This video was developed by the Real News Network.

The Occupy Movement has taken much of its inspiration from Spain’s “Outraged” Movement: what lessons does Spain have for Occupy now?

Transcript

PROTESTOR (through megaphone): “On May 15th, the citizens of this country – free, conscious and outraged!”

NOAH GIMBEL: Before Adbusters called on activists to Occupy Wall Street, thousands of Spaniards set up camp in Madrid’s iconic Puerta del Sol, and in public squares across the country. Now, as the occupy movement around the U.S. sets its sights on the longer term struggle for social and economic justice with movements like Take Back the Land and Occupy Our Homes, the Spanish experience has valuable lessons to offer what is now a globalized popular front.It started in Spring 2011 as the economic crisis in Spain worsened. A small group of activists sought to unify the country’s disparate social movements behind a common cause. They launched Democracia Real Ya – Real Democracy Now – and called for a day of action on May 15th for all people to express their dissatisfaction with the status quo. Miguel Yarza, one of the spokespeople for the group, was a founding member.

MIGUEL YARZA: “Everyone in Spain was saying how bad the situation was, and that something needed to be done, but nobody did anything. So what that demonstration achieved was to join together the complaints of the society at large and bring a huge number of people into the streets. The following days, people camped in the Puerta del Sol, not from any initiative of DRY, but in a manner in which people decided to do so spontaneously. So that’s how this whole movement, known as 15-M, was born in Madrid. We have arrived at an absolutely critical situation, and we start to hear the blame cast on the fact that Spaniards are living beyond their means. But if you ask anyone, they will respond that first, Spaniards haven’t been living beyond their means, second, they comply with everything they’re asked to do – they’ve bought houses like they were told by the political class – a political class whose responsibility should be to protect the people they are supposed to represent – a job they have never done. So we have ended up in a very serious crisis, with an unemployment rate almost twice that of the next European country. And this type of protest generates more and more people, discontent with the situation, fully conscious of its seriousness, knowing that things can change.”

GIMBEL: The encampment at the Puerta del Sol lasted until August 2, when the national police evicted protesters and closed the iconic central plaza to the public, turning it into a parking lot for police vans. A number of demonstrators and journalists were seriously injured by often-unprovoked police violence. The eviction brought even more people into the streets demanding that public space be restored to the public, which it was after several days of demonstrations.While the encampment was not restored, the movement continued its activities in other ways, most notably by joining forces with the Plataforma Afectados por la Hipoteca – a group founded in early 2009 to promote solidarity among people who couldn’t pay their mortgages. They began to mobilize to stop evictions in November 2010. By May 15th they had successfully paralyzed some 20 evictions. Since May 15th, that number has reached 116. The movement got another burst of energy as it spread around the world with the October 15th call to action that came to be known as Occupy Everywhere. The October 15th protests drew a half a million people into the streets of Madrid and another quarter of a million in Barcelona. This time, though, instead of camping in public squares, protestors took over an abandoned hotel.

YARZA: “There was a lot of controversy, most notably around the hotel just down the street from here. It was occupied the 15th of October, the police evicted the occupation in early December. The hotel had many floors, and the various floors were dedicated to, for example, the housing office for people who had had their homes foreclosed because they couldn’t pay their mortgages, they let them live there in the hotel throughout the occupation. Evidently, the state doesn’t meet its obligations. Article 47 of the Spanish Constitution specifically obliges the state to guarantee dignified housing to all citizens. And there is no dignified housing. People get thrown out of their houses and are forced to sleep in a car. So if the state doesn’t provide, we are trying to ourselves. And we are perfectly legitimate in so doing, because what we are doing is trying to realize what is laid out in the constitution.This is very serious – the basic laws are not followed, and human rights are not respected. And if you read the preface to the Declaration of Human Rights, it says that the citizen has the ultimate right to rebellion. So if human rights are not observed, if the constitution is not observed, naturally, it becomes necessary to rebel against this system that prevents you from living with dignity.”

GIMBEL: The public appropriation of unused and abandoned buildings also has precedent in Spain. Throughout the capital, and around the country, groups and individuals have taken part in a many types of occupations, ranging from state-sanctioned takeovers of public properties lacking funding, to the clandestine occupation of empty apartments in direct confrontation with established notions of private property.The now iconic social center known as La Tabacalera belongs in the former category. In the diverse neighborhood of Lavapiés, the former tobacco factory has been converted into a self-sustaining popular space for art, music, gardening, social gathering and political assembly. Other occupied spaces exist knowingly outside the law. Some seek to house families and individuals who lose their homes to foreclosure, others seek to create radical spaces from which to advance alternatives to dominant social norms. Few of these spaces grant access to journalists.But all of these forms of resistance to the socio-economic inequality engendered by neoliberal corporatism have something to offer their international counterparts. And that is one of the primary tasks currently being undertaken by Democracia Real Ya and the 15-M movement.

YARZA: “Now we are making great efforts to expand the movement outside of Spain, we have partners working in the US, in Sydney, in New Zealand, in different European countries, we participate in whatever conferences there are, because it’s very important to generate a critical spirit in society and culture to eliminate the conformity that prevails, and bring about change.Even in the U.S. it’s mainly the same – very many people, totally desperate, are living well below the poverty line. So I think in that sense it is very important to expand these movements beyond borders. Because the economy is global, speculation is global, the great fortunes invest their money all over the world. Markets – well, ‘markets,’ ‘markets’ are a group of investors who, if they go against the Euro, if they go against whatever, it’s because they make more money, not because of anything to do with confidence. So what we have is a group of speculators who are attacking the Euro solely for their own benefit. So here there should be a series of laws that regulate exactly this type of activity to avoid this tie of attacks. But in a fully neoliberal system as the one that exists, this doesn’t happen. So what we are doing is to fight against this very society in general.”

GIMBEL: Part of that fight is to affect real change to the political system and achieve real representation in government’s dominated by narrow special interests.

