An Open Letter to Occupy
Regarding the Controversy Over “Demands”
And the
Movement's Way Forward
By ____ _____1
A
recent article in Rolling Stone
presented a picture of Occupy divided over the issue of “demands.”
According to the article, one faction opposes demands while another
views demands as a practical and inevitable strategy. The article
leaves the distinct impression that either Occupy is divided or else
the mainstream media, who hasn't been able to wrap its mind around
the reality of what Occupy is, has itself become obsessed with the
issue of demands and lacks the imagination to conceive of any other
way for Occupy to proceed.
I would like to add my voice to the
dialogue. I would suggest that making demands would be very
difficult, if not impossible. Before making any demands, at least 3
questions must be definitively answered: (1) Who is making the
demands?, (2) To whom are the demands made?, and (3) What will be
done in exchange for the meeting of demands? If you do not have the
answers to those questions, then you cannot effectively enter into
any demanding or negotiating. You may as well make your demands to a
wall.
As to the question of who is making the
demands, Occupy presents itself as a movement of the 99%. That means
anyone making demands must be making them for the entirety of the
99%. As I am part of that 99%, for the purposes of informing anyone
seeking to make demands, the two non-negotiable demands that should
be made on my behalf are: (1) The immediate and complete abolition of
the global system of capital, and (2) the immediate and complete
abolition of the United States as an incorporated entity, including
its state subsidiaries. All other points are negotiable for me. Good
luck.
But I think this presents my point
succinctly that it is impossible for anyone to present demands on
behalf of the 99%.
The second question, to whom the
demands are made, is just as complicated. Some in Occupy want banks
restructured, some what recognition of Occupy's right to exist in
public spaces, and some may want the release of secret documents
linking space aliens to the JFK assassination. All of these demands
require negotiation with a variety of different institutions and
governments on many levels. This requires the juggling of millions of
demands issued to thousands of agencies and organizations, and
juggling the various responses. Again, good luck.
And this brings up another issue to
consider, related to power relationships. When issuing a demand,
you're recognizing the authority of the person or entity to grant or
deny the demands. You are, in essence, accepting that they have the
right to exist, and you are seeking resolution with their legitimate
exercise of power. I do not think this can be done on behalf of the
99%, as some of us do not recognize the right of governments, banks,
or corporations to exist. They have no authority; they have the power
to compel.
That brings us to the third question,
what will be done in exchange for the meeting of demands? Before a
representative of Occupy (however that would work) could present
demands (whatever they would be), the representative would have to be
able to guarantee that, when demands are met, Occupy would relinquish
something or give up something, or refrain from something. That is
how demands work.
It must be understood by everyone at
the table that, related to Occupy, if all demands are met, then
everyone involved in Occupy will pack up the tents and apply for work
at WalMart and Starbucks, resuming their shopping at the mall. If
Occupy's representative cannot guarantee the authorities that the 99%
will return to dragging stones up the side of the pyramid when
demands are met, then this is no way to issue demands; the demands
are meaningless because even if they are met, nothing will be
resolved.
For my part, I only hope there are
others as unreasonable as I am, and that they will not resume their
roles as slaves under any conditions, that the system can meet their
demands when it ceases to exist.
So, having presented what I hope is a
brief and effective argument for why demands are an impossible way
forward, I would like to provide an alterative to the heirarchical,
corporate, global-colonizer system (we can just call it “the enemy
system”). It may seem strange to think of Occupy as a system
because it is consciously unsystematic, but it is a system in the
same way that the biosphere is a system, containing a diversity of
life. In many ways, Occupy is the un-system.
All the same, Occupy, as a system, is
facing down an enemy system that does not tolerate alternatives to
itself. How many people do you see foraging, hunting the buffalo and
living in a wigwam? Exactly. The enemy system eliminates
alternatives. It does not play well with others.
