Occupy Your Workplace

Response to a vulgar idealist

response to: http://dissentmagazine.org/atw.php?id=676
comment at: http://jacobinmag.com/blog/2012/02/the-window-at-starbucks/

This article peaks with "we don’t need to excise people from Occupy, we just need to grow it." I'm thinking YEAH. And we get "[anarchists are] a convenient scapegoat for more fundamental failings." I'm thinking HELL YEAH!

But then it dives right in the toilet. Back to "more traditional forms of left-wing organization"?! Ditch consensus for majority decision making?!

The "glossy allure" is not around spontaneity, it's around SUCCESS. Success is something, I admit, that the contemporary left is not very familiar with - so it has a spooky edge to it. We ALL believe too much in spontaneity, that's the same thing as saying we don't know exactly why any of it worked. Anybody who, at this point, DOESN'T have some spontaneist illusions is not actually trying to meet the challenge of the present time, is not approaching the tasks before us with appropriate humility, is hiding behind the "more traditional forms."

The dialectic between consensus and autonomy is what has given the occupy movement the mobility to encompass a broad base of experimental actions, and still maintain a real coherence and tendency towards unity. It is through maintaining this tension that we will begin to develop leadership capacity on the left - the capacity we need so badly if we are to succeed, to win, to gain some measure of political power.

Yes, we need to articulate strategies that will "make Occupy bigger and more effective" but this will not come by way of stripping away the principles which are actually working. Yes, Black Bloc adherents who refuse to be reined in are only one small part of the overall challenge, but the challenge is to be faithful to the movement, not to win it away from the anarchists.

-----
more of the current dialogue
David Graeber: http://nplusonemag.com/concerning-the-violent-peace-police
George Lakey: http://wagingnonviolence.org/2012/02/how-not-to-block-the-black-bloc/ 
in Counterpunch: http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/02/08/a-bustle-in-hedges-row/

Spontaneism in OWS

From an email thread within the Labor Outreach Committee of Occupy Wall Street.

Thanks Jackie for forwarding these two articles:
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/the_cancer_of_occupy_20120206/
http://viewpointmag.com/2012/02/06/santa-rita-i-hate-every-inch-of-you/

I think the deeper issue at stake is the spontaniesm of which we are all - in varying degrees - guilty. This finds only one of it's extremes in the Black Bloc, and by focusing exclusively on the "misdeeds" of the BB Chris Hedges totally misses the larger question.

Purucker, for his part, is much more keyed into this issue:

Many of us were coming to grips with the recognition that we went into Saturday thinking that there was a crew of radicals in Oakland who had it all figured out. All we had to do was show up at their event and things would go off without a hitch, which is how it had worked at the general strike and the port shutdown.

This is an evolution of the tension, present from the start, between two values deeply embedded in OWS: consensus and autonomy. These values play the role of a political dialectic within the movement - neither one can, or should, win. On the contrary, the swing from one to another is part of the motor which is powering the movement. We require autonomy in order to experiment, and consensus to keep us on a path of seeking unity. The element within the BB which rejects the consensus process is only one deviation from the necessary fidelity to both principles.

-Sam

The most important economic chart you've never seen

Sometimes economists (even lefty economists) are very frustrating. They tend to operate in extremely abstract terms, and often miss the fact that the import of their analysis is being missed by the vast majority.

The following chart is probably the most important chart describing the economic fate of labor over the past 40 years, and yet it is never shown in this form. I had to assemble this chart myself - although the data is fairly accessible (at least as far as economic data goes). Click to see full size.

So what is this chart showing?

Upper (red) line = (Net Domestic Product) ÷ (Employment)
Lower (blue) line = (Average Non-Supervisory Compensation per Hour) x (Average # of hours worked)

What does this mean?

The upper line shows the average market value of production in the U.S., ie how much the average worker contributes to the economy.

The lower line shows the average distribution to wage and salary workers not in supervisory positions.