YARZA: “If you vote for a third party, you won’t be represented. One of our principle battles is for a more just electoral law under which everyone will be represented. We’ve also achieved things politically. For example, the city of Leganés was discussing the inclusion of people from “Plataforma Afectados por la Hipoteca” (affected by mortgage) and the 15-M movement in the actual political commission. Indirectly, it has been notable in the villages, at the local level, etc., that there have been great repercussions with respect to the movement.Right now we’re in a more pedagogic, educative phase, teaching the people what rights they have, bringing the movement to other countries, but most of all generating a critical spirit that is lacking in our society.”

GIMBEL: Affecting the political system poses massive challenges, especially with the recent ascent of the right-wing Popular Party to full majority power in November promising to impose harsh austerity measures in order to cut government debt.

YARZA: “And sadly, the PP is going to help us a lot: by making these cuts, what they are going to achieve is much more protest. People will become conscious that we are all responsible for putting into power irresponsible people, people who lie continually, and these cuts only drive this point. So we are looking to reach a critical mass of people to protest and exercise direct influence.”

GIMBEL: But as the movement moves forward, as much in Spain as in the U.S., it is important to recognize its failures and setbacks and learn from them.

YARZA: “The foremost principal error is that people come with great hopes right from the start, and after a little while, they burn out and get tired thinking that this won’t be a slow process. So what we tell to all of those who participate in our activities is to pace themselves.The second error lies in the smaller groups that have broken off from the starting point of the movement. And this is an error that has always divided the working class, differentiating ourselves into groups. To focus on our differences accomplishes nothing. The important thing is to look at all the things that unite us – we are an immense majority with a lot of diversity – and then ignite a critical spirit. We oughtn’t go about trying to impose our solutions and our way of thinking, instead we should listen. The art of debating, as we practice in the assemblies, is an art of listening, listening to people and learning that they have different perspectives, which then enriches your own perspective. Thus you can be strong and steadfast in the future rather than have your efforts slowly die off…So to realize that however small you feel, what gives us power are these connections and the ability to work together, and most of all to share the information that we have.”

GIMBEL: For the Real News, I’m Noah Gimbel in Madrid.

This video is from the Real News Network and posted on January 13, 2012.

PAUL JAY, SENIOR EDITOR, TRNN: Welcome to The Real News Network. I’m Paul Jay in Washington.

Occupied Wall Street isn’t occupying on Wall Street as much these days, but they have branched out. We’ve done stories on Occupied actions in Bronx, dealing with people that had been foreclosed or occupying houses. And Occupied movement across the country is taking up different issues as the movement matures. One of those issues is immigration.

Now joining us from New York City is Thanu Yakupitiyage, and she is an activist in Occupied Wall Street. She’s been one of the working groups dealing with immigration questions. Thanks for joining us, Thanu.

THANU YAKUPITIGAGE, OWS IMMIGRANT WORKER JUSTICE WORKING GROUP: Hi. Thanks for having me.

JAY: So just quickly talk about the process of how Occupied Wall Street started developing these working groups, and then moving beyond Wall Street. And then we’ll kind of dig into the immigration question.

YAKUPITIYAGE: I got involved in Occupy Wall Street at the end of September. A friend of mine named Henna, who is a Muslim and a Hijabi, she really wanted me to come, and so we went to the first general assembly together. And that’s when I sort of just got curious about what Occupy Wall Street was about.

I think myself and lots of people were really actually quite cynical about what this movement was, and it seemed from the get-go actually really to be a very white middle-class movement. It was a lot of white young people involved. And I think a lot of people had questions about, like, how that would actually impact people of color and immigrants.

And so I was actually part of a group of four or five other people of color who—in one of the general assemblies in the beginning of September, they were trying to pass the Declaration of the Occupation of New York City, and we found it to not really have a racial justice lens and really be conscious of the fact that communities of color and immigrants in the United States have actually faced a lot of these frustrations in regards to unemployment and the greed of Wall Street and corporations for decades, and this isn’t something that has just happened right now in this moment. So we actually were able to change some of the language in the Declaration of the Occupation of New York City to reflect more racial justice language.

JAY: What’s an example of that?

YAKUPITIYAGE: the initial language in the declaration said “the occupiers no longer divided by race, sexuality, gender,” etc. And this particular line we found to be really not reflective of the actuality of inequity and inequality in the United States.

JAY: ‘Cause it sounds like a post-racial society.

YAKUPITIYAGE: Precisely. It was very post-racial draft of the declaration. It presumed that everyone in that general assembly was the same, that we all came from the same background, and that we were all frustrated in the same light. And from our perspective (and, you know, for many of my friends, we come from racial justice organizing backgrounds) that isn’t the case. The fact of the matter is that communities of color in New York City and across the country have faced inequity and inequality at a larger rate than white communities in the U.S. That’s just a fact. And so we—and while it was important to capitalize on this movement of Occupy Wall Street, it’s also important to reflect the realities of what’s happening.

JAY: Well, what was the new wording?

YAKUPITIYAGE: So the new wording—we actually ended up having quite a big argument with the person who had written it, and it was a really frustrating conversation where he just—he said, well, we’re all equal, we should act like we’re all equal. And I said that we can’t put out the first document, the first official document of Occupy Wall Street with post-racial language. We’re not going to be taken seriously. How are you going to create a movement that actually includes people of color? So we actually decided—if you actually go and read the declaration now, the entire sentence around “we the occupiers no longer divided by race, sexuality” has been stricken out. So we—even though it seems like a small change, it actually was really, really significant, because it changed the direction of the declaration as a whole.

JAY: Right. So let’s move ahead. Now, you’re working—there are various working groups on different issues. You’re involved in maybe more than one, but you’re involved in the immigration one. And I know you’ve mentioned to me before that the group has not yet met and you’re not—so you’re not going to speak on behalf of the group. So let me just ask you this question. President Obama has not been very—done very well on the immigration question, according to most immigration activists I’ve talked to. Deportations are at a record level. On the other hand, Mitt Romney is even proposing even more draconian measures. As South Carolina comes up, he’s revving up the, you know, militant talk about immigrants and deporting immigrants and such. How do you think you think the Occupied movement should respond to this coming year, which is going to be elections and all the rest?

