OWS and its multitudinous offshoots have captured the imagination of many Americans, seem to be gathering increasing support as measured by public opinion polls, and have crossed the threshhold from being ignored by the mainstream media to semi-respectful coverage.
Many people have observed that the primary task of the movement now is to develop some structure and transform a "let a thousand flowers bloom" philosophy, wherein a wide variety of complaints are aired to one which hones in on a delimited set of objectives that can be readily translated into either legislation or bureaucratic action.
While I heartily agree with the need for such steps, and there is evidence it is beginning to happen, it's also necessary to safeguard this emerging movement from those who would like to, or inadvertently might, strangle it in infancy.
It's been about 40 years since the last great left-of-center mass movements in the US, the ones which addressed the Vietnam war and civil rights for blacks (and women and gay rights to a lesser extent) through direct action. Two of the
bitter lessons learned by activists and sympathizers then might be worth repeating for a new generation.
The first lessons has to do with agents provocateurs. During the 60s, the FBI and local law enforcement infiltrated organizations and demonstrations and deliberately tried to discredit or destroy them. In mass demonstrations, undercover cops, posing as activists, initiated violent confrontations with police or engaged in property destruction in order to provide the ever-obliging mainstream media, with images of dangerous radicals. Within the loose-knit activist organizations of that era government operatives sought to encourage violent tactics and baited those who rejected them as insufficiently committed to "the revolution."
This isn't to say that the frustrations of being unable to achieve movement goals through peaceful direct action did not lead some activists to embrace violence. The Weathermen, an offshoot of SDS, certainly was an authentic, if counter-productive, outgrowth of such frustration when no tactic seemed able to halt an unpopular war. But the emotional satisfaction, and there surely was, in learning of Weathermen sabotage, did nothing to offset the public relations disaster that befell the New Left.
In the OWS protests activists not only have to be worried about government provocacteurs, but possibly those emanating from sophisticated right-wing activists as well, perhaps sponsored by their financial supporters. It wouldn't shock me to learn that the a Koch brothers' front group pays young right-wing thugs to impersonate OWS supporters and provoke violence.
If OWS activists are perceived as being violent any sympathy they might otherwise garner will evaporate in a heartbeat. The conversation will change from one that focuses on their grievances, widely shared in the populace, to their dangerous nature. Thus, it is imperative that participants in OWS actions make the assumption that any violence initiated from their ranks is the work of provocateurs and call them out and isolate them.
This might not always be the case, but the stakes are too high to take a chance. One concrete suggestion is that announcements be made, posters created or leaflets be circulated at actions making this very point.
The second lesson is in many ways the polar opposite of the concern about provocateurs: co-optation. All street protests eventually end, but some last until their goals are achieved and others fizzle prematurely. The latter can occur for a variety of reasons, e.g., waning enthusiasm, massive repression, co-optation. Co-optation can occur for either cynical or idealistic reasons. My concern is the latter form.
During the Spring of 1970 a massive student strike wave, perhaps encompassing half the country's colleges, took place. This extraordinary event followed the Nixon Administration's decision to invade Cambodia and widen the Vietnam war. The enormous display of spontaneous anger shook the Administration and encouraged opponents of the war. But, instead of pushing to expand this mass protest and force Nixon to reverse course on Cambodia and end the war in Vietnam itself, the air was allowed to escape from the balloon by many, on campus, and among the anti-war Democrats in congress. I was teaching at the University of California at Santa Barabara at the time and I recall hearing liberal faculty saying to the assembled strikers "Ok, we've shown the government how angry we can be. Now let's channel that anger into electing Democrats in the fall (1970) elections so we can put pressure on Nixon." They advocated giving students credit for working for candidates.
There was some value in doing that, of course, but it needn't have been an either-or choice. But it turned out to be. The spring semester was coming to a close, students were dispersing or would be and it would have been difficult to maintain a strike when there were only much smaller students taking summer courses. But, when classes resumed in the fall the energy was drained into working for candidates.
Students were given academic credit for doing this kind of political work and there was no resumption of large street demonstrations.
Nixon could relax and he proceeded to conduct the war for another five years.
So, when it comes to OWS, there will definitely be a need to coalesce around specific issues and demands, such as the taxing of financial transactions. But, the presence of a movement in the streets need not and should not evaporate. Only when leaders are pushed by an angry and visible citizenry AND have concrete demands that are presented to presidents and legislators, who can't easily ignore them, is progress possible. If OWS acitivity simply becomes siphoned into bodies for Obama's re-election campaign, which no doubt is what the Administration wants, Obama might get re-elected and renege, as he largely has, on the populist rhetoric that he used so effectively in 2008 and has polished off for 2012.