that must be bought off; so far, the 1% may feel that between the police, the weather, the passage of time, the power of the media, they have nothing serious to worry about. Ben Bernanke may express mild sympathy of the movement, but he is not likely either to win it over or to join it himself. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is circulating petitions declaring “I stand with the Occupy Wall Street protests;”[1] such support can be welcomed, as long as a distance is kept.

The pressure to whittle down the movement to one for specific reforms is one that is significant, but the discussions thus far seem increasingly to be aware of the pit-falls of that direction, the dangers of converting a mass popular movement into a enterprise in legislative drafting, political forecasting, tactical positioning. Occupy  is seen by most of its participants and supporters not as a set of pressures for individual rights, but as a powerful claim for a better world, a real alternative, to what exists; not a set of subsidiary rights in the city ,but a claim to the right to the city, to the world produced by the 99% and now claimed by them as their own..

Non-reformist reforms are an appealing goal, but not one that easy to define or pursue.  How does one tell a reformist goal from a non-reformist one:. Is opposition to charter schools, or more funding for public schools, reformist, or more? Is renegotiating mortgages with principal forgiveness reformist, andif not, what more should be demanded? Are living wage jobs on the one side and a millionaire’s tax of 5% enough to move towards real equality, or a way to prevent greater redistribution? Is providing subsidized insurance for the ill or injured a step towards universal health care, or an end point of reform? Are requirements for transparency and paublic participation in planning moves towards real democratic control of the future of cities, , or a way to avoid changes in the way they are actually built and managed? Are the differences maters just of degree, and when does quantity turn into quality change? Are small reforms way-stations towards larger, less reformist ones, or simply attractive dead-ends?? These are not easy questions to answer.

Unfortunately, the question of revolution seems easier to answer – in the negative. Under what circumstances a revolution might in fact take place is a theoretical question that has been subjected to extensive debate, but whatever the answer, those circumstances do not seem to exist today. The positions of power of the 1%, the control in the economy and in government, their command of the media, the power of the consumerist way of life, the dominance of its ideological supports in nationalism and the Protestant ethic, are too great, technology to firmly in the control despite contrary independent forays.

Strikingly, thee question of power is rarely  raised in discussions within the Occupy movement, at least to one listening from the outside. Yet, push their claims far enough, ask what in reality is needed if they are to be met, and the question of power looms  large. But the very organizatonal ethos of the movement militates against confronting that fact; the movement is against hierarchy, against controls, for discussion and debate and openness, against decisions made through the exerciseof power – with a deep desire to see the form of organization witin the movement, rejecting all use of power, aplied to the society at large. Anarchists are clear on the point; non-anarchists are not, and their views vary widely. The role of government as such, of the state, is involved; it is a tricky question, which the tea party, for not entirely unrelated motives, has answered one way, a way clearly unsatisfactory to most, yet a clear sense of the alternative is yet to be developed. Revolutions involve a major shift in who exercises power, at least initially, and the occupy Movement is not at the point where it sees itself needing to address that problem frontally. And it is probably right; revolution does not seem to be on the table as things stand.

If that analysis is right, non-reformist reforms end up as the only way to go, and I believe the Occupy movement I in fact reflects that position. Look at the various formulations, placards, interviews, demands, manifestoes that have come from it, and you will see claims for justice, equality, freedom, , justice, in many spheres, but not demands for this reform, that bill, such and such a tax, this or that change of regulation – although these are often components of claims that are made.

Looking at the role the Occupy movement plays within the general framework of the opposition to the status quo supports this conclusion as to the primacy of non-reformist reforms. The Occupy movement has three key characteristics:

First, it perceives a common thread among the disparate criticisms, crudely represented by the formulation “for the 99%, not the 1%,” with conflict inevitable as the 1% resist the claims of the 99%;

Second, it brings together with a deeply felt broad dissatisfaction with specific criticisms of the prevailing order and in a mutually supportive and culturally rich environment;

Third, it sees non-violent but direct action as a necessary means to implementing its claims in the face of the resistance of the 1%.