YAKUPITIYAGE: Right. So, first of all, the OWS Immigrant Worker Justice Group, it met once this year so far, but I wasn’t able to attend that meeting. But we’ve been meeting since early October, so we’ve been doing a lot of work. We did a major teach-in around immigrant rights and Occupy Wall Street. And on December 18, which was International Migrants Day, we were the ones who organized the International Migrants Day March in association with Occupy Wall Street.

In regards to your question, I think it’s really—it’s a hard question, because it’s sort of like being between a rock and a hard place with immigration these days, particularly in the U.S. On the one hand, you have President Obama, who has made all these promises in the last three years in regards to immigrants and has not delivered. In the three years of his administration, as you say, he has deported over 1 million immigrants. But the ways in which he’s been trying to make up for the fact that he hasn’t been able to pass or even get to comprehensive immigration reform is to pass too small—to make too small changes.

So in August there was a change in prosecutorial discretion policy, which basically means that now ICE officials—deportation officials, essentially—that they can review cases on a discretion basis. And so cases such as that of DREAMERS, young undocumented people who are detained and could be deported, they are considered lower priority. And so DREAMERS are more likely to get a stay than people who the Obama administration consider criminals. So that was one change.

And another change, which was recently, in the last week, was a shift in the three- or ten-year bar rule. So, now, this is a proposal that the Obama administration has made to change the three- or ten-year bar rule, which would basically make it so that undocumented people who have documented relatives, in order to adjust their status—. If they were to leave, there technically is a three- or ten-year bar on them entering the country again. But if you can show that your documented family member basically cannot live without you, they can give you basically a waiver so that you can apply for your green card from outside of the U.S., and it would be a speedier process. So this is—in the last week is a new proposal that the Obama administration has made.

JAY: So these are some small changes that are better than nothing, but this hasn’t been a great record.

YAKUPITIYAGE: Yeah. I mean, it’s better than nothing, but it’s so—it’s miniscule, and on the scale of the fact that over 1.6 million people have been deported. So what I think that the Occupy Wall Street movement really needs to do is to really, you know, take immigration on as a very large issue. And the way in which OWS has been doing work around immigration is there was a case of a Bangladeshi taxi driver, Ahmed, who was almost deported, and the entire Occupy Wall Street movement did get behind that and was able to stop his deportation. And the OWS movement has been very supportive of the immigrant worker rights working group.

However, I think my one criticism of Occupy Wall Street is that people end up just being in their working groups and then not necessarily collaborating as much as they can. And so I think what’s frustrating for me, as someone who is interested in issues of politics and, you know, shifting neoliberal agendas, is how do you make it so that people of color and immigrants are actually at the center of the movement and not always on the margins trying to force their way in, which I think is my critique of Occupy Wall Street to this day.

JAY: Now, there was, at various times over the last year or two, upsurges in the movement for immigrants’ rights, mostly, if I understand correctly, led by people of color and immigrants, and some of those marches in various cities were enormous. I mean, do you get a sense that’s coming back? And is that relating to Occupied Wall Street in one way or the other?

YAKUPITIYAGE: Yeah. I mean, I think that what the OWS Immigrant Worker Justice Group really is doing is also striving to push forward an immigrant movement that is as large as the 2006 movement. In 2006, millions and millions of people across the country were out on the streets pushing for immigration reform. But in 2006, the reason why that many people came out on the street was because of the Sensenbrenner bill, which passed the House but didn’t end up passing the Senate. And that would have basically criminalized aiding undocumented immigrants at all. So that was the big push because of the Sensenbrenner bill.

But it’s really interesting, because since 2006 and since this move—pushback against the Sensenbrenner bill, there’s been multiple anti-immigrant bills, but they’ve been state-based. So Arizona’s SB 1070. In January, South Carolina’s SB 22 has gone into effect. That was then signed into law by Senator Nikki Haley. Alabama’s HB 56.

JAY: Some of that was blocked by a federal judge, wasn’t it?

YAKUPITIYAGE: Yes. So SB 1070 is being looked at by the Supreme Court now. And South Carolina’s bill, some of it has been blocked. Alabama’s bill, I think, as well, some of it is under review. But since SB 1070, there really has been this—since SB 1070, copycat bills in different states came about.

JAY: Right. But there’s lot to this subject, obviously, and it’s something we can talk about and I think we should talk about many times over the next few months. But just to end off, just give me your take on the DREAM Act, ’cause I know it’s a little controversial. Some immigrants rights activists we’ve talked to even say they like it and they think it should be passed, and others don’t like the provision that it kind of encourages young people to go into the military. What’s your take?

YAKUPITIYAGE: I don’t think the DREAM Act is perfect legislation. However, I work with undocumented youth on a daily basis, I know a lot of undocumented youth in New York City, and the DREAM Act really is their only option in order to get the kind of education that they want. The youth that I work with, even though the DREAM Act, the federal DREAM Act does have the military segment to it, the young people that I work with, they want the DREAM Act to pass for the education provision. I do know that there are some DREAMERS who are interested in the military provision, but in terms of all the undocumented youth that I work with, they do not talk about that military provision. I think that—you know, I mean, just recently Mitt Romney, in a lot of his immigration rhetoric, has said that if the DREAM Act did pass the Senate, that he would veto it, which is just unbelievable to me because of all the issues—the issue of undocumented youth, and the fact that some of these kids have been here from the age of four, five, six, have gone through the entire American school system at the age of 18 to be told that they can’t go to college. That’s not fair. That’s a human rights issue.

And so I work with undocumented youth in New York City, and what a lot of youth are—after the DREAM failed to pass in the Senate in 2010, there was a lot of discouragement, because the DREAM movement has really been, you know, pushed forward by undocumented youth—you know, with the help of advocates, but it really has been a youth-led movement. But I think what was really incredible about 2011 was that a lot of these undocumented youth were like, no, we’re going to keep going and we’re going to push to get what we want. And so in 2011, California passed the California state DREAM Act, and New York, I think, is looking into—or advocates in New York are looking into what a New York State DREAM Act would look like. At the very least there should be tuition assistance for students regardless of status, and that’s something that is happening in New York. And the regents—the board of regents has said that they would support that in New York. And so right now I think the strategy has been a state-by-state DREAM Act strategy. But, of course, there’s—continues to be a push for the federal DREAM Act. And Harry Reid, he did reintroduce it in the summer of 2011, and he continues to reintroduce it. I have hope that it will eventually pass. I know that there’s a lot of criticisms around the military component, and we can get into an entire conversation about, like, what really radical immigration reform looks like.

