So I’ve been tweeting up a storm today on the question of whether #OccupyWallStreet needs to compile a formal list of demands. (Spoiler alert: Nope.) I’m not going to rehash my whole argument here right now, but someone just tweeted something at me that gives me an opportunity to explore a piece of it.
Here’s the tweet, posted in response to me saying that “When people say #OccupyWallStreet needs to articulate demands, they usually mean they want it to embrace their demands.”
@dc_dsa: @studentactivism Partially agree. As Frederick Douglass said, “power concedes nothing without a demand.”
That was pretty well played, I must say. Apt, pithy, and deploying one of my favorite quotes from one of my favorite activists. But let’s look at all of what Douglass said there:
“Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will. Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them, and these will continue till they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress. In the light of these ideas, Negroes will be hunted at the North, and held and flogged at the South so long as they submit to those devilish outrages, and make no resistance, either moral or physical. Men may not get all they pay for in this world; but they must certainly pay for all they get. If we ever get free from the oppressions and wrongs heaped upon us, we must pay for their removal. We must do this by labor, by suffering, by sacrifice, and if needs be, by our lives and the lives of others.”
This is Douglass is at his very best, but when he talks about making a demand he’s talking about planting your feet in the struggle, not drafting a bill of particulars.
The Montgomery bus boycott started out demanding a line separating the whites in the front of the bus from the blacks in the rear, so that black patrons wouldn’t have to give up their seats when the white section filled up. (Rosa Parks was obeying the law when she sat down that day.) Mario Savio made no demands at all in the most famous speech in the history of the American student movement. Malcolm X’s demands shifted weekly, sometimes hourly, and the suffragist and abolitionist movements both encompassed vast, unwieldy coalitions.
Now, I’m not anti-demands in principle. If you happen to be fighting a narrow, single-issue, clearly-defined campaign, then by all means articulate what you’re looking to get. But if you’re not — and Occupy Wall Street isn’t — then any demands you put forward should serve a tactical purpose, and the question of what to demand has to be preceded by a discussion of whether it serves your interests to make any demands at all.
Some folks at Occupy Wall Street want to see Congress overturn the Citizens United decision. Some want to see an end to US military adventurism. Some want to see Nick Kristof’s head on a pike. Would endorsing any one of these demands bring the group together, or would it peel people off from the coalition? If you want OWS to make demands, you’ve gotta have a solid answer to that question.
Some demands are certainly more innocuous than others. I imagine that demanding a financial transaction tax, for instance, wouldn’t in and of itself alienate many people currently in Liberty Plaza, and it might bring a few more on board.
But even if that demand could be approved smoothly and easily and without dissent, would its articulation bring the implementation of such a tax any nearer? I honestly don’t see how it would. A Google search on “transaction tax” and “occupy wall street” already returns more than twenty thousand hits, so the idea is already a big part of the conversation. And it’s not like a formal statement from next Tuesday’s GA is going to upend the legislative dynamic that currently pertains in Washington DC.
No. What’s going to change the dynamic in Washington DC, if anything will, is the continued growth of this movement. If you want to see Occupy Wall Street lead to a transaction tax, you want the movement to grow. If you want it to compel the demise of the legal concept of corporate personhood, you want the movement to grow. If you want it to overthrow global capitalism, you want the movement to grow.
It won’t grow if it’s completely contentless, of course. But it’s not contentless now. The General Assembly passed a “declaration of occupation” a few nights ago, and there’s some real meat there. I said in a recent blogpost that it was my sense that pretty much everyone in Liberty Plaza thought “that something was seriously broken in the American economy, that something was seriously broken in American politics, and that an accelerating concentration of wealth and power in the hands of a small minority was at the root of most of of that brokenness,” and none of the many people who’ve read or linked to that post have yet disagreed.
If you think OWS has no message, you’re just not paying attention.
The OWS critique of our current national (and global) crisis will continue to unfold. Those discussions are ongoing, in a zillion venues. And I’m not convinced that this movement is any less coherent right now than the suffragists at the turn of the century or the lunch-counter sit-in crowd in the spring of 1960 or the London demonstrators over the last few months.
And at any rate the crucial task for Occupy Wall Street right now isn’t coherence, any more than it’s the articulation of specific demands. It’s resonance as an idea, as a movement.
You don’t win by making demands. You win by taking power or by forcing power to bend. Either way your stated demands are peripheral to the outcome — what you demand has only the vaguest relationship to what you win.
11 comments
Comments feed for this article
October 2, 2011 at 7:03 pm
Fletcher Gill
“that something was seriously broken in the American economy, that something was seriously broken in American politics, and that an accelerating concentration of wealth and power in the hands of a small minority was at the root of most of of that brokenness.”
–I agree that it’s better for the OWS movement to remain what it is, a group of people frustrated with the way things are and demanding a change. I don’t always support every cause that brings people to protest outside of Wall Street, but I support this one because I, like most following this, have projected my own frustrations with our system onto their movement. I support this because I’m 25, underemployed, and pissed off at the way things are. I don’t believe much will change but at least the fat cats can see that our generation is no longer buying the “keep your nose clean, work hard, and you’ll be successful” line they sold our parents. If that were true, and all things were equal, there would be more wealthy people in this country and the middle class wouldn’t be vanishing. Change will come eventually because WE will be the change. We will fix what’s broken in America.
steelwoolfanclub.wordpress.com
October 2, 2011 at 8:57 pm
Mr. Bab
Excellent write. My 1st read. Will tune in more often.
Occupy Dallas, Oct. 6th. Save your luck and show support!
October 2, 2011 at 11:30 pm
Admin
Admin reblogged this on EntrprizSol Updates.
October 2, 2011 at 11:32 pm
Admin
Admin reblogged this on EntrprizSol.
October 3, 2011 at 2:09 am
Taryn Hart
What’s going to change the dynamic in Washington DC, if anything will, is the continued growth of this movement. If you want to see Occupy Wall Street lead to a transaction tax, you want the movement to grow. If you want it to compel the demise of the legal concept of corporate personhood, you want the movement to grow. If you want it to overthrow global capitalism, you want the movement to grow.
Case. Closed. That’s exactly right. I really can’t understand the people who feel that this movement should have concrete demands OR those on the Left who believe OWS is ineffective. No! You know what’s ineffective? What we’ve been doing.
October 3, 2011 at 10:30 am
papicek
Agreeing on identifying the problem(s) is just the first step. And that ain’t easy either.
October 3, 2011 at 11:11 am
Zack (@TomJoadsGhost)
How about this demand? “We demand the right to govern ourselves, and we demand that the corrupted power of the state which oppresses us is abolished, and that we the people replace that state with the general assembly”
October 4, 2011 at 1:13 pm
Havlová
Love this post! THANK YOU! I am tired of the ‘critiques’ that are all the same, whether I’m reading Fox News, the New York Times, or ‘lefty’ blogs.
There are important critiques that need to be leveled, but most people seem to miss the point.
You are not missing the point.
October 4, 2011 at 11:06 pm
Patrick
Amen, Zack! Though it may take a few more occupations to get everybody onboard. :)
October 14, 2011 at 8:29 am
Amelia
Nicely done, the insight and conciseness much appreciated.
October 14, 2011 at 9:13 am
The Clean-Up Lure Doesn’t Work… So Far. « News En Rose
[…] which a lot of media outlets are unfairly criticizing the masses. (See some great articles here and here on that.) It matters that the world is watching and potentially changing over this. Even if this […]