On the first point, the common thread, there is less else happening. Many of the groupings mentioned above lack an analysis of the causes of the defects that campaign against, or tend to place the blame on secondary factors: the media, the election laws, continuing racism, lack of regulation, etc., without probing the deeper structural issues dividing the 99% from the 1% that Occupy sees as the underlying issue. More on this below

On the second point, the bringing together,: the effort is not unique. A number of other movements have similar aims and composition: the international Social Forums, the loosely-organized “anti-globalization” network, the Right to the City movement, National Peoples Action, union and labor-community coalitions and workers’ centers, MoveOn, Restore the American Dream, and many others.

And on the third point Occupy is virtually alone, and this, perhaps, is why it has so quickly and so dramatically gained such wide-spread support, has been welcomed as at long last representing a Springtime on a par with the Arab Spring, and on a scale and in a manner approaching that which is felt necessary to match the scope of the problems of our times.  “Occupying” is a dramatic action, widely recognized, with positive national and international resonance, and will plausibly remain an appropriate hallmark of the movement.

Looking at the immediate future, however, the Occupation faces some uncomfortable truths. One of course is the weather; New York City is not Cairo, and the possibilities of sustaining an effective outdoor 24/7 campaign are more than daunting. The participants in the movement are no doubt already deeply in discussion as to how to address this issue, and they will decide for themselves how far and how long they can go. It may be wise to change strategy according to a specific timetable, rather than turn the occupation into a test of physical endurance.

One possible alternative might by for Occupy to replace is physical locational focus with a more temporal on: to meet, to occupy, only during specific hours or days of the week, perhaps not always at the same location, , with other locations strategically chosen.  Or it might join with other occupations to establish a prsence in Washington D.C., where the capital grounds or the mall might offer opportunities.

Another logical possibility might be finding locations that locally can be occupied consistently regardless of weather. That would be an entirely different approach, looking, for instance at Convention centers as spaces where General Assemblies might be convened, or other public halls or meeting places. Perhaps marches to strategic destinations, rather than focus on a single stable place of occupation, might work: marches to the headquarters of specific banks, specific firms, specific institutions, specific agencies: Trump projects, Wal-Mart, Goldman Sachs, the Federal Office Building. might be effective. But those decisions must be made by the participants themselves, and made with the same imagination and resourcefulness that has characterized their actions thus far. Outsiders can be well see themselves as supportive, indeed as admiring, of what Occupy and its participants have so far accomplished, and help them do what they themselves in the end decide to do. They have earned our confidence so far.

What academics, professionals, writers, artists, intellectuals can do is another matter.  One of the three essential characteristics of the Occupy movement is the presence of a common thread running through the claims of its diverse participants. That common thread, more formally put, is an analysis of the causes of the conditions with which they are concerned.  1%/99% summarizes that analysis, but only in the most symbolic way. Just who is on each side of that division, how clear the lines are , what the dynamics of the relationship between the sides i s, what the tools/weapons each participant uses, how the strength of each is and how each is constrained, , just what needs to be changed in the big picture and how incremental changes can lead to or possibly detract from the desired result – these are all questions on which research, the lessons of history, the analysis of each problem, causes and effects, opportunities and blockages in the struggles – these are the issues on which academics and intellectuals (for not all intellectuals are academics!) can contribute. This is, in a larger sense, among what we are supposed to be doing.