JAY: Well, why don’t—we’ll do that next time. But thanks for joining us. And we will do this many times over the next few months. Thanks again.

YAKUPITIYAGE: Thank you so much.

JAY: And thank you for joining us on The Real News Network.

YAKUPITIYAGE: Thanks.

WELCOME TO D.C.

“Occupy is not a panacea, but an opening. It will help us clear the way to a more mature political landscape. It has begun to breathe in the many currents of dissatisfaction and breathe out a new radical imagination.” Vijay Prashad

The question of what the “Occupy” movement is has concerned us ever since it spread to Washington D.C. in October of last year. After witnessing Occupy Wall Street’s tremendous growth in New York, we were inspired to see for ourselves the potential for radical mobilization in our city, where the corporate and state arms of global capital meet. The seat of power in the United States, D.C. has a long history as a center for protest, frequently drawing in activists from all over the country. It is also home to 600,000 legislatively and electorally disenfranchised residents, who have been engaged in their own unique struggles. Occupy D.C. had (and in some respects still has) exciting potential to work in solidarity with these community struggles and catalyze radical growth here and around the country.

From day one, we spent considerable time at Occupy D.C.’s chosen encampment, McPherson Square, a quiet park situated two blocks from the White House on K St. (this location was strategic and symbolic, as downtown K St. is recognized for its concentration of corporate headquarters and lobbying firms.) As anarchists committed to direct democracy, we helped build up the Facilitation committee and worked to implement consensus building processes at general assemblies, spokescouncils, and working groups. We watched the occupation grow quickly from a small group of no more than fifty people making and holding signs, to a “tent city” practicing mutual aid, with free medical care, a free kitchen, and its own library, among other things. Marches grew from ten or twenty people with poorly coordinated chants to hundreds of marchers taking the streets, blocking traffic, and barricading or taking over targeted buildings.

Occupy represented an exciting, transformative moment that saw rage and disillusion fuse with direct action tactics in a strike against oppressive institutions. It brought together hundreds of strangers who might have never worked together, deeply inspired and reinvigorated many burned-out activists, and fostered the development of leadership among a new generation of young radicals—all while helping change the national discourse around inequality. But the movement also has flaws, some quite serious, and they merit further examination.

It was many of these shortcomings that resulted in our very intentional abstention from Occupy D.C. Having stepped back from McPherson, we want to critically reflect on these past few months. 2012 will be a crucial year for popular uprising, as revolutions continue around the world, and as the U.S. gears up for the most expensive presidential election in history. We can learn a lot from the Occupy movement—its successes and failures—and use that experience to keep building momentum and guide popular discontent toward revolutionary struggle.

ON REVOLUTION AND LIBERALISM

The Occupy movement—sometimes referred to as the “American Autumn’—was self-consciously inspired by the Arab Spring, especially the uprisings in Tahrir Square. But while the two can be regarded as part of the same global uprising against oppressive regimes, the former has fallen short of the revolutionary character of the latter. To reach their revolutionary moment, Egyptians struggled against Mubarak’s dictatorship for decades and took advantage of a series of escalating grievances to mobilize mass populations and build a real democracy. They made, and continue to make, real blood sacrifices to achieve these goals—sacrifices that we have not made.

What is this moment, then, if not revolutionary? Occupy is a populist movement that the Left can participate in for the first time in decades. The tagline “We are the 99%” and protests against corporate personhood tap into populist rage against capitalist excesses and income inequality.

The political ambiguity of the Occupy movement—its resistance to partisan affiliations, to formulating specific demands, and to establishing a political platform—allowed people with widely varying ideologies to find points of unity and work together where they might not have otherwise. This was a welcome change to the notorious sectarianism of the American Left. Nonetheless, maintaining a radical character for the movement was a struggle, and we often found ourselves resisting liberal politics within it.

One of the ways this manifested was in tensions over Occupy DC’s relationship with the police. For the first few weeks, before the General Assembly decided to amend it, one of the occupation’s guidelines was “Obey the law.” On many occasions, sometimes through “official” ODC channels, occupiers publicly commended the police for escorting us on marches or for restraining themselves from beating us; once, some occupiers went so far as to propose a “Police Appreciation Day”. This prompted desperately needed conversations, which created opportunities for people from marginalized communities to share personal stories of police brutality. Still, even as the police became increasingly repressive, the question of whether or not they were part of “the 99%” remained contentious.

At least that was a debate, but the movement was also largely and almost unquestioningly dominated by a narrative of American exceptionalism: that ours is a Great Nation that has only recently been “hijacked” by corporations, with appeals to the Constitution or the Founding Fathers rather than universal human rights. American flags sprang up all around McPherson and were proudly waved during marches. It seemed that most were motivated by a desire to “take our country back” and restore a broken system without asking whether that system worked for all of the 99% to begin with.

Worse yet, it wasn’t uncommon to hear people say straight out that racism had become a secondary problem, a thing of the past, now superseded by economic oppression. These are just a few examples, all of which are inherently privileged perspectives that are completely alienating to people who are still oppressed for their non-dominant identities, for whom economic disenfranchisement is nothing new, who have been terrorized by the police in their own communities, who have been denied citizenship and thus have no country to reclaim, or who are victims of globalization and imperial war. These oppressive narratives endured amid calls for revolution, and most occupiers seemed oblivious to the contradiction.

ON COLLECTIVE LIBERATION AND SAFE(R) SPACES

“If you have come here to help me, then you are wasting your time. But if you have come because your liberation is bound up with mine, then let us work together.” Lilla Watson

Collective liberation is a fundamental principle of our political practice. It means dismantling hierarchy, resisting oppressive dynamics, and checking privilege so that all marginalized people and their allies can be empowered to work together in shared struggle. We believe collective liberation is essential to radical movement building, so we sought to help implement these principles at McPherson Square, with varying levels of success.

