The Debate Over Debt

This post consists of two articles from the Boston Occupier Newspaper, both detailing plans to deal with the debt crisis afflicting Americans. My article, "A Plan for Debt", focuses upon the use of debt reform and the assistance of debtors within the system. Jay's article, "We Could Own the Banks", focuses upon debt refusal and the destruction of the current debtor system in the United States. Both of these articles provide valid points, and I will leave it up to the reader to decide which plan is most effective.  

A Plan for Debt

JOSH SAGER JUNE 4, 2012 0

This article is a part of our ‘Debate:’ series, a pair of op-eds published monthly in the Boston Occupier.  This month’s topic was ‘Debt Reform or Revolution?’.

Debt, whether originating from student loans, credit cards, mortgages, or healthcare, has become a serious problem in the United States. The mortgage crisis, and by extension the housing crisis, was a debt-driven catastrophe: it was the result of widespread inability of Americans to pay their debts in the face of predatory lending and job loss. In student loan debt alone, Americans owe over $1 trillion. When this sum is combined with debt from mortgages, credit cards, and medical expenses, we have a massive and rapidly growing debt problem in the USA, with no agreed-upon solution. The United States is rapidly becoming, if not already, a nation of debt. A large portion of the population is locked into a cycle of failed repayment and mounting interest, with no way out.

What should be done? I would argue that there are several initiatives that could widely ameliorate the negative effects of debt in the USA: adjustments of principle balances and interest rates for mortgage debt; punitive forfeiture of debt balance if a lender is shown to have engaged in fraud; federal assistance to students with loan debts upon graduation and the possible removal of student loan debt in bankruptcy; and finally, increased regulation of interest rates to reduce the prevalence of predatory lending. I will consider each of these in greater detail.

One effective way to mitigate mortgage debt, thus allowing people to remain in their homes, while allowing the banks to retrieve some of their money, would be to legislate a deal in which banks adjust the principle loan and interest rates so that they are in line with the actual value of the property. By reducing the principle loan and interest rates, more people would be able to afford to keep up with their mortgages, thus would be able to keep their homes. This would, in turn, increase the value of the surrounding houses and improve the general health of the housing market in the United States.  The federal government could compel such a deal between banks and the banks homeowners by threatening to return to banks their toxic mortgage assets, as allowed for in the current agreement between Fannie Mae and the banks, thus swamping them if they refuse to renegotiate mortgages.

In addition to this renegotiation with banks, there should be serious consequences for any lender who engages in fraudulent activity. I support total forfeiture of both the remaining principle loan and interest in any case where the bank engages in fraud. Banks should not be allowed to benefit from illegal practices, and people should not have to bear the costs of fraud. Practices that should cause forfeiture include, but are not limited to, the intentional misleading of prospective borrowers into high-risk mortgages, intentionally inflated interest rates, foreclosure despite up-to-date payments, and the use of robo-signing (systematic signing of loan papers by people who had no involvement in the process). By instituting severe monetary punishment on perpetrators of fraud, we can disincentivize fraud, as well as help its victims recover their rightful assets. Currently banks profit from fraud. We need to rewrite — and enforce — laws to ensure that fraud does not pay.

Student loan debt is a crippling weight on many graduates today. Unless a student comes from a wealthy family or receives a scholarship, it is likely that any private university (and many public universities) will cause thousands in loan debt. Because of a 1976 change to bankruptcy law, this debt is incapable of being removed through a declaration of bankruptcy, thus making it impossible to escape even in the event of financial ruin. In order to address this situation, I suggest several policies. First, student loan debt should able to be removed by bankruptcy, just like most other types of debt. Second, the federal government should create a national education fund in order to assist with the loans of all students who successfully graduate and qualify for assistance. This would be similar to Pell Grants, but on a much wider scale. Finally, student loan debt repayment should be capped at a percentage of annual income so as to increase the affordability of loans. Education increases the productivity of our entire society. When education becomes more affordable, everyone benefits — even those who do not directly receive debt assistance.

Banking institutions which give out loans must be heavily regulated in order to prevent abusive practices. Unfortunately, current laws are almost universally too lax and require a review. Banks should not be allowed to charge extortionate interest rates or hidden fees. Terms of use should not be misleading. A complete review of banking laws by experts, not lobbyists, would allow our government to identify future troubles and prevent the perpetuation and worsening of our country’s debt crisis.

While there are numerous ways to deal with a debt crisis, some argue that debt forgiveness (or “debt jubilee”) would be the most effective way to deal with the issue of debt facing Americans today. These people are correct, in that the solution is immediate and direct. However, the side effects of such an action would likely be devastating. Indiscriminate debt forgiveness, legislated by the government would destabilize the entire lending market. Lenders would have no reason to make new loans. If those who lend money have no certainty that they will get their money returned, with a modest profit, they simply would not lend money, especially not to the poor or middle class, who need loans the most.  This characteristic of the market disqualifies total debt forgiveness as a viable option for solving our country’s debt problems, at least as long as we intend to maintain a lending system similar to the one we have now.

Debt is an issue that must be dealt with, and quickly if we hope to mitigate long-term damage to our country. A comprehensive plan, which prioritizes the economic health of the average person over that of the banker, is the only course that will stabilize our debt situation in the short term and avoid long-term catastrophe.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

We Could Own the Banks

JAY JUBILEE JUNE 3, 2012 0

This article is a part of our ‘Debate:’ series, a pair of op-eds published monthly in the Boston Occupier.  This month’s topic was ‘Debt Reform or Revolution?’.

The average US household debt burden has reached oppressive and unprecedented levels.  According to the Federal Reserve, in 2010, total US household debt stood at $13.5 Trillion. This calculates to over $44,000 per person, or about 122% of total disposable income.  Increasingly Americans owe more than the own in this world (even as the top 1% owns more than ever).  Why are people in so much debt in the first place?  This rising debt is the effect of an exploitative and unsustainable system.

Contrary to those who moralize about “irresponsible” consumer spending, the single largest cause of the rising average US debt-burden is a rise in workplace exploitation.  Despite working harder and more efficiently year after year, US workers—those of us who are “lucky” enough to find jobs—continue to see our wages stagnate, or even decline.  Corporations and employers (aka “the 1%”) are getting more out of us, while paying us less.  Profits have gone through the roof for capitalist firms, while workers have been compelled to borrow to maintain the markers of “middle class” life: a car, a house, a college education for their kids.

Rising college tuition and healthcare costs are important secondary causes of the debt-boom, as are government policies that have replaced federal educational grants with loans. (As recently as 1980 Pell Grants covered 69% of public college costs; now they cover less than 35%.) Federal “Student Aid” has ceased to be a subsidy for education, and become largely a subsidy for the Finance Industry.

Chart from the Federal Reserve Bank of NY, showing the breakdown of tool US Household debt. Click through twice to enlarge.

In this context of stagnating wages, the credit-debt complex came to the rescue as a double “solution,” at least for a time.  On the one hand, credit served as a means of buoying consumer demand across the system (allowing people to buy more from businesses than they could without the loans).  On the other hand, it gave finance capitalists one more easy way to profit (via interest) off of the very worker deprivation being created by heightened workplace exploitation.

But all this debt makes a volatile economic foundation.  As we saw in 2007 with the sub-prime mortgage crisis and the bursting of the housing bubble, when poor and working-people become unable to repay their debts, the whole elaborate financial edifice can come crashing down.

What if we harnessed this power of debt refusal in a politically conscious way?

There is nothing like being deep in debt to make you feel completely alone and powerless.  Increasingly, however, this isolation is an illusion.   The numbers of people drowning in debt in this country is growing all the time, as is the amount of US debt per household.  (The average college graduate now enters the “real world” already $30,000 in debt, the average graduate student, with far more than that.) There is potential power in these numbers.

There is a saying that goes: “If you owe the bank $100,000, the bank owns you.  If you owe the bank $100 million dollars…You own the bank.”   It is long-past time that those of us whose lives are crippled by chains of debt took this idea to heart. Student loan debt alone is estimated at over $1 Trillion.  Together, we, the student debtors united, could own the banks.

The basic premise of collective bargaining, that workers can (only) gain equal power with employers by coming together and threatening to withhold the source of the employers’ profits (namely, our labor)applies to debtors as well.   Banks are dependent on our debt payments. Thus, the debt that individually makes us feel helpless, if pooled and wielded collectively, can become the source of great power.  Weakness, combined, can be flipped into strength.