A few examples: In housing, is the problem of foreclosures  and more broadly affordability on or regulating the giving and availability of credit, or are underneath that problems of speculation, of the treatment of land and housing as commodity to be allocated by the market, of private landownership, In health care, is the problem the monopoly position of the big pharmaceutical companies, the restrictions of patent law, the high profits of insurers, the inefficiency of hospitals, or is it the private nature of the health system, the funding of care and treatment on a pay for services basis, the need to see health care provision  in as a public responsibility to be provided publicly like police and fire protection, paid for out from public, social, funds? On questions of jobs, is the problem encouragements to private enterprise to create jobs, or is it the assumption that what is to be produced is what can be sold for a profit rather than what is socially needed, with public provision a n appropriate and major part of a healthy economy and private provision relying on profit based on low wages undesirable? In governmental taxation and land use policy, is encouraging decentralization and competition among communities a solution to uneven development, or does it aggravate the problem and require national solutions?

And in all of such cases, and generally in any matter of public policy, should we not expose who benefits and who loses, and what the respective power positions are of the 1% and the 99% in producing the results that are being questioned? Having made that analysis, is there not a need to propose measures and actions that will begin to address the injustices thus exposed, looking to immediate reforms that go in the direction of addressing the larger problems thus exposed – “non-reformist reforms, whose specification is hardly an easy matter? And that being done, is it not appropriate to politicize the results,  become directly engaged in the messy processes of putting proposals into effect, of becoming directly involved in the popular struggles’ that are involved, joining with those most directly affected in common actions trying to produce an alternative, a better, world? “Expose, propose, politicize,” might be one formulation of what academics and non-academic intellectuals can contribute if the wish to support the Occupy movement.

The growth and effect of the movement will depend, not on how many bodies occupy a specific place for a specific time this winter, although where feasible that can help, but on the imagination with which it takes up the task of exposing the ills of which it complains, formulating the claims it makes, and developing strategies to move towards their implementation. Its allies, in a supportive role, can be a big help.

.  Peter Marcuse                                                                                                   October 11, 2011

The Occupy Wall Street movement is a basic response to a social system seen as unjust and inhumane, one which is killing people, leaving millions in poverty, destroying the natural environment, stifling and distorting creativity, undermining democratic participation in social decision-making, and creating an existential insecurity about the future throughout the land, and indeed throughout the world.  All of its slogans, all of its participants, reflected in hundreds of interviews and media stories and learned analyses, confirm that understanding of what it is about.

Specificity: Demands vs. Claims

Yet there is a strong undercurrent in these accounts, including some sympathizers as well as critics, that the movement’s demands are unspecified, unclear, lacking in useful formulation, uncertain of actual and concrete goals.

Is that criticism justified? I think not, with one exception. I think it results from a misinterpretation of the movement’s sources and has political consequences that undermine the movement’s potential for desired radical change.

Why does not the movement ask for repeal of the Bush tax cuts, implementation of environmentalists’  resistance to fracking, subsidies for alternate energy development,  a moratorium on evictions for mortgage arrears, renewed restrictions on campaign contributions, closing of tax loopholes, a Warren Buffett tax on millionaires? Adequate Federal and State funding for education, repeal of mandatory criminal sentencing laws, ending mass deportations and inhuman immigration laws? These – just as examples – are all demands that virtually every supporter of the Occupy movement would endorse. Why not settle down, draw up a list of those demands, spell them out in enough detail so that there is no doubt of their meaning, figure out their budgetary implications, lay out a strategy for getting them adopted, and set about systematically developing a campaign around them?

Why not? Because that ends up playing the game, and the whole essence of the movement is to reject the game’s rules as it is being played, to produce change that includes each of these demands but goes much further to question the structures that make those demands necessary. The analogy to the heart of the Arab spring uprisings, to the civil rights movement, to the counter-cultural protests of the 60’s, are striking. They all believed they were operating under a system that needed to be changed in the way it functioned before their specific demands could be realized; their power lay in the evidence of the mass support they provided for change, the evidence that things could not go on as they were, that those that held the levers of power had to use them to implement deep changes or get out of the way and let others that would do so get at it.