One of the familiar slogans during the early days of our occupation was “Welcome to this liberated park.” At first, it did feel like a liberated space, with spontaneous teach-ins and workshops on anti-oppression, nonviolent resistance, and revolutionary leftist history. However, following repeated incidences of racism, misogyny, and homophobia, it became clear that Occupy D.C. was not a safe space for everyone. To address this problem, the People of Color and White Allies working groups worked together to formulate a statement of grievances and call for solidarity with non-dominant communities. The purpose of this letter was to introduce a critical, intersectional analysis of the systems of oppression that these communities have been fighting against for centuries, long before economic disenfranchisement became a reality for middle-class white Americans.

With collective liberation as our guiding principle, we pushed to build a greater body of politics of solidarity, in direct actions and personal practice. Many of the folks of color banded together to intervene on political projects that they felt did not adequately represent their struggles. There was tremendous personal and political growth of young white people who became solid allies with politics grounded in anti-oppression.

Unfortunately, the politics of solidarity and revolutionary responsibility do not resonate with everyone, and in an open park, it is nearly impossible to guarantee a completely safe space. We realized this early on and focused on creating a safe-as-possible space. The Safe Occupation working group created guidelines on ensuring safety at the park, but there wasn’t any real enforcement of them. We also failed to cultivate a mentality that each person at the park is responsible for their fellow occupiers’ safety; this responsibility did not just lie with De-escalation and Safe Occupation. The Safe Occupation working group took on multiple future incarnations that were more successful in ensuring that the principles of safer spaces were adopted by the entire community.

But for as long as there is a physical occupation with no real semblance of community accountability and a shared moral value system, there will be a litany of serious problems that plague the movement. While some well-intentioned individuals have stepped up to help address these problems, the difficult task of fundamentally shifting the oppressive culture at camp will remain so unless there is a critical mass of helpers.

WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?

In an interview with Naomi Klein, NYC-based organizer Yotam Marom stated, “We’re in a unique moment in the development of a movement that’s not only a protest movement against something but also an attempt to build something in its place. It is potentially a very early version of what I would call a dual-power movement, which is a movement that’s, on the one hand, trying to form the values and institutions that we want to see in a free society, while at the same time creating the space for that world by resisting and dismantling the institutions that keep us from having it.” In D.C., much like in NYC, we are faced with this dualism, but we also have some unique characteristics, as one of the last standing physical occupations and as the nation’s Capitol, that require a nuanced course of action and analysis.

For Occupy D.C., it is important to keep reminding ourselves that physical occupation of a federal park is just a tactic, the effectiveness of which needs to be continually revisited, especially if we intend to build a broad-based movement. At some point, we went from being an encampment around a movement to being a movement around an encampment. How can we refocus and remember our original, radical intent and our politics of solidarity? If this tactic of physically occupying public spaces will be used again in 2012, then we need to ensure that communities in future camps create an echo chamber around intolerance for all oppressive and abusive behaviors.

Winter is here and the spring of our hope is not too far away. This is the time for us to reflect as individuals and as a collective as to what our vision for the radical transformation of society looks like and what tangible steps can be taken to achieve that. This is the time to have the difficult conversations around supporting reform struggles as revolutionaries. This is the time to step back and critically evaluate what our successes and failures have been thus far. This is the time to realize we are in one of the most politically, historically, and demographically vibrant cities in Washington D.C. and we should challenge our collective radical imagination to build people power in communities beyond McPherson Square.

Towards liberation!

Drew Franklin is an activist from D.C. who has been involved in prisoner solidarity work. He was on the Facilitation Team at Occupy DC.

Vasudha Desikan is a DC-based activist who was involved in the Facilitation Team and People of Color Working Group at Occupy DC.

This piece – written by  Max Rameau of Movement Catalyst, M Adams of Take Back the Land and Brittany Scott of the National Economic and Social Rights Initiative – originally appeared on the NESRI blog.

There is an overwhelming consensus right now that we face a severe market failure with regard to housing. One industry expert recently testified before Congress that, unless something is done about it, 8 to 10 million more homeowners will lose their homes to foreclosure(1). That is 1 in 5 owners with an outstanding mortgage, and in addition to the 8 million owners who have already lost their homes to foreclosure since 2007.

As community organizations, the Occupy movement and the general public begin to refocus their attention towards this crisis, “fixing” the market through mortgage principal reductions is one proposal for stemming the tide of foreclosures that has been gaining some political traction. Even the 50 Attorneys General included a form of this demand in talks to settle the lawsuits filed against the Wall Street banks accused of robo-signing documents and other financial shenanigans. The theory is that by allowing for cuts in mortgage balances – debt relief – homeowners will pay less monthly, which will result in fewer foreclosures.

Certainly, principal reduction is a necessary form of relief for many families hard-hit by the foreclosure crisis – many were targeted for risky and predatory loans by banks in pursuit of quick profits. However, while principal reduction is an essential feature of addressing market excesses and fraudulent lending practices, principal reduction alone is woefully insufficient in addressing the much broader housing crisis. Certainly, it can do nothing for the rent-burdened, the unemployed, the underpaid, and the displaced.

Despite new national attention on the market’s failures related to the foreclosure crisis, there has been little critique of the underlying paradigms and policies that facilitated massive displacement throughout countless communities in the first place. What’s more, while we hear the roar of outrage about individual and widespread cases of fraud and misconduct on the part of Wall Street firms, there continues a deafening silence on the lack of policies and programs required to ensure sufficient stocks of stable and affordable housing for low and middle income households.

In this context, it becomes increasingly clear that the real crisis here is not one of housing, in which artificially high mortgage principals are the cause, but one of human rights, in which the housing crisis is merely a symptom.

