Occupy and Anarchism's Gift of Democracy
As the history of past movements all make clear, nothing terrifies those running America more than the danger of true democracy breaking out. As we see in Chicago, Portland, Oakland, and right now in New York City, the immediate response to even a modest spark of democratically organised civil disobedience is a panicked combination of concessions and brutality. Our rulers, anyway, seem to labor under a lingering fear that if any significant number of Americans do find out what anarchism really is, they may well decide that rulers of any sort are unnecessary.
Almost every time I'm interviewed by a mainstream journalist about OWS, I get some variation of the same lecture:
"How are you going to get anywhere if you refuse to create a leadership structure or make a practical list of demands? And what's with all this anarchist nonsense – the consensus, the sparkly fingers… ? You're never going to be able to reach regular, mainstream Americans with this sort of thing!"
It is hard to imagine worse advice. After all, since 2007, just about every previous attempt to kick off a nationwide movement against Wall Street took exactly the course such people would have recommended – and failed miserably. It is only when a small group of anarchists in New York decided to adopt the opposite approach – refusing to recognise the legitimacy of the existing political authorities by making demands of them; refusing to accept the legitimacy of the existing legal order by occupying a public space without asking for permission, refusing to elect leaders that could then be bribed or co-opted; declaring, however non-violently, that the entire system was corrupt and they rejected it; being willing to stand firm against the state's inevitable violent response – that hundreds of thousands of Americans from Portland to Tuscaloosa began rallying in support, and a majority declared their sympathies.
This is not the first time a movement based on fundamentally anarchist principles – direct action, direct democracy, a rejection of existing political institutions and attempt to create alternative ones – has cropped up in the US. The civil rights movement (at least, its more radical branches), the anti-nuclear movement, the global justice movement … all took similar directions. Never, however, has one grown so startlingly quickly.
To understand why, we have to understand that there's always been an enormous gap between what those ruling America mean by "democracy", and what that word means to almost anyone else. According to the official version, of course, "democracy" is a system created by the founding fathers, based on checks and balances between president, Congress and judiciary. In fact, nowhere in the Declaration of Independence or Constitution does it say anything about the US being a "democracy". Most defined democracy as collective self-governance by popular assemblies, and as such, they were dead set against it, arguing it would be prejudicial against the interests of minorities (the particular minority that was had in mind here being the rich). They only came to redefine their own republic – modeled not on Athens, but on Rome – as a "democracy" because ordinary Americans seemed to like the word so much.
But what did, and what do, ordinary Americans mean by the word? A system where they get to weigh in on which politicians will run the government? This is what we're always told, but it seems implausible. After all, most Americans loathe politicians, and tend to be skeptical about the very idea of government. If they universally hold it out as a political ideal, it can only be because the American people still sees it, however vaguely, as self-governance – as what the founding fathers tended to denounce as either "democracy" or, as they sometimes also put it, "anarchy".
If nothing else, this would help explain the enthusiasm with which Americans have embraced a movement based on directly democratic principles, despite the uniformly contemptuous dismissal of America's media and political class. Most Americans are, politically, deeply conflicted. They tend to combine a deep reverence for freedom with a carefully inculcated, but nonetheless real identification with the army and police. Few are actual anarchists; few even know what "anarchism" means. It is not clear how many would ultimately wish to discard the state and capitalism entirely.
But one thing overwhelming numbers of Americans do feel is that something is terribly wrong with their country, that its key institutions are controlled by an arrogant elite, that radical change of some kind is long since overdue. They're right. It's hard to imagine a political system so systematically corrupt – one where bribery, on every level, has been made completely legal. The outrage is appropriate. The problem was, up until 17 September, the only side of the spectrum willing to propose radical solutions of any sort was the right. But Occupy Wall Street has changed that: democracy has broken out.
ZNet Articles
Thank You
By Finger, Russell at Nov 19, 2011 14:43 PM
The occupy movement has been a beacon of light that left-leaning change is possible. I've been of the mind that things would have to get worse before enough americans would act out on the ridiculous imbalance of wealth and influence in our country. After being a part of Seattle in 1999 and seeing the amount of change the protest helped to bring, then participating in the disappointing peace marches in 2003, and finally seeing false rhetorical hope brought to the presidency, things seemed bleak. The rise of americans disillusion with politics give rise to the Tea Party was scary since facism seemed close. Occupy has brought back some balance to the dialogue. It has helped to expose the silly, simplistic and overly conservative bias of the corporate media. So many talk up the media's so called liberal bias (that doesn't even exist), but most media outlet's inability to understand or even report effectively on occupy has been instructive to many.