In this sense, claims of rights, perhaps in the form of manifestoes, rather than political laundry lists of demands, are indeed the way to go: understanding rights as statements of principles, sharp enough to reveal concrete positions on broad topics, perhaps with examples, but not confined to specifics.  Occupy Wall Street is not a lobbying movement, but a movement for social change.  In the Arab spring, the core of the demonstrations was for fundamental change, with the ouster of a particular dictator is immediate target but not its only or ultimate goal. It could well be argued that limiting the demand to that one step needed to be seen as only one step, a first step, and that the hard work of more comprehensive change still remains its task.  Certainly Saul Alinsky would argue that that any effective movement must have one or more immediate, realizable, demands around which to organize and demonstrate success. This might be the exception to the “claims for rights, not demands for programs” rule.” Perhaps pushing for the Warren Buffett millionaire’s tax might be such a demand for the Occupy movements, or possibly a short list for flexibility. The important thing is to see them as parts of a larger picture, means to broader goals, not ends in themselves.

Further, demands, as opposed to claims, implicitly assume a setting within the established order. They call for reforms of the status quo, rather than for rejection, for what Richard Sennett has called “different shades of capitalisms” rather than alternate methods of structuring a society. That is not to say that reforms are not important in themselves, nor to say that they may not be steps on the way to larger changes. There are reformist reforms, and non-reformist reforms. Many social movements that support claims such as those of the Occupy movement see their path to winning those claims as going through non-reformist reforms, and that route is not inconsistent with the one Occupy has thus far chosen. But it is not Occupy’s route. Occupy’s actions may in fact be the necessary underpinning for achieving real reforms, both reformist and non-reformist. But in the spectrum of resistance to the prevailing order, Occupy Wall Street represents a different approach.

Paul Krugman puts it this way:

It’s clear what kinds of things the Occupy Wall Street demonstrators want, and it’s really the job of policy intellectuals and politicians to fill in the details.[1]

But it’s not only a matter of division of labor; it reflects the depth of the concerns of the protestors. Pressing claims is different from targeting demands. Occupy Wall Street not about detailing a political or legislative agenda for today. It knows at whom the movement is addressed, who is blocking the claims of rights in its manifestos, and it knows for whom it speaks, whose claims it is pressing. Its claims are not for pie in the sky, not simply hopes and desires, but the principles it is pursuing. Those in power need to surrender that power, need to change their ways. Let them start; the movement will watch, will say whether they are on the right road or not, whether they have gone far enough or not.  The claims are addressed at a particular named target, and establish the criteria by which their actions, in response to any specific demand, can be judged.

Conflict vs. Consensus

Consensus is not sought; conflict is seen as inevitable. Perhaps at some deeper level everyone can be better off, but immediately some, the 1%, will be losers– not of everything, but of the unjust riches and power they have amassed.  What is wanted is not consensus around concern for some amorphous declining “middle class,”, nor  around a charitable concern for the very poor or the “underprivileged,” but a claim that there be no upper, middle, or lower, no privileges for anybody.

Thus the Occupy movement is not after consensus, covers but is not limited to concern for the rights of the very poor,  is not for the rights of the “excluded”  to be  “included” in the system as it is. Such rights are part of their claim, but the claim is for a better life for all. The 99% formulation is exactly right; the hope is “for all,” but the recognition is that 1% already has what they need and much more, and must give up their hold on the excess, over is fair in a socially-oriented society, in the interests of the other 99%.

Public Space vs. Private Territory

The use of space also reflects a particular approach to the recognition of the inevitability of conflict along the way to its goals. Public space is frequently seen as a necessary ingredient of a democratic urban field. It is seen as a place for communication, for diversity, And for protest, and the presence of settings such as Tahrir square or the Plaza de Mayo  in Buenos Aires or Hyde Park in London are seen as strong support for broad mass movements for change^[2]. Occupy’s spatial setting is different: it is the site of the power that is being challenged. It is, I this sense, direct action itself, not just a call for action.  Just as protests at the Pentagon in Washington differ from rallies at the Washington Monument, picket lines in front of a factory differ from collecting signatures of support at bus stops. Centering action in Zuccotti Park is bringing the battle to the enemy’s territory.