Your system, Occupy, cannot co-exist
with the enemy system because the enemy system will attempt to
eliminate you through whatever means are available. It will send its
cops and military to crack your skulls. It will send snitches to
infiltrate you and divide you. It will unleash propaganda to isolate
you and brand you as terrorists. It will then confine you and
neutralize you and maybe kill you.
The reality is this: We have two
systems, opposing cultures, and one will eliminate the other (or, in
the instance of Occupy prevailing, weaken the other system so it no
longer has the power to eliminate you). This is a culture war. That
may not be the term you like, but whatever euphemism you choose, the
reality is what it is. A hostile system is at war against you, and
you can either win or lose.
The longer the enemy system exists, the
more it will harm you. As Ward Churchill, Derrick Jensen, John
Zerzan, and a host of others have pointed out, your interests are
best served by taking down the enemy system as quickly and
effectively as possible. Then we'll all be free to live as we choose,
without interference.
If Occupy is to move forward according
to this model, then I would like to propose 7 principles to guide
Occupy:
Occupy must be led by no one.
Because the enemy system is centralized, hierarchical, and
rigidly structured, Occupy can only defeat it by being what it is
not. Being leaderless, everyone must lead themselves and thus have
the transformative experience that will never again let them become
sheeple. A leaderless Occupy is more difficult to defeat.
Occupy must proceed according to
no plan.
With no leader, no architect, there is no one to herd
Occupy into conformity to a singular plan. Variety and diversity of
tactics forces the enemy system to herd cats. If anyone comes up
with the perfect plan, burn it immediately.
Occupy must have no targeted
end-point.
For reformists seeking to make demands, this point
will be difficult. To proceed with no end-point is to view yourself
as developing a way to live into the future, for yourself and your
children. It implies no compromise, no return to the enemy system.
It says you will live as you live until the enemy defeats you or
goes away.
Occupy must develop a new currency
of support.
The enemy system rewards its supporters with pay that
translates into material goods. You end up with unhappy slaves with
large piles of material stuff.
Occupy must have a different
“currency.” Rather than paying supporters with money that
translates into material goods, Occupy must re-pay supporters with
support. In other words, those who give support will get support.
You are rewarded not with material junk, but with community and
belonging and care and support. Social support must be Occupy's
currency.
Occupy must proceed
incrementally.
Occupy's advantages are its diversity and
decentralization. Each autonomous group can develop its own
strategies and approaches to living, and those efforts will become
part of Occupy's collective knowledge as each group builds upon the
ideas of others and perfects others' failures. This provides a
start-stop-start progress, unlike the enemy system which attempts to
impose one uniform program for success.
Occupy cannot prevail all at
once.
There is no magic button to push to make 8,000 years of
control programming go away. There are, however, a million very
practical buttons to push repeatedly and in no particular order that
will make the control program collapse fairly quickly. It will not
collapse at once but will unravel, faster in some places than in
others. At some point in the future, we will realize the enemy
system has gone away completely.
Occupy must recognize no authority
but its own.
The 99% have no presidents, no representatives, no
congress, no courts. The 99% have no bosses, no bankers, no
managers. The 99% have no joint chiefs, no police, no military. All
of these things are the property of the 1%. They are all components
of the enemy system that we must reject.
By this view, we should
have no illusion of any authority but our own authoriy. We have no
one to negotiate with. There is no one who has authority to “grant”
us the future we strive to construct directly.
I suggest these 7 points as a general
guide. I hope they provide a kind of framework for moving forward
without the reformist model of making demands and negotiating with
the enemy system. It is my hope that these principles can guide
Occupy not only to defeat the enemy system, but also guide Occupy
into the future beyond the enemy system's collapse.
I think these principles shape localized
communities we all deserve.
1 Sean Swain is singularly
stripped of all constitutional protections o n the federal courts'
stated basis that his writings “promote anarch and rebellion
against authoriy.” So if he wrote this, and no one is saying he
did, he cannot have his name associated with his own work for fear of
repression from the fascist police state holding him captive.
In a
free country, this footnote would not be necessary.