Such a debt-refusal need not be an act of random sabotage, aimed simply at disrupting bank operations, or at “sticking it to the man.”  Rather, our debtors union could project demands that would unite broad sectors of the 99%.  We could force the Banks to reduce their interest rates, to cancel the principle they are “owed,” to renegotiate underwater mortgages, etc.  We might even use this debtor-power to leverage more aggressive political demands: like getting the banksters to cough up the funds necessary to fund free public education (estimated at approximately $50 Billion per year).  Compared to a traditional labor union, a debtors union could have the benefit of  bringing together people across traditional workplace lines, while rallying the public against some of the most unpopular institutions in our society.

A student debt revolt can be the spark.  Targeting those who are profiting from our financial slavery, we can help catalyze a broader debt resistance movement, one encompassing medical, housing, as well as education debts.  The bonfire of student debt statements can light the sky, hearkening rebellion in other parts of this debt-chained world.  Even fairly small groups of well-organized debt-resisters could have such a catalyzing effect, sparking broad conversation about the oppressive role debt plays in all our lives.  Such an act might resemble the burning of draft cards during the Vietnam War; it moves beyond protest and complaint, towards resistance, courageously marking a refusal to participate in an oppressive and irrational system.  And rallying others to do the same.

Fundamentally, the goal of such a debt refusal campaign should not simply be to “mess shit up” but to expose the inhumanity of the way the current system operates.  Education, Healthcare, Housing: these are things that should be considered rights, guaranteed to all.  Through our debt-refusal we will be dramatically asserting that people should not have to go into debt to have their basic human needs met.  People should not be forced to go into debt to receive medical treatment, to have shelter over their heads, or to attend college (especially when attending college is considered a prerequisite for landing a job in the first place).   A social system that provided these necessary goods to people as a matter of right would  be one in which the sorts of debt burdens that fill our lives with dread and anxiety could be abolished for good.

With high debt loads and high unemployment rates facing most college graduates, let’s face it: many of us are going to be defaulting on student loans anyway.  It is long past time that we shred the shame of default, that we recognize the systemic causes of this debt, and that we refuse to treat this dream-strangling system as legitimate.  If we Occupy Student Debt and as one, we can burst the chains of mental slavery.  Together, we can own the banks.

April Fools Day with the Boston Occupiers

The April Fool’s Day Occupy March

By Josh Sager

On April fool’s Day, 2012, Dewey square was again host to Boston Occupy. At just before noon, on April 1st, over a hundred occupiers returned to the square, carrying signs, food, and banners - The goal of this gathering was not to re-occupy, but to have a shared meal at the site and then go on the April fool’s Day reverse march.
Food was brought by numerous individuals, music was provided as amusement, and the mobile sign tent allowed people to create their signs for the April fool’s march.

The Occupy movement, while it does not have specific demands, has always promoted accountability to those in power, whether in government or banking, and protecting the rights of the average person. However, on April fool’s day, they decided to give those they usually protest a break and finally promote their side of the argument. 

Chants, such as “Education is a right, only for the rich and white” and “Tax the Poor”, accompanied signs proclaiming “Profits before People” and “Protests Never Change a Thing” during this very special march. In the spirit of the ideologically inverted march, the route taken by the protesters was the reverse of a common route, taking them past Faneuil Hall, City Hall, and eventually Downtown Crossing.


At Faneuil hall, a statement was read to the shoppers, declaring the dissolution of the Occupy Boston group and the hiring of several key organizers by banks. Onlookers - including a street performer, on a tall unicycle while carrying bowling pins and a knife – clapped at the end of this statement.


The mood was generally light during this march, and the responses by onlookers were a combination of shock and amusement. While there was a large police presence, there were no incidents with protesters during the march itself – later in the day there were two arrests, but no large police actions.

See BostonOccupier.com for pictures/video from this march

Do the Occupiers Need Demands?

This post is divided into two competing opinions on the topic of whether or not the Occupy movement should formulate demands: I posit that demands are needed to create unity among the occupiers and to promote support from the population at large. Doug Greene, another author for The Occupier, posits that demands are not the proper method of creating change, as the problems in society are systemic rather than limited to things that can change through incremental change. While both sides argue valid points, I will leave it up to the reader to determine which viewpoint is the more effective manner of changing the status quo; if, after reading both sides of the debate, you wish to make your opinions heard, please reply in the comments section with your conclusions.

Do the Occupiers need demands?

Occupy Demands: Why Demands are Necessary

By Josh Sager

One of the biggest strategic and ideological debates among the Occupy protesters is over the idea of demands – more specifically, whether to formulate a set of demands or to simply rally around the idea of “Occupy”. While both sides of this debate have valid arguments, I propose that a clear, coherent and fair set of demands would highly benefit the movement as a whole.

Occupier demands could be focused on both local and national issues, as long there are sufficient numbers of people behind the demands. Ideally there would be a multi-tiered set of demands – local, state, regional, and federal – which could be used to influence politics on every level. Local demands could focus on smaller issues, unique to an area (Occupy Harvard) and focus upon local politics to achieve change. State demands would be formed through agreement by local Occupations and would focus upon shifting policy on the state level, like the Wisconsin labor protests, as well as influencing senatorial/congressional elections. Regional demands would be formed by multiple state occupations such as the Northeast, Rust Belt or West Coast. The largest platform, the federal level, would focus on broad ideals of Occupy and national issues (campaign finance, civil rights, etc.). Each level could act independently of others.  Occupy Boston and Occupy LA would have different local issues, but would have a say in the decisions made by higher levels.

The benefits of having demands would be seen in three areas: political impact, creating coalitions and recruitment.

Politics is all about messaging, and a set of demands or goals is necessary to promote a cause. Clear and easily digestible goals - such as ending a war, passing single-payer healthcare, or campaign finance reform - can be used to push politicians towards supporting policies promoted by the Occupiers. If a politician sees the Occupy movement as a well informed and motivated voting bloc, rather than a protest with no unifying goal, they will be far more likely to fear electoral retribution unless they support Occupy demands. Without demands there can be little accountability for politicians who go against the spirit of the Occupations.

A defined set of goals can also be used to create coalitions of support while clarifying the central ideals of the Occupy movement. Clarity of message gives a movement a defined purpose for member's actions while contributing towards group unity. In addition to internal unity, an organization can more easily create coalitions with other, similar, groups that would otherwise be difficult to form. While it is still up for debate whether the Occupy movement wants to start forming coalitions, this is a necessary step before it even becomes an option.  One possible example of such a coalition would be Occupy and worker's rights organizations.  If the Occupy movement were to definitively get behind worker’s rights as a core policy platform, unions and worker protection organizations would be more likely to support Occupy.  

A clear set of demands could act as a recruiting tool to garner more support for the Occupy movement. By creating a set of policy demands that the occupiers can point to and say: ”Here is a problem that has harmed you, and this is what we can do to fix it”, whenever somebody asks the goals of the occupations, they can entice others to support and join them. If the Occupiers propose solutions that will benefit the common citizen and begin to rebalance the economic equality scale back towards the people, large numbers of people will respond positively. Large segments of the population have been harmed by the excesses of Wall Street and the corruption of Washington, creating great potential for mass-mobilization by the Occupy movement. Unless we have a clear set of goals, it is unlikely that we will mobilize any but the most motivated and informed citizens.

Without clear demands, increasing recruitment will be difficult as there will always be doubt as to the movement’s endgame. The unifying effects of demands can be seen as analogous to creating a magnetic compass. An iron needle can be magnetized through passing a magnetic field over it. Before it is magnetized, the iron molecules in the needle have magnetic polarities running in every direction, thus the magnetic polarities cancel each other out. When a magnetic field passes over the needle, the polarities align in a single direction and a magnetic compass is created. And just as a magnetic compass doesn’t work when it lacks alignment, a protest won’t work unless the protesters have common goals and demands.

The Case Against Demands

Beyond Demands 'We will ask nothing. We will demand nothing. We will take, occupy.” -Graffiti from May 1968

by Doug Enaa Greene and Jay Jubilee

            “What are your demands?” This a question frequently posed to the Occupy movement. According to some, in order to be “effective” at achieving gains, movements like Occupy need to put forth a list of concrete demands addressed to the state. Occupy has not played by these rules. While supporting particular campaigns that may include specific demands, Occupy remains outside of existing structures as it strives to develop a new mode of politics that breaks radically with the system.

