Organizing Occupy Wall Street: This is Just Practice 981198946X, 9789811989469

Citation preview

ALTERNATIVES AND FUTURES: CULTURES, PRACTICES, ACTIVISM AND UTOPIAS

Organizing Occupy Wall Street This is Just Practice

Marisa Holmes

Alternatives and Futures: Cultures, Practices, Activism and Utopias

Series Editor Anitra Nelson Informal Urbanism Research Hub (InfUr-) The University of Melbourne Melbourne, VIC, Australia

Movements such as degrowth, Occupy, solidarity economies, permaculture, low impact living and Via Campesina variously address key issues of the contemporary era such as inequalities of wealth and income, environmental crises, and achieving sustainable cities and production. This series demonstrates the breadth, depth, significance and potential of ‘alternatives’ in the construction of this century, focusing on the type of future each movement advocates and their strategic agenda. Alternatives and Futures is of interest to scholars and students across the social sciences and humanities, especially those working in environmental sustainability, politics and policymaking, environmental justice, grassroots governance, heterodox economics and activism. The series offers a forum for constructive critique and analytical reflection of movements’ directions, activism and activists, their assumptions, drivers, aims, visions of alternative futures and actual performance and influence.

Marisa Holmes

Organizing Occupy Wall Street This is Just Practice

Marisa Holmes Brooklyn, NY, USA

ISSN 2523-7063     ISSN 2523-7071 (electronic) Alternatives and Futures: Cultures, Practices, Activism and Utopias ISBN 978-981-19-8946-9    ISBN 978-981-19-8947-6 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-8947-6 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and ­transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. The registered company address is: 152 Beach Road, #21-01/04 Gateway East, Singapore 189721, Singapore

For David

Foreword from the Series Editor

Organizing Occupy Wall Street: This is Just Practice might well have been written especially for this series—Alternatives and Futures: Cultures, Practices, Activism and Utopias. Books in this series delve into various movements of the twenty-first century, investigating the imagined futures held by movement advocates and their strategic agendas. They examine and speculate on the significance and potential of specific socio-political, cultural and environmental movements. The broad aim is to create a forum for constructive critique and analytical reflection of various movements’ directions, assumptions, drivers, goals, performance and influence. Yet the proposal for Organizing Occupy Wall Street arrived at Palgrave Macmillan innocent of these details of the series’ brief. It came ready-­­ formed as a penultimate draft on the recommendation of a member of our editorial board, Marina Sitrin (author of the main Foreword). Like Occupy Wall Street (OWS) and its slogan ‘We are the 99%’, it would pop-up so appropriately, even organically, that it immediately attracted our attention. This book offers a lively personal testimony of a key activist co-­­ organising and co-creating media for the Occupy movement, the most prominent actions of which centred on the financial sector of New York City, Wall Street. It draws on a rich range of media sources as well as the direct experiences of a film maker whose eye for drama is well-honed. vii

viii 

Foreword from the Series Editor

And, in all this she is, to some extent at least, her own subject. It is an insider’s account. But Holmes’ account is neither raw nor naïvely fresh. Even as the story unfolds, bearing the reader along in a chronological account, the narrative benefits from the author’s mulled over and mature analysis, a decade later, on the significance of the movement. She starts by placing the actions, intents and outcomes of OWS in a global politico-economic context, as seen from ‘below’. With personal testimonies of uprisings in the Middle East, she weaves a rich tapestry of themes, connections, ways of being, hopes and actions ultimately associated with the global occupy movements. Holmes plunges us into the ‘now’ of the ‘then’, but with a haunting reminder of the future. ‘This is just a rehearsal’ is a leitmotif drumbeat in the distance, sometimes rising, only to recede again. The real drivers and unmet desires of the movement—the desire for substantive and direct democracy, the desire for economic justice, the desire for peaceful co-­­ existence, a new way of living, a new philosophy of being—that situate the significance of OWS as a signpost to genuine revolution emerge to undergird and form the shape of the movement itself. Take, for instance, the visual and audible language of the general assembly, which incorporates every member in an overwhelming presence through a modified consensual process that becomes a democratic journey in and of itself. A cultural, social and ultimately political ‘making’ to use the term of E. P. Thompson, the twentieth century English historian of radical uprisings. As Holmes writes, ‘OWS was all day, all week, a break with the past, and a rehearsal for the future.’ OWS has been analysed in a variety of ways, many dismissive. What did OWS activists really want anyway? What has the occupy movement achieved? The claim of lack of direction reveals a distinct failure of imagination, even understanding, on the part of certain leftist critics. A demand is often simply just a demand, bounded and simplistic. This is especially the case in terms of what is needed in our world now, a world of deep socio-political and economic injustices and numerous and various ecological unsustainabilities with carbon emissions a simple symptom. We need much more than a demand or set of demands.