Even as we discuss the relative merits of principal reduction, Congress is voting on whether to essentially sell off what little remains of our publicly supported affordable housing infrastructure to the same giants of real estate responsible for the housing crisis. This will be just the latest iteration in a 30-year trend of deregulation and divestment policies that have led to massive demolitions, forcible evictions, and the destabilization of entire communities. As a result, chronic homelessness and serial displacement have become normalized in the name of “housing as real estate.”

Housing is not just a commodity or even a mere shelter; it is the very foundation of family stability, personal belonging and community. It is a basic need and a human right.

With 25 million Americans unemployed or underemployed, it is widely apparent that the market is ill-equipped to provide basic and decent housing for those that need it most, let alone ensure much-needed stability for individuals and families facing hard times. In fact, deregulation has allowed banks and real estate giants to wildly exploit our need for housing. Consequently, today, rental prices are on the rise, though good jobs and wages are not!

This is the time to think big, not small. To address causes, not just symptoms. Now is our opportunity to re- examine relationships to land and housing, as well as the role of banks and government. Principal reduction is an important first step, but it is not enough to deal with the root causes and scope of this housing crisis. With the mass of humanity and morality on the side of the 99 percent, we have the potential to secure the human right to housing for all Americans by demanding a system that is universal, equitable, and sustainable.

These are exciting times as we build a movement to make this a better world for the 99 percent, but what will our movement be remembered for?

Can we develop the kinds of solutions that address the deepest inequities within our housing system? When we look at housing, can we change the question that is asked from, “How can I increase market value?” to one that recognizes the inherent social values in land and housing? Will we seek to maximize profit or the peace, dignity and stability of our homes and communities?

We must attain, but we cannot settle for, principal reduction. We must fight for the kind of housing policies that ensure housing is elevated to the level of a human right.

(1) See, e.g., 9/20/2011 Testimony of Laurie S. Goodman, Amherst Securities Group to the Subcommittee on Housing, Transportation and Community Development of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs.

This interview was originally posted on Making Contact in November 2011.

Since the first US encampment on Wall Street, hundreds of others have emerged outside of banks and city halls across the nation. The Occupy movement has called on millions of Americans to take to the streets and call for change, but what exactly is this movement about?

This round-table discussion featuring Maria Poblet, executive director of Just Cause/Justa Causa; Steve Williams, co-executive director/co-founder of POWER; and Needa B, participant of Occupy Oakland, takes a closer look at Occupy from the perspectives of community organizing. It explores the meaning and tactics of the movement, and asks whether Occupy is the seed to long-term systemic change.

This piece originally appeared on Pennsylvania from Below.

“Movements begin with the telling of untold stories” says the slogan of Philadelphia-based Media Mobilizing Project. Their work over the past six years has united union members, students and community organizations with the goal of building a movement to end poverty. To hear how their work relates to Occupy Wall Street’s “We are the 99%” message, Pennsylvania from Below interviewed Carmen Cuadrado, a member of MMP.

How is the idea of “We are the 99%” from Occupy protests connected to MMP’s work?

It’s very much connected. The banks took from us, and they got a big bailout. I mean, the inequality of life—of human beings—that’s where we stand and see eye-to-eye, I believe. We want justice.

How did you get involved with MMP?

I was with this organization called Community Leadership Institute, that was run by Rosemary Cubas, who unfortunately passed away. She started a network and MMP was in that network, and so was I.

What did the CLI do? 

Rosemary Cubas was in the community in North Philly, in the West Kensington area, and her main issues were inequality and housing. The city was doing eminent domain in the early 2000′s—they were taking people’s houses from them and primarily people that didn’t speak any English. They’d take their homes, and the people would get only like 10 or 12 thousand dollars for their homes.

Rosemary Cubas stopped the eminent domain in this area, and as a matter of fact she ended up having to go to the supreme court to fight for somebody’s house, which they won.

Why did you join?

Actually my house was on the list, but I didn’t know about it until after this issue! I joined Community Leadership Institute because I knew that it was needed in the area, and I’d seen that redevelopment was just a way of moving us—the low income families—out of our neighborhood.

At one time, this area was considered ‘blighted’. They had a plan for this area, and they really wanted us out. I found that there was a need for everybody to get together and fight for our homes, ‘cause they were taking them. So yes, even my mother’s house was put on that list, too. Because Rosemary Cubas took up this fight, our homes are still here.

Will the message of the Occupy movement help MMP’s work?

Oh, of course it will. People are more willing to listen and to know that they can make some changes, because now, even on television, you have never heard them speaking like they speak now about the poor and about the politics—what got us in the predicament or situation that we in.

Since Occupy Wall Street came out, I mean that the media cannot get away from this idea now. It’s in their face, so they have to speak about issues that hurt us…I think they could do more of it—they try not to, but it’s getting out there.

Who are the “new poor” and the “old poor”?

The “new poor” is the middle class…that was the so-called middle class five and 10, even 20 years ago. 10 years ago I was in that category, thinking I was middle class, because I had a job paying $60,000 a year, but actually, I’m poor, you know. I’m the new poor…that’s who I am. I’m no longer working, I’m retired, so of course, you don’t make anything like a salary, but all those years I’m thinking I’m middle class and actually I’m poor because had I bought a home, I would have been in foreclosure today.

So who is the “old poor”?

Well, the “old poor” are just people that were below the poverty line. That was my thinking that the poor were people that were needing to be subsidized or have their salaries supplemented one way or the other. That was the poor to me, but actually, anybody that’s one paycheck away from losing their house, feeding themselves or just surviving is poor.

Who are some of the organizations that MMP has been working with who have been aware of this before the occupations brought it into popular awareness?

Some of the organizations are the United Taxi Workers Alliance. They are the taxi workers in Philadelphia, and they’ve been together because they have been discriminated against, as far as salary and because a lot of them are immigrants. They have been wanting to send them back home, or you know, harassing them about their immigration status, and so on.

We’ve been working with them, and we’ve been working with the Philly Student Union, who are [high school] students fighting against the educational system because we don’t get adequate education here in Philly. I mean, half the students don’t have books, they don’t have enough teachers. They pay police officers and correctional officers to guard the school instead of hiring therapists or social workers, so that’s a discrimination right there.

