Since the OWS movement was launched in New York two months ago, there has been a steady stream of questions about its nature and purpose. Some of those questions come from people who have similar views as to the present deplorable state of the US economy and political system but are basically puzzled about what OWS is trying to do and the way they are going about doing it. Other people who are raising questions and objections are much more fundamentally hostile to any movement that seeks to rock the boat of the status quo.
One rather obvious approach to the effort of understanding a movement is to look to its sources. In the case of OWS this takes us back to Adbusters and its editor Kalle Lasn. He and several associates are credited with the initial planning that led to the formation of the first general assembly in New York. That general assembly adopted a set of organizational principles based on direct democracy and consensus. As other general assemblies have been established in other cities they have tended to follow the approach outlined in the first declaration. What has emerged is a network of groups based on relationships of "solidarity". It appears that solidarity is being defined as being in essential conformity with the original declaration.
The traditional media have been forced to deal with what is a new organizational form and a movement that has made it impossible to ignore it. The media coverage has varied from hostile to people making an attempt to grasp what is going on. The traditional media approach is to go looking for a spokesperson to interview. When dealing with a movement that considers itself to be "leaderless" that approach presents problems. On several occasions the response has been to interview Kalle Lasn. He seems entirely willing to be interviewed about OWS. Shortly before the eviction from Zuccotti Park he was interviewed by The Guardian where he suggested that the best approach for OWS might be to declare victory and go home for the winter. Today the New York Times has come out with this.
The Branding of the Occupy Movement
Kalle Lasn, the longtime editor of the anticonsumerist magazine Adbusters, did not invent the anger that has been feeding the Occupy Wall Street demonstrations across the United States.
But he did brand it.
Last summer, as uprisings shook the Middle East and much of the world economy struggled, Mr. Lasn and several colleagues at the small magazine felt the moment was ripe to tap simmering frustration on the American political left.
But the spread of the Occupy protests signals a substantial step up for the magazine and Mr. Lasn, who is 69. The protests, he hopes, will “somehow change the power balance and make the world into a much more grass-roots, bottom-up kind of a place rather than the top-down Wall Street mega-corporate-driven system we now have.”
“This,” he added, “is the kind of dream many Occupiers have.”
Mr. Lasn said that he and Micah White, a senior editor who helped start Occupy Wall Street, are in regular contact with some prominent protesters but insists they have no interest in a continuing leadership role, nor is it their job to speak for the movement, even if Adbusters would like some credit for starting it.
“This is what Adbusters has done for the past 20 years, to come up with these memes and to propagate them,” he said. “That’s what it’s all about: may the best memes win.”
Even though the requisite proviso is inserted at the end of the article, he certainly is articulating notions of goals and purpose for the movement.
Meanwhile the movement seems to be devoting most of its energy and resources to fighting a rear guard action in the defense of their encampments against eviction by police. My personal observation is that the direct democracy consensus process is proving to be rather an ineffective organizational approach. The people who are deeply committed to this approach are inclined to become very agitated when suggestions are made about modifying its form and application.
I am not one of the people who thinks that any movement with possible revolutionary overtones is a threat to the American way of life. I think that the American way of life is in serious trouble. What we need is actual practical change. Our traditional political institutions don't seem to be able to respond well to that need. New approaches are likely going to be required. However, I think that some form of leadership and purposeful vision is going to have to emerge. Perhaps OWS will be transformed into something more effective and perhaps not. It may be that other movements with other approaches will emerge.
I've been interested in OWS since its recent inception and have had some on the ground participation in my local area. However, I never signed a pledge of unequivocal support and I am not inclined to do so now.