            Why shouldn't Occupy focus on coming up with a list of immediate demands? We could easily  come up with  a list, one that would include items such as ending US wars and increasing social spending for things that people need—like public transportation. There is nothing objectionable about these demands; actually, they reflect many of the reasons people have become involved in Occupy. The society we seek to create would indeed be one where public transportation would be a universal right and there’d be no more wars for empire.

What is problematic about such a list of demands is that creates a false picture. It presents as separate, issues that are really deeply connected, and suggests that progress will come slowly with incremental gains adding up over time until we achieve a just society. Furthermore, such lists often act as substitutes for an explanation of the driving forces behind these injustices: namely the capitalist system, whose very nature is to perpetuate social inequalities through its pursuit of profit at all costs. Such lists keep us from seeing the whole picture and the need for a radical break with capitalism.

            Some in Occupy say that we should focus on specific issues and find practical solutions. Yet, can we separate the call for increased social spending from ending the wars, from the need for overthrowing the rule of the 1% that sets the frame for US foreign policy, without confusing matters and misleading people? If we understand capitalism, a system where the means of economic production and the social surplus are privately controlled by a few as the problem, then we must find some way to challenge that system rather than only demanding local changes to it.

            Furthermore, there is a problem with expressing our politics in the form of demands, which are generally addressed to the rulers of the existing system. If we understand capitalism and its government as being our enemy-- then how can we appeal to it to fix our problems? That state seeks to ensure the continued functioning of capitalism—to keep the profits flowing, and to subordinate the people to that end--through its executive, legislature, courts, police, and army. Such an appeal will ultimately fall on deaf ears.  Worse, by continuing to address this state as if it will violate its nature, we lull people into wishful thinking.  We risk trapping our activity as well: continually making demands on the state that we know it can’t grant, only to have the state prove (again and again!) its “real nature” to us. We risk exhausting our energies talking to the rulers, rather than to people beyond its reach.

            Some will argue that we should come up with “realistic” demands that can be accommodated by the system—that people gain courage slowly, through winning victories. Others argue for making “transitional” demands on the state so that we can show others that this state—contrary to its democratic ideology—cannot or will not satisfy those demands. The former position assumes that the system is still capable of granting significant reforms—against evidence to the contrary. The latter point assumes that people need to go through this charade of making demands on the state to eventually see its “true nature.” This view assumes that the system is not already exposed in the eyes of millions, to the point that many people will not bother much with (what they themselves see as foolhardy) struggles around immediate demands, since they see how problem runs deeper. To the contrary: our ongoing assumption is that millions of people in this country already sense that fundamental change is needed, that the system is the problem.

When Occupy refuses to come up with demands, it refuses to play by established politics, and announces to all that they shouldn't play by those rules either, since the game is rigged. When we refuse to demand, we say that we don't want to play their game; we want to put an end to it.  We don’t demand that the system change.  We declare how sick the system is—and we call for the 99% to join us in the creation of something radically different and better.

           

While the Occupy Movement doesn't have a list of demands, campaigns have emerged around Occupy that do have clear demands. The Occupy the T campaign demands “No cuts. No hikes. No layoffs” and “A sustainable, affordable, and comprehensive statewide transportation plan that works for the 99%.”  These campaigns show the contradictory nature of demand-based politics. On the one hand, the struggle around concrete concerns, anchored in defensive demands has allowed occupiers to engage with a broader public, and to establish themselves as defenders of the 99%.  However, the orientation of these demands towards the state tends to pull back Occupy’s radical visions in order to allow us to “be taken seriously” by the government. 

We would argue that the proper use of such demands is not in lobbying the state to accept them, but in initiating broader and deeper conversations and relationships between occupiers and other members of the 99%. We must not confuse such “demands” with our actual goals of movement-building. Where they are a starting point for developing deeper conversations, such “demands” play a useful role.  But where they suppress such deeper conversations, and where they get us to turn from our fellow T-riders and workers and to look instead to the state for solutions, they are a danger.   Whatever becomes of such campaigns, it remains crucial that Occupy does not set its goal as getting only piecemeal reforms from the system, but struggles for a more radical break.

To its credit, the Occupy the T campaign declares what is unacceptable, seeks to unite the 99%, and promises to build resistance to any T plan that does not meet our standards. In this sense, the campaign is a way to engage the people and to popularize Occupy through direct action. To the extent This campaign brings T-riders and workers into the struggle by identifying where capitalism hurts them directly, Occupy the T provides a site to fight for reforms in a revolutionary way. This struggle can bring up larger questions of the system's irrationality and draw others into the movement since the T's budget plan affects millions.  Ultimately, the MBTA's plan is the latest attempt to make working people pay more for less, so that capitalist profits can go up and up.

            Occupy has declared its goal to be the creation of a society that prioritizes the needs of all before the profits of a few. This declaration is not directed to the state, but to people who are being abused or abandoned by the system. Whatever immediate struggles we engage in, we must make it our goal to expose the system and to empower people to challenge its legitimacy by their concerted action where its problems are produced, where it is most vulnerable, and where we have potential power:  in workplaces where our labor makes things run, on our trains and buses, where concerted collective action could force the State Legislature to its knees. The goal is not so much to get the state to change the situation, but to prepare the ground for the 99% to seize control of these situations.

In short, not to demand:  but to Occupy.

AP Article - Documents show NYPD infiltrated liberal groups

The situation detailed in the following AP article is currently being investigated, thus it is difficult to identify the full scope of this infiltration; regardless of the results of the investigation, what we see now is obviously unacceptable. The use of a secret police (NYPD assisted by the CIA) force to attack peaceful political organizations and religious groups is the antithesis of American values and a dangerous step towards a police state. It doesn't matter if you are liberal or conservative, this is an unacceptable attack on the rights of Americans and should be met with an independent inquiry. 

The Boston Occupier - Issue #6

The Boston Occupier - March 2012 - Issue 6

To vote, or not to vote?

This post is divided into two competing opinions on the topic of voting: I posit that voting is necessary in order to achieve change and voluntary demobilization of progressive groups could have terrible consequences come 2012. Doug Greene, another author for The Occupier, posits that groups, such as the occupations, can most effectively achieve change through non-electoral means. While both sides argue valid points, I will leave it up to the reader to determine which viewpoint is the more effective manner of changing the status quo; if, after reading both sides of the debate, you wish to make your opinions heard, please reply in the comments section with your conclusions.

The Case for Voting

Why Vote?

By Josh Sager

The voting booth is the vehicle with which the average American can directly affect their local, state, and federal governments. Voting allows for Americans to select politicians who represent the views and ideologies that they would like represented in their government. Unfortunately, massive increases of money in politics during recent years has decreased our faith in the voting process, thus some people see no point in voting.

Politicians receive massive campaign checks from interest groups, lobbyists, and corporations during their election campaigns, thus they become indebted to these interests during their terms in office. Many politicians take money or favors (often legally, due to our lax laws) from moneyed interests while they are in office in exchange for votes on legislation. Once election season comes around, politicians who have yet to sell their votes for cash are faced with the daunting task of fighting off candidates for their seat who may not be so ethical. At all levels of politics, we see the corrupting influence of money that threatens to overshadow our votes.

Why is it important to vote if our current political system has been so thoroughly corrupted by corporate money? The answer to this question is twofold: First, the opting out of the voting system by large numbers of people who share an ideology will inevitably shift the balance of power to the ideology opposing theirs. Second, voting gives us the best available tool by which we actually can shift policy in our country to fit our ideals.

If large numbers of voters voluntarily leave the voting system in protest, the politicians representing the opposing ideology receives a far larger percentage of the vote than if the voters remained in the system. Imagine our political system as a scale; removing votes from one side of the scale will tip it to the extreme of the other side. A perfect recent example of this phenomenon is the 2010 midterm election. The massive demobilization of Democratic voters led to a wave of right wing extremists being voted into office. Even if it is a choice between the least of evils, voting is something that everybody should do in order to represent their interests, lest they end up helping those who they oppose.

If we don’t vote, we forfeit the right to complain about the actions of our government and give up any hope of changing the system for the better. Every American can use their vote to assure that their interests are represented. If a politician conducts himself in a manner that you don’t approve of or is against your interests, organize, mobilize and go into the ballot booth to get him out of office. Because we have the right to vote, politicians can only be as corrupt or extreme as we let them be.