  Foreword from the Series Editor 

ix

In contrast, ‘OCCUPY’, says it all. Even taken as the demand in and of itself, ‘occupy’ goes way beyond a simple strike. ‘Occupy!’ suggests a permanent claim that, if replicated throughout the world, would mean a global, glocal, commons. Is there any more powerful strategy for action in contemporary politics? We will occupy, with horizontal forms of politics that go beyond participatory politics and give power to the people to decide, to act, to be. This is a plinth for a transformative revolution— people, one and all, in control. Surely it is only the outdated left, institutionalised in hierarchical organisations, that cannot see this promise in the occupy approach and movement? Or, perhaps they are discomforted by horizontal organisation as a threat to their own stale power? This does not mean OWS cannot be criticised. Indeed Holmes analyses in detail her own set of criticisms centring on organisational and media issues, usefully addressing common questions and complaints from activists, scholars and the wider public. As she writes in her prefatory remarks: ‘Throughout this book I am consciously analyzing what we were doing, why we were doing it, how different organizers acted in specific ways. I search for meanings of those actions in terms of their intent and their meanings in terms of their context, of others around them.’ Organizing Occupy Wall Street: This is Just Practice is very much about the nuts and bolts of holistic transformation based on horizontal change using autonomist, feminist and anarchist approaches. The book firmly establishes the ongoing significance not only of OWS but also the occupy movement more generally as a force of great potential for a humanity challenged to re-create relations between one another and our species’ relations with Earth. Melbourne, VIC, Australia 10 October 2022

Anitra Nelson

Main Foreword

Something new is taking place. Since the 1990s millions of people around the world have been rising up, and rather than seeking their liberation through state power—‘from the bottom up’, they are moving, as the Zapatistas suggest, ‘From below and to the left, where the heart resides.’ Power over hierarchy and representation are being rejected, ideologically and by default, and in the rejection mass horizontal assemblies are opening new landscapes with the horizon of autonomy and freedom. Relationships to one another are the focus, not demands on institutions, and, through changing our way of relating and being, we begin to find ways to recuperate life. The newer movements and moments, to which Occupy Wall Street is an essential part, began in the highlands of Chiapas Mexico, with the Zapatistas emergence in 1994. Declaring a resounding 'Ya Basta!' (Enough!) and rather than making demands on institutional power, they started creating dozens of autonomous communities, with forms of directly democratic governance, on land they have taken back and recuperated. Then, in Argentina, in 2001 the popular rebellion sang, ‘Que Se Vayan Todos! Que No Quede Ni Uno Solo!’ (Everyone Must Go! Not Even One Should Remain!). As with the Zapatistas, the movements focused on creating horizontal assemblies, not asking power to change things, but creating that alternative in the present with new social relationships—taking xi

xii Main Foreword

over and running workplaces by the hundreds, retaking land, creating new collectives and cooperatives, from media to art, and breaking from past hierarchical ways of relating—forming what they called a new subjectivity and dignity. In Cochabamba, Bolivia, in 2000, with the ‘Water Wars’, communities organized against the privatization of water by a Canadian corporation, and in the struggle. They were not only fighting against privatization, but codifying the communalization of water in the Regantes, the local communities.  In the streets of Oaxaca, Mexico, with the organizing of the people’s commune with APPO (Popular Assembly of the People of Oaxaca) in 2006 there was an adoption of Zapatista practices. There continued to be manifestations in the surrounding towns and villages with assemblies as they applied indigenous forms of governance. Onto the Minga, with local self-governance and cooperative economics in Colombia, there were new movements, and the list goes on and on. 2011 witnessed another massive wave of similar forms of movement around the world—with millions refusing to remain passive in untenable situations—and together pulling the emergency break. Shouting and singing, Ya Basta! They Don’t Represent Us! and, They Can’t Even Imagine Us! they took to the streets beginning in Tunisia and Egypt on to Spain, Greece, Portugal, Bosnia and the USA (with many dozens more places around the globe). In that space, in various towns, villages and cities, in regions all over, people began creating new social relationships and ways of being. In some places this is still taking the form of directly democratic assemblies, searching for those things around which to organize. In others the movements have evolved to take on questions of alternative forms of production, agriculture, defense of the land, housing, health care and education. That is to say, they have begun to recreate how we organize all of those things most important to our survival. And doing so in ways that are participatory and empowering. They have been collectively working towards real democracy, as the movements sometimes refer, following the Spanish precursor movement, Democracia Real Ya! (Real Democracy!). Both before and since 2011, the communities and movements in defense of the land, from India and Africa to Central, South and North