We also work with PASNAP [Pennsylvania Association of Staff Nurses and Allied Professionals] employees, a union run by the nurses here in Philadelphia at Temple University. In 2010, they had a strike, and they won. The strike wasn’t just for them, it was also for the patients that go to Temple Hospital for their services—they were making sure they are treated fairly. So they weren’t just fightin’ for themselves, which they understand…you know, people deserve to be cared for. Just because you’re poor, you don’t deserve to be stepped on…and so I was on the line with them because I agree with them 100 percent. I mean, it’s everybody’s fight. It’s not just one fight; it’s everyone’s fight.

What do these organizations see that they have in common?

Well, they see that they’ve been a victim of the system of society, and that every situation is intertwined with one another. I mean that’s obvious, like when I was a child, I didn’t realize…I thought that the poor was only people of color. I didn’t think there were any white people that were poor, or if there was, it was very little. But actually there is a whole lot. I took a trip to Ithaca, NY with Poverty Initiative a while ago, and it opened my eyes because the media doesn’t portray that…they try to hide the fact that, you know, white people is also going through…and they are also poor.

The media only illustrates the side for the rich people or the government. They don’t ever view our point, or show what we’re going through, and that’s why Media Mobilizing Project is in this work, so they can tell the truth, the whole truth—what we are fighting up against, what we don’t have, what do we need…you know, the injustice that’s been going on for years and years.

Martin Luther King, you know, he moved from civil rights to human rights because of this and nothing really has been done since his assassination, so this is long overdue for everyone to unite.

Why does MMP study Martin Luther King?

At the end of his life, he was working in human rights, meaning that everybody is entitled to affordable housing, everybody is entitled to a decent wage salary, everybody is entitled to adequate education. He made a statement: what’s the use of being able to sit at the lunch counter if you can’t pay for food? He was uniting across the board—black, white, people of color, poor, rich. He knew that changes had to be made for everyone.

How do organizing, media making and studying relate?

First of all, you need to study, because you need to educate yourself. Before this, I didn’t realize all that was going on, not just here, but globally. Before, I didn’t think about what happened in Africa that affected us…or what happened in Europe…but actually, all of that affects us right here, so I was blind to that. Through education that MMP puts out… it’s waking up your consciousness which is very important. Then they put media together around different issues that go on, and that’s educational.

And organizing is…you have to build leaders. As far as I’m concerned, that’s one of Martin Luther King’s downfalls—even though he did a fabulous job, one person cannot make huge changes. You have to have a lot of leaders. You have to build organizers.

What do we need to do to continue to build a movement to end poverty?

We need to really be strategic about what our plan is so we can actually reach out to not only people outside our community, but statewide and across states to build our movement. It must be strong. We need to all come together. We need to realize that, you know, your fight is my fight and my fight is your fight, instead of keeping us so divided, like the mainstream media does. And not only the mainstream media. Society’s designed this way, for us to be separated and not together. I think through making our own media, we need to tell our side of the story.

The New Southern Strategy – The Politics of Self-Determination in the South

Kamau Franklin has worked as a community activist for over fifteen years in New York City and is now based in the south. In addition to his work as an activist attorney, he is a leading member of the Malcolm X Grassroots Movement (MXGM). An organization dedicated to human rights advocacy and building grassroots institutions in the black community. The organization works on various issues including youth development, fighting police misconduct, and creating sustainable urban communities. Kamau has helped develop community cop-watch programs, freedom school programs for youth and alternatives to incarceration programs. He recently moved to Jackson Mississippi to do political work, and he reflects on that move and its strategic implications in this piece. You can read more of Kamau’s thoughts on his Grassroots Thinking blog.

Many people I know expressed surprise at me moving to Jackson Ms., being from Brooklyn (back when it was the BK- but that is another story). The surprise is even more startling for Jackson folks under 30 who with amazement in their eyes ask WHY WOULD YOU LEAVE NEW YORK? Part of the answer is that I have committed myself to the fulfillment of certain ideas. So my career is the politics of black self-determination. It does not pay well by any means; you can’t always get the most qualified people to fulfill certain positions and the hours suck; but over 20 years ago I was bitten by the bug of revolutionary black politics. Those politics have cost me financially and sanity wise, but at the same time they have led me on a life mission, some great comrades and the love of my life. So on balance I still feel as if I am coming out ahead, however back to Jackson, Ms.

I would like to believe that as a committed organizer that the work I do has a larger purpose. That it is coordinated in such a way to gain results that are tangible and that build towards greater community control over social, economic and political institutions. I came to Jackson, Ms with such ideas in mind. The thinking is that the city of Jackson due to its size, demographic makeup and history could be a great place to re-test ideas both historic and current in the struggle for black self-determination.

It is way too early to suggest success; however my first twelve weeks in Jackson is a good guide to early satisfaction with the actual move. I have done more multilayered organizing here than I have in the last 5 years in either New York or Atlanta. I have met and worked with various groups and individuals from people in community civic leagues, church groups, home associations, electoral candidates, cops, preachers, politicians, farmer groups, civil rights workers, and international allies, but relatively few of the pro-black militants or overt left radicals that I have worked with most of my organizing life. Obviously most of these folks don’t necessarily share the full range of my politics but we have enough in common to work on various initiatives which can lead to progressive/radical changes in Jackson. My debates have been substantive and have led to action as opposed to conversations that only ignite plans without success because of follow thru abilities, desire, finances, scale, or scope. I have worked on achieving economic development, international solidarity, electoral strategies, and food justice issues.

More specifically we have already established the largest community garden/farm in Jackson (over 5 acres). A campaign for policy changes on healthy food is in the works. We have supported the successful election of the first Black Sheriff in Hinds County Mississippi (Hinds was incorporated in 1820) which encompasses Jackson and is over 70% black. This is a victory coming on the heels of electing Chokwe Lumumba (an MXGM founder) to the city council two years ago. We are now beginning work on a second city-council race and looking into buying property as a center and we have purchased our fist property for economic development purposes.