Even with the corrupting influence of money, we can affect change through the power of the vote. Money cannot buy votes, and if enough of us get together around an issue we can overcome the influence of money (Ex. Civil Rights). Politicians may sell out, but we can organize and punish them come voting day. If a third of the country were to decide that they would not vote for any politician who took corporate money, how long do you think it would be before many politicians would stop taking lobbyist’s calls?

Voting is slow to affect policy and likely needs additional help to be effective, but it is a necessary first step in affecting change. Vote, but then go out and organize in order to assure that your politicians don’t forget just who they are accountable to next time elections roll around. 

The Case Against Voting

Practicing the Politics of the Impossible

By Doug Enaa Greene

The U.S. electoral system is all about the politics of what the system deems possible. During each election season we are given the choice between a few politicians who promise change; we vote and then things remain the same. Elections in this society provide a democratic façade for a system that remains fundamentally undemocratic. A candidate can support abortion, oppose gay marriage, or propose fewer taxes. Yet elections can’t usher in a new social order that places the needs of all before the profits of a few. The system deems that this is impossible. Now is time for us to practice the politics of the impossible.

In the U.S. electoral politics is structured in such a way that you really can’t do anything to change the basic capitalist order. You can vote for any party. One may give you some reforms that make life slightly more bearable. The whole rationale of the “politics of the possible” is to keep us hemmed in and accept the reigning social order.

Instead of accepting the parameters of possibility that the system gives us, people at Occupy are questioning them. The discussions at Occupy encampments ranged from what capitalism is, to the nature of the electoral process, and many other issues. This flowering of truly open, critical discussion challenges the politics of the possible.

This upsurge of ideas naturally has those in Occupy asking and debating what to do next. How should Occupy help to establish a society that prioritizes the needs of all before the profits of a few?

There is the argument that the goal of providing for all can be achieved, or at least promoted, through becoming involved in the U.S. electoral system. According to this argument, reforms will come if we use the possibilities that the system allows. Take the example of President Obama. Some of the reforms passed by the President, such as financial reforms on Wall Street instead of giving letting the stock market run rampant, are laudatory. Obama believes that the system can be reformed to become better, more balanced and stable, more fair (at least for some). And that may well be true. But if we end up arguing for these domestic concessions and backing Barack Obama, then what about opposing imperialist wars overseas which he has launched?  Is that the possibility we should accept?

What should we do instead?

We need to break with the politics of the possible and practice those of the impossible.

By the logic of the system, the 99% should not be able to determine their own destiny. Yet the 99% can build a new world. They can emancipate themselves from capitalism. This is what philosopher Alain Badiou might call the “Truth” of Occupy. This is the Truth that Occupy must pledge fidelity to and carry that commitment through to the end: We, the 99%, can remake the world on new foundations!

Occupy is the site of the Event, which is a rupture with reality and the creation of new possibilities. The organization of a new Truth is embedded within this Event. This Truth is that he people at Occupy are taking hold of their lives and remaking themselves and the world through struggle. This is no easy task, and it has no ultimate guarantee of success. To return to the politics as usual now, by focusing our energies on the electoral realm, and thus on supporting the corrupt order in the form of any of the  major parties, would be a betrayal of the Truth that has made Occupy worth working for.

We need to be radical and to accelerate the break with the system, rather than reforming it, and build Occupy as genuine people’s power that overthrows the rule of the 1%. We need to discover new strategies to radically changing society.

In that way, we remain faithful to our Truth and practice the politics of the impossible.

The Boston Occupier - Issue #5

2.15.12 - Issue 5 - The Boston Occupier

President’s Day March in Support of Prisoners

By Josh Sager, Doug Enaa Greene on 2/25/12 • Categorized as Local News

On President’s Day (Feb 20, 2012), the prisoners incarcerated in the Suffolk County Jail received a welcome surprise: approximately a hundred protesters stopped by to express their solidarity. This was the final stop in a protest march organized by Occupy Boston’s People of Color Caucus, Ocupemos El Barrio and the Jericho Movement. In addition to showing solidarity with prisoners, those marching were protesting the prison industrial complex, the Massachusetts “3 Strikes” law, and the mass incarceration of people all over the world.

Mass incarceration in the USA is an issue currently at the forefront of civil-rights activism due to its wide-reaching consequences. The U.S. imprisons a greater proportion of its citizens than any other country (with the possible exception of North Korea). A vastly disproportionate number of those imprisoned are either ethnic minorities or of lower socio-economic status.

The grievances go well beyond the sheer number of prisoners. Complex civil rights quandaries arise from for-profit incarceration, felon voting disenfranchisement, and the failure to compensate prison labor. According to protesters, these are violations of prisoners’ human rights. Private prisons, for instance, have an incentive to lobby for harsher laws that will incarcerate more people – because more prisoners mean more profits. Those imprisoned within private prisons in the U.S. are often forced to work for far below minimum wage. And once they are released, former prisoners have great difficulty finding jobs and (depending on which state they live in) may have their voting rights taken away. Civil rights activists have likened this system to modern slavery or a “new Jim Crow” system.

At approximately 3 p.m. protesters began congregating at Boston’s North Station, in preparation for their march to the Suffolk County Jail. The organizers read a statement of the tactics they endorsed: the march was declared to be entirely peaceful, with no intention of disrupting the public or the police at the prison. In part, these tactics’ goal was to make the march safe for former inmates to join as well as others who could not afford to be arrested, such as undocumented immigrants. After this quick statement, protesters began to move down Nashua Street towards the jail.

Numerous signs and banners were on display, supporting those incarcerated or protesting the system that imprisons them – for instance, “Prisoners Have Rights” and “Caging People is Torture.” Protesters kept up a constant series of chants: “Hey hey, ho, ho! The prison system has got to go!” “Money for jobs and education, not for mass incarceration.” and “Hey, let’s face it, the prison system’s racist!”

Once the march arrived at the prison, protestors took time to show their support for the prisoners. They raised their fists in the direction of the jail in a gesture of mass power, which connected the present struggle to twentieth-century movements for civil rights and Black Power. These signs of solidarity were well received: prisoners waved, cheered, and even wrote makeshift signs on note-paper to communicate with the marchers through their barred windows.

During the show of support at the prison, the marchers had a teach-in, inviting numerous speakers to be heard on topics relevant to the march. Advocates for prison reform (or abolition), as well as family members of imprisoned people spoke movingly about the damage that the US’s prison system has done to their lives and to the lives of others. The subjects of discussion ranged from domestic prison policies to international practices of incarceration.

A representative from the Jericho Movement spoke about the effects of imprisonment on minority communities and what could be done to help those who are currently imprisoned. The brother and mother of Tarek Mehanna, an American convicted of providing material support for terrorism, spoke about their family situation and raised awareness of the campaign to support Mehanna at his sentencing hearing. While we are not able to describe all of the speeches here, we encourage readers to watch the complete video of the teach-in here.

The Boston Occupier - Issue #4

1.18.12 - The Boston Occupier - Issue 4

Free Speech and the Occupations

The Attacks on Occupied Speech

Joshua Sager

The first amendment of the US constitution establishes several rights vital to American society as we know it. Being part of what made us a haven for oppressed minorities in other countries; our freedoms of speech and religion are without a doubt two of the central ideals that have shaped the American identity.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

--The First Amendment to the USA Constitution--

The first amendment prevents the government from becoming tyrannical through the suppression of speech and expression. The freedom of speech is simple; the government cannot forbid or punitively consequence the free expressions of personal opinion by individuals living in the USA, whether in public or private.

The Supreme Court has decided that there are several limits to the right to speech, but only in cases of compelling interest by the state. If somebody is presenting an imminent danger to others through their speech (The classic example is yelling fire in a crowded theater.), they can be stopped and punished. Additionally, if somebody is endangering the country itself by revealing state secrets or privileged information, they can be silenced and punished.

The freedom of the press is intended to provide accountability to our elected officials through limiting their control over our press. The press is shielded from government abuses and control so that they can report the facts without worrying about repercussions from those in power. Without a free press, citizens will not be informed as to the wrongdoing of their government and thus cannot even know whether they are being wronged and should seek redress.

The freedom of peaceful assembly allows groups of citizens to gather and protest without fear of being rounded up and jailed (or sometimes worse consequences). The first amendment guarantees the right of the people to assemble on public grounds in order to protest the actions of the government peacefully. The key aspects of this are that the protest must be peaceful and that it cannot be on private property. If the protest is violent, it is not protected because it is a danger to society. As with any private property in the USA, the control over it is of the owner and thus a protest is not protected inside of private spaces due to property rights. A protest such as the Occupation movement is peaceful and located on public land, thus is protected by the freedom of assembly.

