Should OWS be more aggressive or more organized?

[MyUncle]

The question is should OWS be more confrontational, in your face, violent if necessary, assertive like Chicago 68 or Egypt 11, anarchistic and risk assertive?

Or, should OWS follow a "modern" Union model - petition, register, use elections to get people in to the government who will be supportive or your efforts, pass laws that work in your favor?

I say "modern" union because unions in the early to mid 1900's looked like the Oakland OWS movement - assertive, confrontational, unconventional, scary and violent but as we look back made quantum leaps in worker rights by being aggressive. A hard core, hard fought strike is a distant memory.

OWS looks like it could go either way. Which do you think would be more effective in changing the mess we are in now?

Just wondering what you all think.

[Fire Walk With Me]

1. The rules have changed. Violence is not required for change. #Occupy IS organized, is taking risks,

IS doing everything correctly. Where there are yet issues, it analyzes and evolves.

This is far larger than you are considering.

[MyUncle]

8. All of the above is an option.

I see a stark difference in what is happening in CA and NYC. For example CA is shutting down the port - tear gas, blood, marching, fights. NY is wiggling their fingers, crossing their arms and buying expensive military tents and being very media savvy. They are dominating the news about the movement and getting a lot of air time.

I want change, what will bring about change more effectively? Everything and more is an answer.

[Fire Walk With Me]

9. Each branch of the organism must adapt to its niche. And it will.

[MADem]

2. Organized. Chicago 68 gave us Richard Nixon and "Law and Order."

We suffered for five long years and THEN some as a consequence. Who wants that shit?

[Melinda]

3. OWS should simply, organically, be. That is all.

[NRaleighLiberal]

4. I think what it needs to do is just continually get bigger and bigger...

melt the apathy of the public and just organically grow - and become huge, and involving. And avoid violence (I still like Ghandi's model of change).

Anything that gets people out of the house, away from the TV, involved, and motivated - especially when it is in their best interest - is a winning venture, even if it takes more time than we hope.

[Luminous Animal]

5. No. I should evolve organically and gradually decide its own path.

[BlueCaliDem]

6. Neither. They should be *persistent* and undeterred. eom

[MedleyMisty]

7. Definitely NOT the "modern" model

The system is broken. Working inside it ain't gonna do anything.

I think what they're doing now is all right, and it will grow and change naturally. It's more towards what you call the confrontational side of things, as it should be, but that's certainly not scary. If you're in the 1%, sure. If you support the status quo, sure. But if you want actual real change, it's not scary at all.

And all signs that I see are pointing to a return of the days of hard core strikes. Oakland's went pretty well, for a one day strike with only a week of planning and it being the first one in the country since the 40s. Other Occupy camps are now considering the idea, and there's murmurs of a nationwide strike next year.

Good luck to anyone trying to tame OWS by making it play nice with the system. From what I've seen of Twitter chatter, there is a lot of resistance to what are called "the MoveOn types" and their attempts to co-opt it.

[pnwmom]

10. Forget 1968. That got us nowhere. Ghandi and MLK point the way. nt

[MyUncle]

11. I do not think the Vietnam war would have ended without

the violent demonstrations - Kent State. I don't think the Civil Rights movement would have made the giant leaps forward without the fire hoses and lynching. I don't think the labor movement would have moved forward without the massacres as a result of the strikes.

America is not India. MLK was not adverse to confrontation.

[pnwmom]

16. I think 1968 led us to Nixon and eventually Reagan.

It caused a huge and continuing split between the protesters and the traditional Democratic union members, a split which has only been healed recently. Anyone who advocates that path is ignoring history.

And please show me where MLK advocated violence. Confrontation and violence are two different things.

[JDPriestly]

13. Yes. If you claim to represent the 99% but do everything to make them

think you are some sort of crazy, dangerous person, you will not get far.

Stay very non-violent.

[frazzled]

12. Well, as someone who lives two blocks from the site of the Haymarket Riots

I'd have to opt for more organized.

For those who don't remember, the Haymarket Affair took place in 1886, where workers had gathered to support strikers at a nearby factory. Someone (to this day nobody knows who) threw a bomb as police were trying to clear the area, and 8 police officers were killed in the ensuing mayhem (some probably from their own friendly fire). In retaliation, 8 labor organizers--who everyone later admitted had nothing to do with the bomb throwing--were tried. Four were convicted and executed for murder; a fifth committed suicide in jail.

It is generally acknowledged that "The Haymarket affair was a setback for American labor and its fight for the eight-hour day." However, several years later, in 1888 and 1889, the AFL decided to campaign again for the eight-hour work day, and in 1890, May 1 was chosen as the day to demonstrate, in remembrance of the labor leaders who were unjustly tried and executed. Slowly the 8-hour day was adopted in certain sectors, but the Adamson Act dictating an 8-hour day was not passed until 1916.

Was it worth it for five significant labor leaders to die (and eight police officers), and years of antagonism in the press and public because one anarchist decided to throw a bomb at a peaceful rally? I like to think it would have happened much more effectively with the kind of organized effort the AFL eventually undertook.

I walk by this site often, and think about all of that.

[nadinbrzezinski]

14. It's a work in progress

I am not kidding. As an observer of it, in the flesh, I can tell that this will partially go the way the powers that be are pressuring it to be.

[Zorra]

15. Other.

We adapt according to our needs.

Without ever engaging in violence.

Oh, yeah, "the Oakland OWS movement - assertive, confrontational, unconventional, scary and violent"

Candidly, it seems like you are (not so) subtly trying to paint Occupy Oakland as a bunch of violent thugs.

Could you please explain, specifically, what your intentions were/are in using the particular phrase that is quoted above?

thanks!
:hi:

[datasuspect]

17. the labor movement of the late 19th/early 20th century scared the living piss out of the ownership

class.

your characterization is rather interesting.

for people who had no workplace protections, i would say the labor movement of the late 19th/early 20th century was ennobling and liberating for workers.

funny how you'd characterize it from the ownership class' perspective rather than from that of the worker.

funny, but not surprising.

[mmonk]

18. It should be non violent and continue with its assemblies.

I think the description of the Oakland OWS movement is judgmental due to the fact the movement did not endorse the 50 or 60 involved in property damage. The Occupy movement in my city (Raleigh) went to painstaking planning and offered training in non violent protest and had legal volunteers.

[Le Taz Hot]

19. The protesters in '68 weren't "assertive."

It was Daley's cops that were assertive and I want to, once again, correct the misinformation that the '68 Chicago riots gave us Nixon. The Democratic Party's unwillingness to give a platform to the anti-war demonstrators, the killing of RFK and the Tet Offensive were a few of the key elements that gave us Nixon.

To answer your question, it seems that this very organic movement of theirs is working just fine. They don't need an agenda, they don't need a codified list of demands, they don't need a leader. I'm so dammed proud of our youngin's because they've handled this so enormously well I don't see where they need anyone's advice. Those of us who were around and active in the 60's can supply support and answer questions when asked, but other than that, it's their movement and they need to run it anyway they see fit.