Thanks for your important contributions to the advancement of society.
Power to the People.
Reply this comment
New left party?
By Houston, Nicholas at Nov 20, 2011 07:59 AM
The question is: Why is there no alternative party to the Democrats on the left of American politics?
In most other western countries there are parties on the left that stand in distinction to both the conservative parties and the traditional social democratic parties. Yet despite the effort and energy of the American left, the analysis of the ZNet community, and on-going activist interventions, there appears no place to put an alternative vote that means anything in the United States.
No doubt there are historic reasons for this but perhaps there are not. I would like to tell the following story and put the question to you directly, being very interested in the response.
The need for a new left party
In Australia the Australian Labor Party (ALP) currently forms Government with the Liberal Party forming the Opposition. For translation purposes you can read “Democrats” for the ALP and “Republicans” for the Liberal Party, noting the humorous twist of the conservative party in Australia calling itself the “Liberal Party”. The ALP holds Government through the support of 3 independent Members of Parliament (MPs) and one Green Party MP in the House of Representatives. Ms. Julia Gillard is the Leader of the ALP and is therefore the Prime Minister.
Problems with the ALP and a solution
The situation we face in Australia is not dissimilar to the situation in the USA in that the ALP, the traditional party of social democracy, quietly abandoned its beliefs and left traditions over a 35 year period in favor of a soft neo-liberal ideology. For some time voters did not notice this or link the ALP’s abandonment of its tradition to the rightwards rush of public debate and public policy.
But more recently, perhaps over the last ten years, the Australian Greens (the Greens), an alternative left party, has emerged. The Greens now claim between 10%and 15% of the popular vote in both federal and state elections with this vote likely to increase. In the Federal sphere the popular vote does not generally translate directly into Green seats in House of Representatives (the place where Government is formed) because of “first past the post” electoral laws in that chamber. But in the Senate where candidates are elected proportionally to the vote received, the Greens popular vote in the 2010 election has translated into a strategic bloc of votes.
Parliamentary politics
The situation in the current Parliament is that the Greens with about 15% of the national vote has about 12% of Senate seats, and given the delicate balance between the major parties, this is enough to block Government legislation if the legislation is also opposed by the Opposition. Given that the Opposition generally oppose Government legislation this means the Government needs the support of Green Senators to get anything through the Parliament.
The significance of this is that the left has a voice and a vote in national politics!
Impact on extra Parliamentary politics
This is incredible, and if you stop to think about it, hugely tactically significant.
We are not reduced to campaigning on issues with megaphones from outside the tent, begging right wing ALP politicians to show an ounce of social democratic decency, but actually have a say in the formation of policy and the law. Just as importantly we have a public moral voice on issues such as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, environmental policy, labour rights, taxation, gay marriage, migration, education, welfare, privatisations etc. is backed by about 15% of Australians.
The implications of this are enormous and very positive in just about every sense.
For a start the ALP is under pressure from its left flank and must decide whether it is to return to its social democratic roots or embrace a centre right ideology that is likely to end in electoral annihilation. Then strange new alliances are beginning to emerge between the Greens and previously conservative rural electorates who have themselves been abandoned by the neo-liberal policies of the Liberal Party. Other cosy if not corrupt relationships between unions and the ALP are also being re-examined. But best of all, there is the beginnings of a proper contest of ideas that conservatives must respond to, and this often makes them appear the contradictory fools they are, if I can say that.
The benefits of this new situaton are apparent to everyone who believes in progressive politics with the most encouraging thing being that the Green vote has increased at every election over the last 10 years and this process is not going to stop!
Born in the USA?
Which gets me back to the USA where the abysmal situation seems to be that the left has no voice inside the formal political system at state or national level and very little ability to effect outcomes. The analysis provided by ZNet writers is great, the campaigns run from outside the system seem to be creative, the Occupy Wall Street Movement a delightful breath of fresh air and honest commentary, but there is still no-one to vote for and the impact of these extra parliamentary campaigns would appear to be uncertain into the future.
It is apparent that Obama is not a social democrat but of the centre right, and that the wars are continuing, the banks are saved while the rest of the country goes to the dogs and the rest of it, but still there is no alternative mainstream voice or place to vote.
My open question to all of you who write and contribute to ZNet is this:
Why is there no alternative party to the Democrats on the left of American politics?
And why doesn’t the ZNet community commence a debate with other progressive forces and independent unions aimed at organizing the basis of a political party to contest ideas and elections?
This would be a beautiful work to observe!
Reply this comment