Tuesday, April 10, 2012

Occupy movement forces some institutional liberal groups to radicalize

99 Percent Spring: Occupy-Style Tactics Adopted By MoveOn, Labor Unions
For Teaching
Jason.Cherkis @ huffintonpost.com
Ryan Grim Ryan@huffintonpost.com

WASHINGTON -- Boot camp is about to begin.

On Monday and extending throughout this week, a coalition of progressive
organizations from across the country will be hosting more than 900
training sessions with the goal of educating 100,000 participants in
old-fashioned, in-your-face, direct-action protest techniques. The week
of teach-ins are part of what the coalition is calling the 99 Percent
Spring. Roughly 50,000 people will be taught in person, and plans call
for another 50,000 to be trained online.

If that sounds like a familiar meme, it's not an accident. Pressured by
Occupy Wall Street, the coalition's members -- including MoveOn, the
United Auto Workers, Greenpeace and Rebuild the Dream -- are looking to
move from more passive actions like online petitions, calls to Congress
and town-square rallies to more aggressive Occupy-style targets and tactics.

It's a reflection of how the Occupy movement has forced some
institutional liberal groups to radicalize -- or at least appear to --
to meet the new fervent climate, as stubborn unemployment and yawning
inequality push activism outside the confines of traditional electoral
politics. MoveOn-type activists who may have previously been content
with a potluck and a petition campaign are now taking a look at more
radical tactics with an open mind: Maybe Greenpeace, which long favored
confrontational tactics years before Occupy, is on to something, they say.

And despite the Occupy movement's reputation for a steadfast refusal to
work in alliance with any other organized group, lest it be "co-opted,"
Occupy activists will be leading some of the trainings. That hasn't
prevented self-appointed defenders of Occupy purity from objecting to
the 99 Percent Spring as a takeover by a Democratic front group.

Tim Franzen, an organizer with Occupy Atlanta, is leading three training
sessions for the coalition. The coalition might train as many as 1,000
people in Atlanta, he estimated. He doesn't see MoveOn as co-opting
Occupy. It's the other way around, he said. "The movement has co-opted
them," he observed. "That's the sign of the times." Occupy has pushed
all these organizations to be tougher, according to Franzen.

Institutional liberals were caught flatfooted by the Occupy explosion.
"We were sitting in a boardroom wondering how to change the
conversation," said coalition organizer Liz Butler, marveling at how the
Occupy movement simply started up and did just that.

Occupy, of course, does not hold a patent on direct action. The
union-led occupation of the Wisconsin Capitol in February 2011 predated
the birth of Occupy movement later that year in September. And one of
the most significant progressive victories of last year arrived thanks
to mass demonstrations and arrests in November in front of the White
House that led President Barack Obama to halt plans for the Keystone XL
pipeline. Butler's organization 1Sky had merged with 350.org, which led
those protests.

The trainings are a way, Butler said, to build off of the Wisconsin
demonstrations, the D.C. actions against Keystone and the Occupy
movement's encampments. "Our members were inspired by the courage and
the moral clarity they saw," she said. "We need a whole lot more of that
courageous action."

Said Larry Cohen, Communication Workers of America president: "We need
direct action. Our members know it."

The organizing is not aimed at any one event, rally or issue and the
effect will be unpredictable. Training tens of thousands of people in
arrest techniques to make a political point tends to inspire people to
put that training to use.

Each training session lasts a full day and covers a lot of ground. The
curriculum is broken into three basic areas: explaining broader economic
issues such as income inequality and attacks on workers' rights,
encouraging participants to tell their stories of economic injustice and
hardship, and teaching the nuts-and-bolts of nonviolent direct action.

The trainings' objectives, provided to The Huffington Post, include
items like "define nonviolent direct action and the core methods of
resistance," "explore case studies of direct action and the relationship
between vision, strategy goals, tactics and power," and "learn what
kinds of roles are required for an action." The sessions will focus on
issues of economic justice, organizers said. The trainings include a
role-playing scenario for a bank protest.

"We're not doing training for training's sake," says Mehrdad Azemun,
national field director for the National People's Action. "This is about
moving people and creating a lot of heat and light in the streets ... We
need to be in the streets. We need to be in the bank lobbies and we need
to be in the shareholder meetings."

The initial plan is to use the trainings to instigate actions for Tax
Day on April 17 and upcoming shareholder meetings, Azemun said. Those
actions will highlight corporate tax loopholes and workers' rights, he
said. Organizers are planning actions at Coke's shareholder meeting
later this month and at Bank of America's shareholder meeting in May,
among others, for what Azemun calls a "corporate accountability movement."

Coke and Bank of America could not be immediately reached for comment.

No matter what Azemun calls the organizing effort, some Occupy veterans
see the coalition as attempting to co-opt their hard work. They didn't
camp out in parks and sidewalks for weeks and months just to have MoveOn
-- and recent critic Van Jones and his Rebuild the Dream -- steal their
meme. The movement has always been leery of old-guard progressive
groups, especially the ones aligned with President Obama.

Yet the coalition's organizers are quick to praise Occupy for the
inspiration as a way of blunting the criticism.

On Friday, Justin Ruben, executive director of MoveOn, issued a
statement addressing the spat: "The Occupy movement has been amazing and
transformative," he said.

"MoveOn members around the country have worked hard to support it, and
it's one of the things that inspired the 99% Spring," Ruben continued.
"It's great that some Occupiers are participating in the 99% Spring, and
of course many will not -- we know and respect that Occupy is a diverse
movement with lots of different people with lots of different views."

Franzen, the Occupy Atlanta organizer, sees the coalition as a boost to
the Occupy movement. "They have an audience that hasn't ever come out to
a park before," he said. "This is going to bring a whole new segment of
folks that have been on the sidelines."

Eighty-five veteran trainers ran sessions with more than 1,000 new
trainers, who will then carry out the bulk of the work this week. Occupy
New Hampshire contributed three such "trainers to train trainers";
Occupy Los Angeles and Portland offered one each. Rainforest Action
Network, Ruckus, National People's Action and Greenpeace has contributed
top trainers as well. MoveOn provided seven and unions sent at least 25.

Cohen, whose CWA workers have protested alongside Franzen's Occupy
Atlanta, told HuffPost that this may move Occupy's message away from
anger -- and its clashes with police. "How do we take action in a way
that inspires a nation rather than is based on anger?" he asked. "The
anger is understandable. Our goal is to be part of building a coalition
of 50 million or more -- and not 5,000. We're not going to build
something that will win primarily on anger."

Deborah Curtis, 64, certainly has reason to be angry. The disabled
Phoenix resident recently returned to school to become a paralegal.
Although she graduated her program, she hasn't been able to find
employment. "I worked hard and I played by all the rules," she told
HuffPost. "I'm still fighting to get ahead."

Curtis barely gets by on her disability income, she said, adding that
her dire living conditions have led her to become active in MoveOn. When
Occupy Phoenix took root, she attended two protests. But because of her
fibromyalgia and the chronic pain associated with her condition, she
couldn't do much more. "I can't be going to stay somewhere," she said.
"I'm with them in spirit."

She will attend a training this week, which may lead Curtis to
participate in a direct action or two -- even if she has to use her
walker. "I'm excited," she said. "It will give me the confidence and the
relationships and the tools."

--
This reply email has been edited to reduce volume and to simplify reading it.

Stephen Marshall
11 Hungerford Terrace (out back)
Burlington Vermont 05401
Dispolemic.Blogspot.Com
802-861-2316 Landline
802-922-1446 Cell

Tuesday, January 24, 2012

Testing the Costs of Wealth


In discussions last week after a State House press conference, I proposed the hypothesis that, in consideration of the deleterious effects of wealth inequality, if the most wealthy Vermonters were to leave the state because taxes were made higher, we who remain would actually be better off.

I would like to know how this might be tested.

I can of course imagine a number of variables, including taxes which depend upon "residence". Of course, when the deleterious effects of wealth disparity are taken into account, I don't see why anyone choosing to live in Vermont part of the year but locate out of state, to avoid taxes, ought to be treated with any special consideration.

 Taxation is only one way to reduce wealth disparity. Taxes can be used to encourage companies and corporations to share more wealth with employees, to invest more in environmental remediation, to convert to worker ownership, and to convert to non-profit organization. Any of these alternate uses of wealth help to distribute wealth and in the course of lowering disparity increases the value of the incomes at the bottom of the scale.  My favorite idea: make the tax rate contingent on some socially relevant criteria, such as the ratio of highest and lowest incomes, the ratio of profit to total of wages, or the ratio of profit to capitalization. Lower corporate taxes could be realized by spending profits on wages, environmental remediation and other social goods.

 The key to prosperity under the regimen of low wealth disparity is that the quality of life is not dependent on actual income, but on the feelings of security and community we can sustain. As the top earners are less distant from the bottom earners, the quality of life goes up less because of increased incomes, and more because our interests in public education, safety, health, governance, and the solutions to these problems, all converge, because we tend to converge on shared solutions, and because the tendency toward a greater sense of a shared fate leads to greater shared well-being.

 This vision of prosperity of course deviates from that which has driven public policy for the last three decades. On the political right, "prosperity" is marked by "wealth creation", which, conveniently for the proponents of this definition, opportunely falls into the hands of the already wealthy. The alternate definition of prosperity is marked by attention to the well being of every member of society, of the health of the environment, and of the Earth. Wealth is a tool, not a goal. It isn't the size of the pie that matters, it is how fairly, with how much care, the wealth is made to work for everyone.