The Occupy movement is a series of sit-ins and protests at public spaces across the entire USA that started in reaction to the terrible economic and political situations facing our country. As a peaceful protest of the government and corrupt economic institutions, the Occupations fall directly under the protection of the first amendment. Despite the constitutionally protected nature of the occupations, the government has attempted to shut them down in many ways over the past month. The assaults on the occupiers’ rights have illustrated several ways that the government has attempted to subvert the rights to speech and assembly.

In several places, such as New York and Oakland, the police have taken a direct and violent approach to shutting down the occupations. Riot police and special response units have met the protesters with swinging batons, pepper spray, tear gas, bean bag cannons and even flash bang grenades. The attacks on peaceful protest by the government are justified by citing “public safety” and “hygiene” concerns over the camping by the occupiers in public parks.

I don’t assert that the occupations are entirely hygienic, they are mass campgrounds with limited access to shower facilities after all, but I fail to see how that justifies violence. Unless I completely misread the first amendment, I fail to see the requirement that the protesters to be perfectly groomed for them to assert their right to assemble and protest their government. For those who still assert that hygiene is necessary for the exercise of free speech, I would also point out that our founding fathers had far inferior hygiene practices than any of the modern protesters.

In relation to violence inside of the campsites, due to the protestor’ acceptance of all homeless peoples, there are occasionally violent incidents. Any violence is not tolerated by the protesters and the violent persons are either evicted or pointed out to the police for arrest. As to the police reactions to the isolated incidents of violence inside of the camps: I fail to see how a bunch of officers shooting various “non-lethal” projectiles, caustic chemical and grenades into the campsite make them any safer. In addition to the various assaults on the protest sites, police actions during marches have sometimes become, at best, excessive and at worst, felony assault.

Officials have put the protesters at risk through indirect means in addition to direct ones. There are numerous reports of police directing disturbed and intoxicated individuals to the protests. Rudimentary logic would tell the police that sending disturbed people into a crowd might end violently for someone. If the police were truly motivated by increasing the safety of the public and the protesters, they would not attempt to send disturbed people into a camp of political protesters. These actions are not unconstitutional on their own, as they don’t directly stifle speech or assembly, but they are disgusting and a complete perversion of the ideals of “protecting and serving”.

Occupations not only face violence but also far more subtle forms of suppression: Permits, curfews, property destruction, and causeless jailing. In occupations all around the country cities have enforced time and location limits on the protests. In many cases, officials impose curfews and arrest those who stay in order to protest. Occupy Boston itself was victim to this manner of eviction on October 11th, when police evicted the protesters from a second Greenway parcel.

Once a legal justification (tenuous as it may be) for eviction of the protesters is created by the officials, there are arrests and private property is destroyed. Protesters are most often given minor consequences after being arrested in these protests, but the arrest itself is a violation of rights. In addition to the arrests, there are sometimes police actions which damage the property of the protesters simply for being at the protests. In most occupations that have faced police action, protestor’s property has been destroyed or removed simply to make occupation less comfortable.

A perfect illustration of a government limiting free speech through indirect means was given by Mayor Jean Quan after she sent the police to break up Occupy Oakland:

“Frank Ogawa Plaza will continue to be open as a free speech area from 6 am to 10 pm.”

There are two huge issues inside of this one statement.

First: The idea of a “free speech area” is the antithesis of the ideals named in the first amendment. The constitution names that freedoms of speech and peaceful assembly are nearly absolute, not that protest must be relegated to certain areas of the country.

Second: The idea that people only have the right to speech during 16 out of the 24 hours of the day (only in the previously mentioned spots), is an abrogation of the rights to assemble and speak. If protest is restricted to certain times and places by the arbitrary rules of an executive, then it ceases to have any meaning.

Beginning with an act of civil disobedience, where several dozen protesters dumped tea into the Boston harbor, our country has been host to numerous protests. When protest must be scheduled at the discretion of those in power, what hope does it have of changing the status quo? 

The Boston Occupier - Issue #3

The Boston Occupier - Issue 3

Updated Occupy Tactics Brainstorm

This link is to the Google document version of this article: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Xl5ZMK2pkeN710Nu3cAKCiIxiHuS3lSdCp23tvma3ro/edit?hl=en_US

Occupy Boston Potential Future Tactics Analysis

By Josh Sager

NOTE: This is draft 1.2

With the eviction from the Dewey Square site, the occupiers of Boston must consider how to continue the movement through the winter and beyond. This document is not official in any way, neither is it an attempt to coopt the decision-making process of the movement; it is merely an analysis of our possible actions in regard to cost and effect. All of the below protest tactics are possible but they do have pros and cons; as there is little empirical data on the effects of protest tactic utilized by the occupations, all pros and cons are qualitative rather than quantitative.

There is no way to analyze every possible protest tactic, as there are virtually unlimited methods of protest available to the occupations; however, anybody who wants to add a tactic or discuss the below tactic can contact me at jsager99@gmail.com. (I will only talk about non-violent tactics and civil disobedience.)

Table of Contents

1.      Physical Occupations/Sit-ins

a.       “Occupy Our Homes”

b.      Re-occupying after a raid

c.       Occupying political offices

d.      Occupying banking offices

e.       Blockading political/economic institutions

2.      Marches

a.       City-wide protest marches

b.      Targeted marches to a significant location

c.       Specialized marches

3.      Economic Protests

a.       Boycotts

b.      Economic blockades

c.       Re-direction of economic activity

4.      Non-Traditional Protests

a.       Flash mobs

b.      Light projections onto buildings

c.       Micro-occupation

d.      Symbolic funerals

e.       Symbolic weddings

f.       Rewritten manger scenes

g.      Mic-checking political/economic leaders

h.      Living theater protests

5.      Messaging

a.       Solidarity symbols

b.      Poster campaigns

c.       Outreach to artists

d.      Buying media ad time

e.       Proposing model bills to politicians

f.       Passing model legislation through the general assembly

g.      Letter writing campaigns

6.      Education

a.       Running educational seminars

b.      Distributing informational pamphlets

7.      Political Actions

a.       Voter registration

b.      Running an “occupy” candidate

c.       Endorsing candidates

d.      Operating as a PAC for issue promotion

e.       Petitions

f.       Pledges

8.      Miscellaneous

a.       Hunger Strikes

b.      Banner Drops

Physical Occupations/Sit-ins

Re-occupying after a raid (Framed for Occupy Boston)

Description: It is possible to pick a new location in the city for the occupation to build a new “occupy” camp after the raid; this action has been done at other occupation such as Occupy San Francisco.

Positive: The new location could assist the homeless who were evicted from Dewey when it was raided. The physical presence of the occupation acts as a symbol for those who follow the movement as it is one of the signature tactics of the 99% Movement.

Negative: As the judiciary has ruled that there is no right to occupy, the police would rapidly crack down on this site and it would be shut down very quickly. This option wastes resources and would not accommodate the transition to the second stage of the 99% movement. As was demonstrated with the Dewey Square occupation, there are numerous problems with occupations that would likely detract from the message of the group; this tactic has also diminished in its effectiveness and likely would not survive the winter.

“Occupy Our Homes”

Description: Several occupations across the country have adopted a strategy of occupying foreclosed building in protest of the actions of the bankers and the waste of allowing buildings to remain empty where there are homeless. In several cases, citizens facing foreclosure have been given support in the form of a small occupation on their lands; in most of these cases, the banks have neglected to force eviction while the occupation is on site.

Positive: Helping average citizens retain their homes is an effective and positive protest method; with the level of public discontent over the current housing crisis at a peak, the occupiers can show themselves as helpers of the middle class. As the protestors are not squatting on public land, there is little chance that their detractors will accuse them of blocking public use of that land. As the mortgage problems are so widespread, the tactic of helping people who are evicted would likely garner large levels of support from the public; it is non-aggressive and it is seen as a public service rather than a nuisance.

Negative: If this practice were to become widespread, the banks would likely fight aggressively against these occupations; arrests would eventually begin to increase due to top down pressure on authorities. This tactic disproportionately helps those in middle class areas because their properties would be more able to accommodate a significant occupation, while those living in lower class areas would simply not have the physical space (house versus apartment).

Occupying Political Offices

Description: Staging small scale, temporary, occupations at political offices, campaign offices, and lobbying offices is a tactic that can be used to demonstrate discontent with the actions of the occupied group. Politicians whose headquarters were occupied would have a constant reminder of the existence of the occupiers and what they stand for. Political campaign headquarters and lobbying offices which were occupied would have their operations impeded and potentially stopped in the short term. 

Positive: This tactic can be used to target specific candidates or groups and obstruct their actions without impeding the public. In addition to targeting the operation of specific groups, it is virtually impossible for the politicians to ignore the occupiers when the occupiers are waiting in the next room. If the area occupied is considered public space, such as a political office, the owners have little standing to evict the occupiers until the end of business hours; these areas are indoors and would be able to accommodate long term, daytime protests. As the areas occupied are small, there are low requirements for the number of occupiers to cause an obstruction. 

Negative: If the area occupied is private property, such as a campaign or lobbying office, those occupying them would be arrested and charged with criminal trespassing and potentially disturbing the peace. In many cases, the occupation of an area will not obstruct the operations going on there enough to have an impact. The areas occupied in these actions are often small or otherwise less visible than a public thoroughfare, thus the visibility of these actions is entirely dependent upon the media.

Occupying Banking Offices

Description: Staging small scale occupations of banking institutions and banking offices could be used to obstruct the operations of banks. As one significant focus of the occupy movement is protesting the actions of the bankers, any disruption of major banking operations would fall in line with “occupy” values and goals.   

Positive: If significant disruption of the bankers was achieved, it would send a message to the banks that people are not only angry with them, but are willing and able to demonstrate their discontent.

Negative: The actions of the occupiers would likely only interfere with the lower level operations of the banks as the higher level banking operations are usually located in secured buildings; likely such disruptions would only inconvenience the customers and lower level bankers, neither of whom are the targets of the occupier’ protest. The occupiers of banking buildings would be subject to arrest for trespassing and potentially disturbing the peace.

Blockading Political/Economic institutions

Description: Instituting physical blockades of buildings containing protested businesses is a very effective way to disrupt businesses. As seen in environmental, labor and pro-life protests, simply refusing to allow entry into a contested business is a direct and immediate way to shut down operations of a business.

Positive: Simply blockading an institution is both overt and extremely disruptive. Even a short term blockade of lobbying offices, banks, or the capitol would make huge news headlines.

Negative: This tactic is very risky towards the protesters, both in terms of public opinion backlash and legal consequences. The blockaders would be subject to arrest immediately and this tactic might be seen as overly aggressive by some in the public (and occupations). With the rise of internet communications, many operations (political and banking institutions included) require much less of a physical presence; it would be unlikely that the targeted operations would be shut down completely.

Marches

City-Wide protest marches

Description: The political protest march is one of the staple tactics utilized by political/social protests for decades. Marches through the city streets, coupled with signs and slogans, is used to make people pay attention to an issue that the marchers care about; these are used to mobilize support and act as a physical show of support for an idea.

Positive: Marches are very noticeable and can be used to raise awareness of a political/social movement. In most cases, marches are legal and protected speech, thus the likelihood of arrest at a peaceful march is less likely than many other tactics (occupations, sit-ins, etc.). Marches have been proven to be effective over years of protests in the USA and the world.

Negative: Marches obstruct traffic and can often irritate people who could otherwise be swayed to support the cause. Marches are common and thus garner less interest than other, more innovative and new tactics. Unless there is are significant numbers of protesters, a march is easily overlooked and thus ineffective in conveying its message.

Targeted marches to a significant location

Description: Targeted marches are identical to city-wide marches, but have specific routes and locations visited so as to target the effect of the march upon the focus of the protest. Banks, political offices, selected businesses, or other focus points of 99% protest are march locations in order to show these groups the level of opposition to their actions in a tangible form; often this is used to obstruct traffic to a target or to compel it to change its actions in the face of massive discontent.

Positive: Targeted marches focus the effects of a march on a specific target, increasing the impact on several specific locations, while decreasing collateral obstruction of the public.

Negative: Targeted marches operate at specific locations rather than large swathes of the city, thus the visibility is focused on a much smaller area (More focus, less spread).

Specialized marches

Description: Specialized marches are marches that have a unique theme or defining characteristic; candle lit marches, costume marches, and dance marches are three examples of ways that marches can be altered to garner more visibility.

Positive: Marches with unique themes are much more notable to the public than a generic march. Anything that is unique tends to draw attention in the public eye more so than something that people have seen before.  

Negative: See either City-Wide marches or Targeted Marches.

Examples: Giving everybody in the march a common and symbolic costume or theme (bankers, zombies, etc…); using candlelight to light the march; utilizing a band or musical theme to draw attention to the march (brass band parade); having everybody in the march dance down the street; etc…

Economic Protests

Bank Transfer days

Description: Large, coordinated, removals of money from the top 5 banks into smaller credit unions is a potential protest tactic; this was done earlier in 2011 and was one factor that led to the retreat of the banks in the $5/month checking account charge.

Positive: Transferring money from the big 5 banks and into credit unions both makes a point to the bankers and could have potential to disrupt bank activities. When a significant number of people leave the big banks, they will have a decreased, although still significant, control over the wealth of the USA. Transfers to smaller banks help them, while harming the large banks that caused the recent economic crisis, making it an effective and highly targeted protest tactic.

Negative: Due to the very nature of this protest, there is a very high level of attrition. Since people cannot remove their money from banks multiple times, more people must constantly be drawn in for this type of protest to have any repeatability. Due to the concentration of wealth at the top, the banks will still function while the rich citizens and corporations keep their money in the system.

Boycotts

Description: Boycotts of goods and services is a method of protest that harms a group where it hurts; it’s pocketbook. By refusing to patronize a certain business, a group can register discontent with the business’s practices or goods.

Positive: Boycotts are virtually without cost, as they are by their very definition the foregoing of buying certain goods. The only costs incurred in a boycott are the costs of buying alternative goods (generic V. name brand) and services and the costs of transportation (where there are travel differences).

Negative: Unless a significant number of people or businesses sign onto and follow the boycott, it is completely ineffective.

Economic Blockades – Wise Father

Description: Occupiers can stall a business from the inside through clogging up internal operations. Protesters select an inexpensive good which to buy and then stall the checkout line for as long as possible; they can also return said good and stall customer service. Help lines can be mass called in order to clog up the service board, thus disrupting operations. This tactic is essentially a physical version of a Denial of Service attack.

Positive: This tactic is not illegal and can disrupt the internal working of a business without the protesters risking arrest.

Negative: The vast majority of people inconvenienced by this tactic will be low level workers and patrons of the business; usually middle class workers. The business must be carefully selected to minimize the collateral disruption to those who are not the target of the protests (Ex. Tiffany’s).

Redirection of Economic Activity

Description: Rather than instituting large scale boycotts, protesters can redirect economic activity from big businesses to smaller ones in the area. An example of this tactic would be to stand outside of Bank of America and attempt to redirect people to a local credit union; giving them reasons to switch, directions and contact information.

Positive: By giving an alternative to the boycotted good or service, the occupiers can both financially harm a targeted business, but at the same time support a local small business. Unlike a boycott or financial blockade, this tactic is not disruptive to the average citizen, nor does it cause disruption to the low level workers inside of the store.

Negative: Depending upon the situation, this tactic could be illegal and expose protesters to trespassing charges.

Non-Traditional Protests

Flash mobs

Description: There are numerous types of flash mob, but they are almost a gathering of people at a predetermined location/time who act in concert for a short amount of time and then disperse. Flash mobs are extremely flexible and can act in a way similar to a march but condensed into a small area and time period; people quickly gather, act out a routine, and disperse.   

Positive: A well planned and timed flash mob can be very eye catching and thus an effective method of conveying a point. There is an extremely high level of flexibility in a flash mob’s utility due to the varied types of actions and protests that can operate through such mobs. There is a small chance of being arrested at a flash mob because police rarely mobilize in time to deal with the crowd.

Negative: By their very nature, flash mobs are short term and localized, thus they cover a small number of people when compared to more lengthy and spread out protests. Flash mobs require perfect timing and planning to be effective.

Light projections onto buildings

Description: As pioneered by the Occupy Wall Street protestors, the use of a high powered projector, a computer, and a mobile power source can be adapted to create large projections onto buildings.

Positive: Light projections are not illegal nor do they leave any damage that would need to be cleaned up by low level workers (unlike standard graffiti).

Negative: The equipment required to create a strong projection is relatively expensive and difficult requires some expertise to set up. Projections are only feasible at night and on certain buildings (due to space, reflections, and light absorbing materials).

Micro-occupation (untested)

Description: A micro-occupation would involve a small scale, symbolic occupation. By creating hundreds of brightly colored, small scale (1 Foot * 1 foot) tents stamped with the 99% symbol, we could hand out a new type of political sign. People who support us would hang these tents outside of their houses or apartments in a show of support for the movement. Using these tents in leu of actual tents allows for the idea of an “occupation” to persist while removing the camping during the winter time and the risk of arrest.

Positive: This protest tactic is cheap, and simply requires money for materials and that occupiers/supporters have locations to hang the mini-tents. As these tents are essentially lawn ornaments, there is virtually no risk for arrest or police harassment.

Negative: This protest tactic is untested and could lack the visibility of other protest methods.

“Replying” to credit card offers with notes – Kate

Description: In all credit card offers and other bank solicitations there is a pre-paid envelope; postage on this envelope is only charged to the banks when it is sent back to the banks from the sender. In leu of simply discarding the offers, a protester can reply to the bank offers by putting notes or other junk mail into the reply envelope to be returned to the banks. The banks will essentially be paying for the protester’s postage and will be obligated to open the letter because it could be a legitimate reply.

Positives: This tactic is legal and without any cost to the protester. As every envelope must be opened by the banks, it is potentially expensive and time consuming to them if a significant number of protesters use this tactic.

Negatives: This tactic is only available to those who have consistent mailing addresses

Symbolic funerals (untested)

Description: Holding imaginary and symbolic funerals for concepts such as “The American Dream”, the 1^st Amendment, or fair elections, is a potential protest tactic. These funerals would be conducted on public land in a manner virtually identical to a standard march.

Positive: The staging of a funeral for a well-known and liked idea is a powerful image. This tactic can be used to convey concern over an issue while at the same time informing people to the values of the movement as a whole. Mock funerals are a new tactic and thus would draw attention from the public more effectively than a common march.

Negative: This protest is untested, but it is essentially a themed march. See specialized march negatives above.

Symbolic weddings – Joshua Eaton

Description: Conducting symbolic weddings between institutions in protest of corruption, collusion and corporate personhood. Examples of two institutions that this tactic could apply to are the Federal Reserve and the big five private banks.

Positive: Same as symbolic funerals

Negative: Same as symbolic funerals

Rewritten Manger Scenes – Joshua Eaton

Description: Staging manger scenes with an occupy theme; using tents as the structure and altering the scene to support the narrative of the occupations. Carols and Christian themes can be adapted to support ideas such as unionizing carpenters, helping the poor, and raising awareness of those without homes.

Positive: This tactic is new and would draw attention to the protests just out of novelty. If conducted with proper permitting, these protests would be legal and conductible on public grounds.

Negative: Many religions Christians could misinterpret the use of the Manger scene in the context of the occupations as a slight towards Christianity.

Mic-Checking political or economic leaders

Description: The mic-check is a signature tactic of the occupations. The occupiers use this method of sound amplification instead of electronic means during meetings; over time, it has adapted to use in protests, particularly during political meetings/speeches. When used in a protest, the mic-check is essentially a type of flash mob.

Positive: There is no material requirement for this protest tactic, nor does it require a large crowd to execute. Mic-checking is very specific and causes a high level of disruption in the speech/meeting but only a minimal level of collateral disruption.

Negative: As with all protests on private property, there is a chance of arrest that the protesters must assess. While disruptive, this tactic is only viable in short bursts at a political rally due to security shutting down the “mics”. For other negatives, see the flash mob entry.

Living Theater Protests

Description: By acting out a scene or skit in public place, occupiers can push an agenda and promote information among the viewers: imagine a scene where four people: 2 police, 1 robber, 1 banker; get together to discuss the theft of public money. The police arrest the robber and let the banker go, all while a narrator describes why the banker gets away free even though they stole more. The possible situations are virtually endless, and draw attention of the public onto vital issues.

Positives: These skits could be informative and amusing, making them easily digestible informational seminars. Having spontaneous and random scenes acted out and filmed in the streets would be unique and would probably draw significant attention; it would also be amusing and would allow occupiers to protest in an entertaining and non-threatening manner. The risk of arrest in these actions is minimal, just as long as the actors don’t obstruct traffic or trespass during the protest.

Negatives: None

Messaging

Solidarity Symbols

Description: By creating an easily recognizable and mass produced sign of solidarity (Ex. A tent with 99% on the side) which can then be adapted into signs, stickers and other goods, the occupiers can allow people to easily and cheaply show support to the occupiers.

Positives: This tactic is cheap and easily done. By allowing people to show support simply through bumper stickers or house signs, the occupiers can get some of the less motivated supporters to show their support; as shown in political campaigns, simple signs posted on lawns can allow supporters to passively support their candidates. If enough people show their support, people will be more likely to take the occupations seriously, simply due to the inertia of positive support (Argument ad populum).

Negatives: This tactic is not likely to sway significant numbers of people to the cause quickly nor would it impact those who actively oppose the occupations.

Poster Campaigns

Description: Utilizing posters and wheat based glue, the occupiers could spread information quickly and cheaply across the city. Posting numerous posters on well-traveled routes (Ex. Boston Common area, major transportation hubs, etc) would allow the occupiers to spread information about the movement and the ideals behind it.

Positive: There is a much lower cost to a poster campaign than an official ad campaign; the only requirements are an industrial printer, a paste, and volunteers. Posters can be posted everywhere and can be replaced quickly if removed. A large variety of posters can be printed and thus a rotating/varied set of posters can be used to inform people over a wide range of issues.

Negative: In many cases, placing posters on private property is considered trespassing and can cause the distributor to be arrested. Oftentimes, the poor or lower middle class workers of an area are the ones who are left to clean up the results of any poster campaign.

Outreach to artists

Description: There are numerous artists, whether visual or audio, who support the occupations, thus hosting art shows and music festivals is a potential method of drawing in support. By drawing people to the occupations through art, music, and food, the occupiers can increase awareness of issues and entice people to support the ideals of the movement, even if the viewer would otherwise be unlikely to seek out the protests without the draw of amusement.

Positives: Music, art and food are all draw that can entice people to attend events that they know little about. If the occupiers make a good case for their cause while the festival is going on, those who attend would likely be swayed to support the cause of the occupations.

Negatives: The space, materials, and equipment required for these festivals would likely be expensive for the occupations. In some locations, the occupiers would have a hard time getting a permit for the event.

Buying media ad time

Description: The occupations could use mass media, whether print, radio, or television, in order to promote their cause. Ads are a staple of most political movements and have been shown to be effective in swaying public opinion at the margins of support.

Positive: Ads raise awareness of the occupations and the issues that the occupiers support. Ads are a well-established form of information spreading and have a proven positive effect when utilized correctly.

Negative: Ad space is expensive and it is unlikely that the occupations could compete with the opposition to the occupations in terms of ad purchasing. As shown in a leaked letter, lobbying groups are willing to spend far more money than we can raise in ads, thus attempting to compete with them is directly is ineffective. A lot of people inside of the movement are opposed to the idea of spending money for an ad buy, thus the occupations risk a split if they spend significant money for ad time.

Proposing model bills to politicians

Description: It is possible that the occupiers could write their own legislation to present to a sympathetic politician for sponsorship in the legislature. Groups such as ALEC and the Chamber of Commerce have been utilizing this method of pushing public policy for years; while the occupiers don’t have the level of money that these groups do, a high enough level of human support can push politicians to act on suggested legislation (such as in the civil rights struggle).

Positive: There is no more direct method of affecting public policy than to write the actual laws which are passed by the legislature. If the bills are kept, virtually un-amended, the ideals of the occupation could be formed into law (For the closest example to this, look at the recent decision in CA which stated that corporations are not people in a non-binding resolution).

Negative: Many occupiers have little faith in the current political system. It is unlikely that any “occupy” proposed bills and amendments could pass the currently gridlocked legislature.