 Main Foreword 

xiii

America. They have been using direct action and assemblies as the central form of protecting all that is sacred, our water, air and earth. These forms of organizing are taking place in ways that are remarkably similar—using face to face democracy, horizontal assemblies, self—organization, and at the core is a striving for new social relationships of care— listening to one another and thinking/feeling together. There is a growing global movement of refusal—refusing to not be heard, refusing the destruction of the planet, refusing to be treated as objects and without dignity. Simultaneously, in that refusal, is creation. Millions are shouting ‘No!’, while manifesting alternatives in its wake. What has been taking place in disparate places around is without precedent with regard to consistency of form, politics, scope and scale. These new waves of movements, are just that, waves, they ebb and flow. There have been moments in some places of massive uprisings where it continues, and land is recuperated and autonomous forms of governance established, such as with the Zapatistas in Mexico, and the Cantons in Rojava (N.E. Syria). There are many locations where we see fewer people in the streets after occupying space or in public assemblies, and yet, as many in the post 2011 movements in Spain remind us, these forms of organizing are in our DNA, and they continue. It is all part of a new, growing and deepening phenomenon of everyday revolutions. How we reflect on our movements, especially in moments when our public numbers are fewer, is crucial. Occupy Wall Street (OWS), as a part of the Real Democracy Movements, is an essential part of this growing global phenomenon. Marisa Holmes has gifted us with a detailed account of the organizing of OWS in New York City in 2011, the city that sparked the rest of the US to follow in similar form—with more than 1000 towns, cities and villages organizing an Occupy in their location within a month. Not only does Marisa Holmes tell the real story of the organizing before, behind and during Occupy, she shares the challenges the movement faced, both internal and external, so that we, the readers, can reflect together and learn from the challenges. This story is essential reading for everyone who wants to change our world. I do mean story. Our stories, the narratives told to us, about us, are crucial. And are so often mistold. We know that it is generally the victor

xiv Main Foreword

that tells the story and/or those with power, from intuitional power to structural power (class, race, gender, positionality, etc.). While we know this, we still all too often forget it when we read or hear about the history of a moment or movement. The opening sentences in the foreword are an example of this. I imagine it gave many pause … are there really millions of people organizing in this way? Where? When? We are asking these questions because we are not taught to take historical moments and movements together, as a part of a continuum and process. A central argument in this book is that these movements are not looking to the state to solve the multiple crises. All too often the story of horizontally based movements is told through the lens of statecraft. For example, what took place in Greece, ‘after’ the Squares Movement is told through the lens of SYRIZA, or the Spanish Squares movement through the lens of Podemos. The desire for state power is a story that dominates, when in fact, the other story, the one from below and to the left, is often what predominates. There are always many stories. In the case of Occupy Wall Street, and its origins, those who facilitated it, who were there day in and day out, who participated in the working groups and assemblies, they/we are the ones to tell our story, especially the how and why of the story. Marisa does this beautifully and with great care and detail. If you have only heard the mainstream narrative of Occupy, this book will open your mind and heart. If you participated and now feel disheartened or disillusioned as the dominant story is not what you experienced, this book is for you. Hopefully, this book will help to be a reminder when you/we hear the next story, about another movement, to listen to those on the ground, organizing from below. Ask yourself: Are they seeking power, or moving to the left, where the heart resides? The pages you hold gives us a very special and meticulous account into the making of one of these many movements—where the goal is only to change everything. Please, read with care and listen to the voices of organizers and participants, as told through one of the key facilitators and organizers of a movement. Also please, listen to the history behind the movement. Through following Marisa we can see the historical links and processes that are always at play in movement building, yet are all too often left out of historical accounts. Again, this is about the story, whose story, and who is telling it.