The overt work of struggling for self-determination in the south predates me by a few hundred years; however 40 years ago the groundwork was laid for a modern struggle that recognized the south as a battleground in an ideological and at times physical battle for self determination. In 1968 the Provisional Government of the Republic of New Afrika (RNA) was formed and later in the 1980s the New Afrikan Peoples Organization (NAPO) provided a revolutionary nationalist position for organizing in the South where the majority of black people still live today. People have changed their lives, uprooted their families and died for attempting to convince black people that the south could be more than just a place of oppression but it could also be a place of rejuvenation and control.

Two years ago a new phase of this struggle began. Momentum has been built over that time when we got directly involved in the previously mentioned electoral candidacy of Chokwe Lumumba for City Council. We made several other attempts in nearby cities to do similar work but the time seemed overtly right this time when several months prior the US electorate, partly due to an economic meltdown, open-ended wars abroad and the changing demographics of the U.S. population, voted in a moderate Black democrat as its President, who at the time for many appeared to represent much more.

The southern black population is similarly dominated by local moderate black democratic officials. As the black power movements of the 60’s and 70’s retreated under immense attack by local and national US government forces. The void was filled by “safe” politicians who did not do much to upset the economic balance of power that favored white power brokers and embraced moderate Democratic Party rhetoric on governing. In essence making places like Jackson Ms, a post apartheid South Africa, plenty of electoral power never translated into actual political power, a black petty-bourgeoisie happy to live off the scraps of the minority white capitalist class that calls the shots.

It is in this context that MXGM saw an opening to support the candidacy of Lumumba. For the black political class the needs of the community take a back seat to their own individual career paths. With no commitment to anything, beyond getting elected these officials don’t bring any overarching principles to city-government beyond the principle of careerism. This gave us the opportunity to respond with a candidate who could highlight real choices. In no other place except the South could we play on a city wide basis, where over 50% of the U.S. black population still lives and where in major cities in the South blacks still represent over 50% of the electorate. It is here where we can highlight the politics of self-determination versus the politics of careerism and moderation.

We have also borrowed from our friends in places like Venezuela with the concept of Peoples’ Assemblies. Organizing the community into specific blocks for a more direct democracy that begins to set the agenda for what candidates that are elected should be fighting for as opposed to just hearing what candidates say they are going to do. This work must be done in an intentional way, one that involves planning for what the city/community should look like and how it should be governed. Even if candidates don’t overtly share our politics they are responsive to them for the first time. In addition the Peoples’ Assembly is a larger base where policy thru community organizing can be achieved. We are developing Assemblies for each of the seven wards in Jackson and by the beginning of 2012 we should be supporting the start of two additional Assemblies in Jackson.

On the challenging side the politicizing of young people will take a while. The ideas of politics being outside of mainstream discussions is now a foreign concept to many young people. The idea that life chances are all about personnel responsibility now once again dominate discourse and that will change only through more victories. In addition despite my needed respite from only working with “professional” organizers the need to expand what we have is great if we are to keep the momentum going. As Lenin and others have pointed out the vanguard party cannot easily be discarded when thinking through strategy and planning.

We hope to facilitate several mechanisms for people close to us to move to Jackson through some of our economic development plans but that is a few years away. Unlike the past where activist would move based on what were the strategic needs of a movement they were a part of, today’s organizer is less likely to make such a move unless it’s tied to the adventure of an international struggle or a semi-natural disaster. We don’t want to overwhelm Jackson with transplants but I believe with ten more trained organizers steep in the politics of self-determination we could test our theories that much faster. My goal and hope is that within two years this work will produce real results in making Jackson a capital of black progressive change and positioning the Malcolm X Grassroots Movement as a leading community force that even if not liked by all will certainly be recognized as one to reckon with.

Organizing Upgrade is excited to repost this Media Mobilizing Project interview with two Pennsylvania organizers about the impact of Occupy on rural Pennsylvania.

Episode Description: In this episode Audra and Miguel speak with Mitch Troutman and Kara Newhouse of PA from Below about the occupations across Pennsylvania sparked by #OccupyWallSt. We also get to see stories from occupiers in Philadelphia and across Pennsylvania, a report from the UNITE HERE action against Aramark for fair work conditions, and the recent Working People’s Media and Communications Forum.

If you are having a hard time watching the video on our site, you can also find it here.

On Jan 15, SOUL (The School of Unity and Liberation in Oakland) organized a panel and discussion on Occupy with veteran organizers from community and labor organizations who have been deeply engaged in the Occupy Movement. Maria Poblet (of Causa Justa/Just Cause), Shaw San Liu (of Chinese Progressive Association), and Brooke Anderson (of East Bay Alliance for a Sustainable Economy) share lessons from on-the-ground mobilizations in Oakland & San Francisco, and exchange ideas about challenges and opportunities in this new moment in the fight against the 1%.

Listen to the panel here

Having trouble listening to the audio? Listen on SoundCloud here.

Panel Speakers:

Brooke Anderson is the Port Driver Organizer at East Bay Alliance for a Sustainable Economy, working with immigrant truck drivers who service the Port of Oakland.

María Poblet is the Executive Director of Causa Justa::Just Cause, a housing rights organization uniting working-class black and brown communities from San Francisco and Oakland.

Shaw San Liu is the Lead Organizer for the Tenants and Workers Center of Chinese Progressive Association.

Intro and Framing: Tina Bartolome

Listen to the intro here

Listen to the discussion here

Having trouble listening to the audio? Listen on SoundCloud here.

The event was co-sponsored by: Asian Pacific Environmental Network, Asian Youth Promoting Advocacy & Leadership, Causa Justa::Just Cause, Chinese Progressive Association, Coleman Advocates for Children & Youth and People Organized to Win Employment Rights.

Audio clips from the streets for the panel recording are from “Voices from Oakland’s General Strike”, by LeftBay99, below:

This piece was originally published by the Nation on January 9, 2012.

Naomi Klein is a journalist, activist and author of The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism and No Logo. She writes a syndicated column for The Nation and The Guardian. Yotam Marom is a political organizer, educator, and writer based in New York. He has been active in the Occupy Wall Street Movement, and is a member of the Organization for a Free Society. This conversation was recorded in New York City.