While thus far the location in New York City is only symbolic, it happens that Zuccotti Park is a privately –owned space, coincidentally named after an aggressive real estate development lawyer who has been active both in governmental affairs and in private development. The park, actually a paved plaza and what is formally known as “privately-owned public space,” is owned by Brookfield Properties, in conjunction with its ownership of One Liberty Plaza, the adjacent high-rise commercial tower, which, in Brookfield’s terms, “is home to many leading financial and professional services firms including Cleary Gottlieb Steen and Hamilton, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Zurich American Insurance and Royal Bank of Canada.”[3] It is in the heart of the city’s financial district, only blocks from the Wall Street centers of speculation and economic power which the movement by its name challenges. In a sense, the occupation of Zuccotti Park is already the occupation of a small piece of Wall Street.” At one corner stands a 70-foot-tall, bright red metal sculpture by Mark di Suvero, perhaps fittingly called, for today’s purpose, “Joie de vivre.”

The location can be interpreted as potentially fitting in to the Piven and Cloward view of the role of disruption in the life of social movements.[4]

Occupy Wall Street makes no small demands, but asserts a claim broadly to the rights of all men and women. How far it will get no one knows as of now. But it certainly deserves all the support it can get.

Personal note after the big march, October 5, 2011

I’m just back from the Occupy Wall Street march. It was massive; I    would guess rivals in numbers some of the national Marches on Washington. Entirely peaceful, up to now; the police were polite but    stupid, closed streets to traffic but confined the marchers to the sidewalks, etc. The General Assembly at the end of the march adopted a set of resolutions, quite democratically, amazing for a setting with thousands of people participating.  And without any electronics. Speakers read short resolutions or made comments, the crowd that heard them repeated them in chorus so all could hear, approval was raising your hand and wiggling your fingers, disagreement was raising your hand with palm out flat – I wasn’t sure of the motions, but there seemed general understanding and consent.

Some of the signs were great — from” Piggy Banks,” to “I’ll believe corporations are people when they  execute one in Texas,” to “Wall Street should buy stocks, not  politicians” and “Marx was Right: Capitalism doesn’t work”.  Substantial important support from key unions: Transport Workers, American Federation of Teachers, SEIU, CUNY”s Professional and Staff  Congress, Retail Workers.  And apparently some neighborhood groups also, although I didn’t see any under their own signs–interesting.[5] I’ll find out more tomorrow.   Apparently after it ended a split-off group in fact tried to occupy Wall Street, and was met with excessive force — pepper sprays, horses. The media seems more interested in what the police did than who the demonstrators were or what they wanted. Yet even the Chair of the Federal Reserve System says he sympathizes with the protesters.[6]   And the movement seems to be catching on all across the country. I   think it’s tapped into a generalized feeling of discontent and   despair that in a way also underlies the tea party’s spread, but is much more participatory and genuine (not financed by bigoted billionaire zealots). Maybe.

 Relation to other movements???

To bring some other movements towards Occupy Wall Street:

Add some joy, lower the age, and get radical, and you’ve come from MoveOn, Recapture the Dream, or liberal political groups;

Add some therapy and some political understanding, and you’ve come from the right to life movement,  or some forms of organized bigotry;

Add some logical thought and remove some billionaires and right-wing funding, and you’ve come from the tea party;

Add imagination, lower the age, add the excitement, and move well to the left, and you’ve come from the Democratic Party.

Remove the jargon, add a sense of humor, swing into action, and you’ve come from the academic left

Remove some encrusted ideology, add a feel for the times, and you’ve come from the old far left

Have a deeply-felt discontent, value justice, keep some hope, add music and joie de vivre, exhibit solidarity, stay young, and be willing to act – and you have the Occupy Wall Street movement.