 Main Foreword 

xv

In some ways we can see this document as a people’s mic of the movement, sharing back to us with great attentiveness to detail, and with love, what was said, done and why. It is up to us, to process these experiences and think/feel together about the experiences, joys, celebrations, challenges and lessons, and continue to organize, build and reflect. Vestal, NY

Marina Sitrin

Preface: All Day All Week

From the early planning process of Occupy Wall Street (OWS) in New York, through the occupation, and long after, I was an organizer. For several years I dedicated my life to building and stewarding OWS forward. This took many forms, but most visibly I was a facilitator and media-maker. Later on, as OWS became a faint memory, I took an active role in maintaining the history and legacy. This included making a documentary feature film, and hosting events on the subject. However, I began to feel that none of these approaches was enough to counter dominant narratives of events. There are a number of narratives about OWS that in one way or another bury a more radical history. They ignore or distort the contributions that myself and others made. First, there’s the narrative that OWS was stunted, and unsuccessful, because the anarchists and autonomists— all those opposed to hierarchical organization and seizure of the state— were disorganized and unwilling to confront power (Tufekci, 2017). This narrative does not acknowledge that there was a rational basis for doing direct actions, mutual aid or engaging in a directly democratic process. It completely obfuscates the horizontal organization that did exist, at a scale far exceeding previous movements, and connected across the globe. Second, there is the drum beat of how OWS evolved from confusion, chaos and disorder into a serious movement engaged in the real politics of elections (Gerbaudo, 2017). Often this overlaps with discussion of xvii

xviii 

Preface: All Day All Week

Podemos or SYRIZA in Europe or the Bernie Sanders campaign in the United States (Levitin, 2021). There is an assertion that occupiers grew up by moving beyond youthful idealism into the pragmatism of adulthood. This narrative, while certainly patronizing, also has no empirical basis. OWS rejected political parties and did not even make demands of existing institutions or parties, let alone seek to become them. Third, there is a narrative that focuses on the overlaps of the extreme right and fascism with OWS, especially, through social media (Reid-Ross, 2017). What this narrative does is contribute to the attempts at recuperation by the right and criminalizes those who participated in OWS. This is especially concerning in a context where the exact same narrative is perpetuated by the Department of Homeland Security. To be absolutely clear, OWS was part of the radical left, and the attempt at entryism was a counter-revolutionary process. During OWS, we told our own stories, counter to the dominant ones. This work was tactical and made interventions in order to shift culture. In this same vein I offer here a more honest, insider account of what happened. I am in dialogue with the work of other movement insiders, David Graeber (2013), Marina Sitrin (2014), Mark Bray (2013) and Nathan Schneider (2013), who all emphasize the horizontal, democratic, autonomous and anarchistic aspects of OWS, and other 2011 movements. I build on their work, and, with a longer view, provide an updated analysis.

My Approach to Writing During OWS, my own and the collective experience were intimately linked, through an ever-evolving relationship. This was especially the case given my facilitator and documentarian roles, which were primarily about communication, and actively weaving the collective together. Throughout this book I am consciously analysing what we were doing, why we were doing it, how different organizers acted in specific ways. I search for meanings of those actions in terms of their intent and their meanings in terms of their context, of others around them. Probably anyone reflecting on struggle this way can be referred to as some form of participant observer, or as Uri Gordon describes himself ‘an observing

  Preface: All Day All Week 

xix

participant’(2007). Some might refer to this work as ‘critical auto-­­ ethnography’—I’m recounting my experience in a grainy reflective way, acknowledging my own position (Holman-Jones, 2016). This draws on standpoint theories developed by Dorothy Edith Smith, Sandra Harding, Patricia Hill Collins and other engaged feminist scholars. To capture how OWS and the squares were organized, I focus particularly on the interactions and dialogues taking place in assemblies, spokes councils and digital media. To track how practices developed over time I use both in person and digital ethnography. I include detailed descriptions of the New York City General Assembly (NYCGA) and Spokes Council meetings, which were livestreamed, live tweeted, recorded by the Minutes Working Group, and posted online for the public. I also draw from video and audio recordings that I made or were produced by the OWS Media Working Group. Some of these were made public, while others remained in my own possession. All recordings were made known to those appearing at the time. I use direct quotes within the context of events as they unfolded and use the names people chose to give, which at times are legal names and at times pseudonyms. I make a point of including markers of race, ethnicity, nationality and gender identity throughout the text in order to account for differences in experiences among occupiers. When appropriate for context or additional detail I cite other insiders in OWS who have their own reflections on the experience. These come across in video footage, personal communication and via their own writing. In addition to written, video and audio documentation, I refer to collective statements, structure and process proposals, training materials, e-mail lists and reflections from within the movement. For instance, I cite The Principles of Solidarity, The Declaration of the Occupation, and Statement of Autonomy. I also include planning documents for 1 May 2012, the one-year anniversary, international collaborations and occupy ‘offshoots.’ By referring to all the above, I provide a look inside how OWS was organized.