Passing model legislation through the general assembly

Description: The occupations could use their “General Assembly” process to create and pass legislation as a statement of values and demands. By creating and “passing” sample legislation, the occupations could both propose reforms to politicians and at the same time make their views on issues known. If a concrete statement of values in the form of a sample law passes out of the occupation, it directly combats the major criticism of the occupations; that they are unfocused, ill-informed, and have no central values.

Positive: This tactic is without cost or risk to the occupiers; it is an effective way of demonstrating a set of values/goals for the occupiers (likely a populist set of values that benefits the middle class) and is an exercise in pure democracy. By “passing” legislature as a occupy community, the occupiers can live the values of pure democracy that they would prefer the country to adopt.

Negative: Getting consensus on a proposed bill would be very difficult; it would also require people with strong writing skills and knowledge of civics to create a realistic bill for people to support. With the decentralized nature of the occupations, any sample legislation would need to be highly specific to the location and not infringing upon the right of the other occupiers.

Letter writing campaigns

Description: Writing letters to political representatives is a well-established method of pushing a political agenda.

Positive: Letter writing campaigns appeal to the older demographics in the 99% movement, thus such a campaign would allow those uncomfortable with social media to participate in the movement. The only costs of a letter writing campaign are those of writing materials, postage, and time.

Negative: There is a high level of time investment and writing skills required for this to be effective. It is entirely possible that big money would eclipse any letter writing campaign; money has replaced constituent voices in many politicians’ decisions while they are in office.

Education

Running educational seminars

Description: Educational seminars such as the FSU or the Zinn lecture series can be used to raise awareness for issues that matter to the occupiers. While not a direct protest method, increasing awareness on vital issues can increase support to the occupation, just as long as the occupiers have a defined solution to the discussed problems.

Positive: Teaching people about the issues vital to our country has a long term effect on their views. Those who are better informed on the issues are more likely to be able to act in their own self-interest and thus support the 99% over the 1%.

Negative: Informing small (relatively) groups of people on issues has little direct effect on elections or policy. People self-select themselves when they attend the seminars, thus those who are unwilling to show initiative are not affected by this tactic.

Distributing informational pamphlets

Description: Written articles, graphs, and informational diagrams can be mass printed and handed out during marches and around occupations. These pamphlets would inform readers of issues facing the USA as well as the goals/ideals of the occupations.

Positives: Spreading information on the issues benefits the occupations, as many situations facing the average citizen are unfair but not well known; consider the bank bailout and the shadow bailout. There is little risk of arrest from handing out pamphlets on the street and there is little risk that the information distributed would harm the occupations.

Negatives: Writing and distributing informational pamphlets is a time intensive process that requires dedication. This tactic is not likely to be effective until a central series of demands or complaints is decided upon within the occupy movement because without consensus there would be no central narrative to the information handed out.

Political Actions

Voter Registration

Description: The occupations could hold large scale voter registration drives at their events so as to ensure that everybody who supports the ideals of the occupation votes. As those who are registered have self-selected themselves to attend the occupy events, they would likely support the values of the occupation when voting.

Positives: Voter registration is sorely needed due to recent restrictions on voting (Voter registration laws) and apathy of the population; by supplying the registration to the people, a more democratic model of governance can be promoted. Politicians are dependent upon votes, thus a large uptick in voter registration is an effective way of swaying politicians to listen to the people.

Negatives: Many people in the occupy movement don’t support the current political system, thus they would not likely support the widespread enrolment of people into a system that they believe fundamentally broken. Depending upon the location, voter registration laws can open the groups doing the registration to civil liability (See: Florida). 

Running an “occupy” candidate

Description: Many third parties and independent candidates have run for office over the years, thus one potential tactic that the occupations can utilize is to select, fund, and support a candidate/candidates to run in any number of elections. If the person who is running as the “occupy” candidate gets elected, it puts a foot in the door for the occupiers to effect policy from within the system. 

Positive: This tactic could lead to political legitimacy for the occupations in our current system; look at what the Tea Party did with the Republicans (regardless of your views on their beliefs), running a large number of candidates in the 2010 election. By using a similar model, the occupations could potentially gain power inside of the system which could then be used to push an agenda.

Negative: Many within the occupations don’t believe that the current system is salvageable and thus resist becoming involved in it; this belief is strong enough in some that it could potentially split the movement. With the increase in money in politics there is a real likelihood that the corporate entities that the occupiers protest could drown the campaigns in money, thus reducing the chances of this tactic being possible to implement.

Endorsing candidates

Description: By endorsing a candidate, the occupations could promote certain politicians who are ideologically in line with the occupiers. This tactic assumes that there is a defined set of beliefs for the occupiers and that there are politicians who hold the same views.

Positive: By simply endorsing friendly candidates, the occupiers gain many of the advantages of running their own candidate with a decreased monetary and time based burden. It is easier to support existing candidates within the two-party system than to create a third party to compete with both of the entrenched parties.

Negative: There is little assurance that any politician would keep their promises to the occupiers once they entered office. As with running an “occupy” candidate, this threatens movement cohesion by splitting those who believe in reform from those who believe in a reset.

Operating as a PAC for issue promotion

Description: Rather than endorsing a specific candidate, there is potential that the occupations could engage in pure issue advocacy.

Positive: By pushing an idea, not a person, issue advocacy is far more flexible and adaptable than supporting a specific candidate. Acting as issue advocates, the occupiers could affect policy indirectly and without losing internal cohesion; the occupation would not be directly buying into the political system, rather supporting an ideology, thus those who don’t wish to perpetuate the current political system and those who wish for reform could work without conflict.

Negative: By removing themselves from involving themselves with politicians, the occupiers reduce the direct effect on individual electoral races.

Petitions

Description: Citizen petitions to show support for ideals can be drafted, distributed and given to politicians. The occupations could, once they decide upon central issues, draft petitions in support of the values of the occupations and gather large levels of support. While the petitions are non-binding, they can be used to compel politicians to act in conformity with them out of fear of losing their next election (See: Wisconsin recalls)

Positives: This tactic is an effective way to show support for a cause while at the same time informing people to the beliefs of the occupations. This tactic is low risk and low cost, but very labor intensive.

Negatives: This tactic requires consensus among the occupiers as to beliefs and proposed solutions to problems in the country. If those who believe the system to be completely corrupt are correct, petitions are meaningless because money has taken power over politics.

Pledges

Description: Pledges can be drafted, passed through the general assembly and presented to politicians as a sign of solidarity with the occupations; the clear exchange would be the support of the occupations in exchange for the politician’s commitment to act a certain way when in office.

Positives: Politicians are always looking for support from groups, thus giving pledges for politicians to sign would allow the occupiers a foothold in the USA political process. Groups such as the Tea Party (I hate the comparison, but it is apt) have massive power over politicians due to pledges, demonstrating the potential for the occupations to gain similar power.

Negatives: Many citizens consider political pledges to be contrary to a democratic process and thus this tactic would be very controversial within the occupy movement. By pledging allegiance to a group other than the citizens of the USA, there is a conflict of interest that can potentially have dire consequences (Case in point: Grover Norquist). There is no enforcement mechanism preventing the politician from reneging upon receiving support from the occupations.

Miscellaneous

Hunger Strikes – Joshua Eaton

Description: One potential tactic for the occupiers would be to institute a mass hunger strike; such a strike would draw attention and demonstrate dedication to the cause.  

Positive: Hunger strikes, whether political or social have been shown to draw the attention of the public; as a hunger strike is self-destructive rather than aggressive, others are unlikely to be irritated or obstructed by the tactic (in comparison to marches, which obstruct traffic).

Negative: Hunger strikes are dangerous and there are those who are simply unable to participate due to health issues. While a hunger strike sends a message, those in power may simply not care enough for it to be a valid tactic (The bankers drank champagne from the balconies of New York and taunted the protesters.)

Banner drops – Joshua Eaton

Description: Covering the sides of buildings with roll-down banners dropped from the roofs is a visible and large scale tactic that can be used in leu of smaller posters. A single large poster, dropped down the side of a building could potentially reach thousands of people directly and more if the media covers it.

Positive: This tactic is extremely visible and would likely draw large amounts of attention; look at the 99% projection on the Verizon building as a model of what the media/public response could look like. The banner would not cause damage to any building nor would it require significant cleanup.

Negative: Unless the building owners were to give permission to the occupiers (an unlikely possibility), the banner would be illegal; those setting it up would be arrested for trespassing and potentially other, more serious, crimes such as breaking and entering. A banner that could be dropped down the side of a building is expensive and would be lost quickly to the police or the building owners.