September 17, 2012

Occupy Anniversary


I stand by my assessment that so far Occupy has not been a movement, but rather a set of tactics. As they’ve existed, Occupations could lead by moral and physical example in defying the enclosure of space and redeeming this space for humanity, obstruct specific corporate assaults, obstruct corporatist action in general, force a movement’s existence on the mainstream consciousness, provide an opportunity to publicly articulate a movement philosophy (but not with actual “demands” on the system), force the system to either back down and admit weakness or more openly display its might-makes-right nature and lack of legitimacy.
This set of tactics and instrumental principles could become part of a movement, but it’s not the movement itself. A movement needs a coherent philosophy, goal, and constituency. So far Occupy has lacked these, but has rather professed a vague suite of principles ranging from real rejection of the corporate system to standard “progressive” reformism. It hasn’t articulated an affirmative philosophy, goal, and strategy, nor is it clear for whom it’s taking action.
In the first place all this has to arise indigenously, locally. The constituency and goal will vary from place to place. This intuitive realization in the minds of most participants has served them well in rejecting attempted Democrat Party and NGO hijackings. But in the long run there has to be a comprehensive, organic movement philosophy. Given the facts of energy, ecology, and the proven practical failure and moral malevolence of corporatism, this philosophy can only be total anti-corporatism in its negative aspect, relocalization and positive democracy founded on Food Freedom in its affirmative. Another term for this affirmative is Food Sovereignty.



  1. thanks Russ no disagreement on the assessment of philosophy. However we chose to look at it the philosophy has been rooted in entitlement and civilization has had that dilemma from day one. We are mow more educated than ever and the small percent of wealthy are on the rise in regards to concentration. Our current economic system is controlled by corporatism and capitalism globally we must realize it is only a small percent of the population . order can be restored through redistribution of wealth but the system must promote cash flow which we do not have an economic system large or small is still a system and like the human body we need blood flow to survive the same as an economic system needs cash flow…end results is the same with out flow both systems die.

    Dave Outlaw

    Comment by W David Outlaw — September 17, 2012 @ 10:39 am

    • Cash isn’t blood, but if anything a severe dilutant and coagulant of blood (metaphorically speaking).

      Natural resources + labor = blood.

      The way to restore healthy circulation is to detach organic circulatory systems from the machines that extract most of their corpuscles in order to blood-dope a handful of parasites.

      Put in naturalistic terms, we need to abolish centralized money and relocalize economies on the basis of cooperative exchange (the normal mode of exchange throughout human history). These natural, organic economies can then federate on a democratic, bottom-up, 100% demand-based basis.

      The same goes for politics. So that’s the prescription for all power.

      Comment by Russ — September 18, 2012 @ 6:14 am

  2. I don’t think that history bears you out on the way things work.
    Since when has coherency been a problem for the human animal ?
    Human beings are not rational.
    And when they congregate, they don’t obey the laws of reason, either.
    I don’t think there has to be a systematic, organized, rational philosophy in order to mobilize people. And one should beware of the.. impulses behind our constant clamoring for.. intellectual order.
    Plus… once you FORMALIZE systems, you have paved the way for… dogmatism, and the corruption you so intensely dislike.
    I tend to think that one of the most ancient problems that our Western civilization refuses to face is the role of the negative in our lives..
    So much… positivism can only lead to trouble.

    Comment by Debra — September 17, 2012 @ 11:46 am

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

%d bloggers like this: