[jason700]

Here's a good article I found related to, as the title says, Gandhi and the Occupy Wall street protests. Yesterday was Gandhi's birthday and the International Day of Non-violence but sadly, few know this. There's next to no media focus or celebrations in North America commemorating this day.

Quote:

While skimming the news and Facebook updates, I came across some word that the Occupy Wall Street protesters had successfully blocked traffic on the Brooklyn Bridge. NYPD police officers have been arresting protesters who have taken the street and have reportedly, according to the link above, taken approximately 400 protesters into custody.

While reading the articles and updates about Occupy Wall Street, I experienced mixed emotions. On one level, it is refreshing to see actual mobilization for a cause. I've been harping in recent years that I feel as though Millenials, like myself, are incapable of actual physical protest. We forward articles and tweet as much as we want, but when it calls for showing up we go back to our laptops at home. (Rest assured, I am criticizing myself here)

On another level, I am frustrated with the media coverage of the whole procession. Although the New York Times had a report on the events of today, for the most part the media has been altogether silent about Occupy Wall Street the past few weeks. This is surprising, especially given how "liberal" the media is usually attributed to be.

On a third level, I am confused. What, exactly, is it that the protesters want? I see signs for anarchy, signs for the jailing of Wall Street fat cats, for government to absolve all education loans, etc. I'm not quite sure if there is just one purpose to the protest, and I'm not quite sure if that is a good or bad thing. As a close friend of mine said, sometimes it's just good to see the anger, to see how many people are pissed off. But I wonder if this is enough.

The mass incarcerations of today immediately reminded me of Gandhi and his tactic of overpopulating the jails. Indeed, incarceration became an integral part of his nonviolent movement ever since he burned his identity card in front of police officers in South Africa.

These images were juxtaposed, however, with a quote from an article in The Guardian several months ago in which Booker prize-winning Arundhati Roy stopped condemning violent action, saying that "Non-violence is a piece of theatre. You need an audience." Gandhi was not ignorant of this, and he employed the media in every satyagraha campaign he initiated. With twitter, social media, and even a live stream of the events, the Occupy Wall Street protest definitely has an audience and media presence (albeit a primarily grassroots one); it has been able to be witnessed from beginning to end. So powerful is this constant coverage that it was even conducive to beginning an investigation against Anthony Bologna, the NYPD officer now accused of infringing of civil rights (he's the pepper-spraying guy).

So basically, Occupy Wall Street has the audience and it has the media. But I argue that it is missing the key integral part of nonviolent resistance that Gandhi emphasized over and above everything else:


the key of education and articulation of clear goals and demands.

Before a satyagraha campaign, Gandhi would "train" his "troops" (he used a lot of warfare analogies) by holding large rallies in which he would educate the participants in the details of the platform: why it was being conducted, who was involved, what to expect, how to respond, etc. Having very clear demands was absolutely essential to all of this. Indeed, the satyagraha campaign would not move forward without it.

So Occupy Wall Street: where is your education and articulation? Is it just about tax increases on the rich? Or is it about loans and debt? Or is it about jobs? Pick something, be clear, and move forward. It might be a missing element in making this just a little more history-making.

Posted by Alfredo Garcia

http://etreligio.blogspot.com/2011/10/g ... treet.html

[andyt]

The "movement" purposely has no leaders, so you'll get people espousing all sorts of demands. It's a groundswell of dissatisfaction with how the country is run, coming from the left, rather than the Teabagger right. The Teabaggers find it easy to articulate what they want, but I'm not sure that "keep your government hands off my medicare" makes much sense either. Ghandi had a clear, grand goal - independence for India. That's a lot easier to articulate and get people fired up about than a general feeling that they're being screwed, but not sure exactly how or exactly by whom. One sad thing about this is that unlike the Teabaggers, these people don't have, or don't think they have, a natural political home to go to. As usual, the Democratic Party is way too afraid of being labelled unpatriotic to stand up to the tighty righties.

I think it's great to see this, I hope they keep it up and don't descend into anarchy or lose their commitment. It's been spreading to other cities, which is good to see.

One outcome of this might be that the left shows up to vote next year - that would be very good news.

[DanSC]

So it's like the Tea Party; different message, but all of the crazy?

[commanderkai]

DanSC wrote:

So it's like the Tea Party; different message, but all of the crazy?

And more disruptive, if their attempt to block the Brooklyn Bridge was any indication.

[andyt]

commanderkai wrote:

DanSC wrote:

So it's like the Tea Party; different message, but all of the crazy?

And more disruptive, if their attempt to block the Brooklyn Bridge was any indication.

Yep, the recent budget dilemma everybody agreed was not disruptive to the US at all.

[commanderkai]

andyt wrote:

Yep, the recent budget dilemma everybody agreed was not disruptive to the US at all.

To political pundits, sure. Blocking the Brooklyn Bridge? Eh, I'd put that at a few steps up. I'm surprised New Yorkers didn't start murdering them en masse.

[Psudo]

You can't compare Tea Party elected officials to OWS elected officials because the latter don't exist yet. You can't compare Tea Party elected officials to OWS protesters because they're apples and oranges. You can compare Tea Party protesters to OWS protesters, in which case OWS protesters are more disruptive.

Maybe OWS will eventually result in elected officials who have their own debt cap crapshoot in good time. The fact they haven't yet only proves that they're new, not that they're relatively harmless.

[BartSimpson]

andyt wrote:

The "movement" purposely has no leaders

Indeed, it's a Ship of Fools and every one of them is the Captain.

[Proculation]

BartSimpson wrote:

andyt wrote:

The "movement" purposely has no leaders

Indeed, it's a Ship of Fools and every one of them is the Captain.

Anarchy is a left wing ideology. No moral, no rule, no focus. Just "being" without any purpose like a green plant.

... well, at least the green plants can smell good and be cute

[Lemmy]

Proculation wrote:

Anarchy is a left wing ideology.

Then why are libertarians always accused of being anarchists? Anarchy is just as much a "right" thing as a "left" one. Anarchism is a form of crazy and crazy's indiscriminate, like cancer. It pops up everywhere on the political spectrum.

[Psudo]

Proculation wrote:

Anarchy is a left wing ideology.

Anarchy has elements of left and right wing ideology. The three primary conservative principles are small government, tradition, and status quo; government can't get any smaller than zero. The three primary left-wing principles are collectivism, progress, and revolution; anarchy would certainly be a revolution. Both ideological wings are 2:1 against anarchy.