The gap between these two lines shows how much goes to profits, rents, management etc.

In other words, it gives us an approximate sense of the level of exploitation, ie what kind of incomes could the economy support if distribution was equal.

Wonder why economists tend not to show these figures?

Wage Theft Resources from NELP

Just got this in the mail from NELP - think it's worth reposting:

A defining feature of too many jobs in our 21st-century economy is wage theft.

Wage theft occurs when workers are paid less than the minimum wage or another agreed-upon rate, work “off-the-clock” without pay, get paid less than time-and-a-half for overtime, have their tips stolen, have illegal deductions taken out of their paychecks, are misclassified as “independent contractors” instead of employees, or are simply not paid at all.

It’s a trend that spans industries across the economy, including retail, restaurant, home health care, domestic work, manufacturing, construction, day labor, janitorial, security, dry cleaning, laundry, car wash, and nail salons.

And it’s a practice that hurts not only workers whose wages are short-changed, but local economies that are fueled by workers’ spending, and well-meaning businesses that are forced to compete with wage cheats that shave their operating costs by breaking the law.

Luckily, there’s another trend – a wave of grassroots energy and campaigns on the state and local levels to ensure that workers get paid the wages they're owed.  From California to Arkansas to Florida to Maryland, workers and their allies are organizing to pass – and defend – policies that help workers receive their lawful wages, level the playing field for law-abiding businesses, and boost the economy at the same time.  

To support these campaigns, in January 2011, NELP released “Winning Wage Justice,” a comprehensive guide outlining 28 state and city best-practice policies that community groups can implement to fight wage theft.

Continuing our “Winning Wage Justice” series, NELP is pleased to share these new publications:

• A Summary of Research on Wage-and-Hour Violations in the United States
• Talking Points on the Need for Stronger Anti-Wage Theft Laws
• Choosing the Policy Options Right for Your Community
• Round-up of Recent State and Local Activity to Combat Wage Theft

Especially in today's economy, it's critically important to protect the fundamental right to be paid for the work that you do.  We hope these publications prove useful in your campaigns and your work!

Occupy Port Shutdown Round-up

The establishment on the West Coast port shutdown of Dec 12th, the second such shutdown:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/14/us/occupy-oakland-angers-labor-leaders.html

The most inflammatory stuff was saved for the international press:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/dec/10/occupy-shutdown-west-coast-ports

Labor Notes' take:
http://labornotes.org/2011/12/west-coast-port-shutdown-sparks-heated-debate-between-unions-occupy

more opinions after the jump

Re: Occupy Goes Underground

 In response to: http://inthesetimes.com/uprising/entry/12386/occupy_goes_underground

Thanks for this article - I think you lay out recent developments in a reasonable way. With one exception: your central premise is incorrect.

Not having a central assembly point has not "allowed" the flexibility and mobility which you, correctly, praise. This kind of autonomy was always a key part of the movement.

I'm not sure where you got the idea that actions were supposed to be "approved" by the GA. Maybe some parts of the movement put out that idea, but in NYC when the working group that I'm part of (the Jobless Working Group) approached the GA early on to approve one of our actions, we were told in no uncertain terms that it was unnecessary. I was informed several weeks ago during a GA (by the facilitator) that the GA "no longer approves any actions."

So it is not correct to say that a shift towards autonomy has been allowed by the weakening of central institutions. The tension between consensus and autonomy - both core values of the Occupation - while it has modified, has not definitively changed as a result of the eviction.

What has shifted is the ability to inform and involve a diverse cross-section of the movement about upcoming plans with relatively little notice. This, in my mind, can only be seen as a loss. This does not, of course, mean that we should despair. To follow your metaphor of "going underground," soundly founded parties never *choose* to go underground unless they are forced to, but they do figure out how to operate underground as effectively as possible.

Thank you again for your quality reporting.

In solidarity,

Sam

http://followingsylvis.blogspot.com