xx 

Preface: All Day All Week

Analysing with Movements I consider the analysis here as inductive and organic, deriving from the events themselves. This is an ethnographic account from below, walking with and questioning those with whom I struggled. I am interested primarily in how OWS was organized, how it changed over time, how it gained momentum and how it was vulnerable to challenges. In this book, I show how the practices of OWS were rooted in previous movements that emphasized participatory democracy and creating new societies. One can trace a movement genealogy from The New Left, Women’s Liberation, Anti-Nuke, to the Global Justice Movement (GJM). Throughout, practices were handed down, and adapted, to fit the demands of new contexts. With each iteration, the practices became more complex, involving formalized structures of working groups and clusters, as well as nuanced ways of using consensus processes. There was an intergenerational dialogue leading up to and throughout OWS, which often involved individual organizers who were personally active across movements and provided continuity. As a result, practices learned from past movements were brought into the space of the square. This was especially the case with the GJM. I show how OWS was part of a global uprising in 2011. From the very inception OWS was internationalist and in solidarity with the Kasbah in Tunis, Tahrir in Cairo, Puerta del Sol in Madrid, Syntagma Square in Greece and all other squares seeking to build a new society. At first, this solidarity was facilitated mainly through social media, especially Facebook and Twitter. It was through screens, and seeing one another struggling in real time, that a sense of affinity was created. However, there were also important connections with organizers in person on the ground. Practices from occupied squares were shared in real time, online and in person, and informed the tactics and strategy of the occupation of Liberty Plaza. I claim in this book that horizontal, democratic, autonomous and anarchistic practices of OWS were what enabled it to grow. I detail how tens of thousands of people participated in the occupation in NYC and hundreds of thousands in other camps. They gained experience in democratic and direct ways of relating and making decisions. This allowed for

  Preface: All Day All Week 

xxi

the proliferation of working groups, affinity groups and individual relationships. Through consensus, people had their voices heard, and this allowed for large-scale organization. Similar experiences played out in other squares. I claim that OWS faced a number of significant challenges that were both internal and external. Internally, there were attempts to do actions around race such as the early response to the murder of Troy Davis by the state of Georgia. There was a great deal of work, especially coming from the People of Colour (POC) Caucus, addressing white supremacy and colour-blind racism. While there were attempts to bring an anti-racist lens to OWS, and to connect struggles, these were not central enough. There were attempts to address heteropatriarchy and sexism in the occupation and after. The Safer Spaces Committee (SSC) brought an intersectional approach and focused on addressing rape and sexual assault. This work was also undervalued, and not central enough to the organizing. Externally, there were threats of institutionalization, co-option, repression and counter-revolution. The process of forming institutions was based around informal elites disguised as affinity groups who instituted hierarchies. They were consistently against a more formal and democratic structure, that would make them transparent and accountable to others. Co-option by political parties happened only after the organization of OWS, and the other squares, had scaled back or disbanded. Parties fed off the corpses of movements, using the rhetoric and symbols as stand-ins. Charges of domestic terrorism, surveillance and censorship criminalized those most committed to movements, and prevented them from having any audience or reach. In the wake of the 2011 movements, came counter-­revolutionary fascist movements, which channelled the anger against elites, but for the right. The vision of OWS was practiced in the here and now, and the goal was a total transformation of society. OWS was all day, all week, a break with the past, and a rehearsal for the future. My hope is that this book is useful for new generations of organizers, and we can learn and change together. This is just practice. Brooklyn, NY

Marisa Holmes

xxii 

Preface: All Day All Week

References Bray, M. (2013). Translating Anarchy: The Anarchism of Occupy Wall Street. Zero Books. Gerbaudo, P. (2017). The Mask and the Flag. Oxford University Press. Gordon, U. (2007). Anarchy Alive! Anti-authoritarian Politics from Practice to Theory. Pluto Press. Graeber, D. (2013). The Democracy Project: A History, A Crisis, A Movement. Random House. Holman-Jones, S. (2016, March). Living Bodies of Thought: The “Critical” in Critical Autoethnography. Qualitative Inquiry. https:// doi.org/10.1177/1077800415622509 Levitin, M. (2021). Generation Occupy: Reawakening American Democracy. Counterpoint. Reid-Ross, A. (2017, February 21). Against the Fascist Creep. AK Press. Schneider, N. (2013). Thank you, Anarchy: Notes from the Occupy Apocalypse. University of California Press. Sitrin, M., & Azzelini, D. (2014). They Can’t Represent Us!: Reinventing Democracy from Greece to Occupy. Verso Books. Tufekci, Z. (2017). Twitter and Tear Gas: The Power and Fragility of Networked Protest. Yale University Press.

Acknowledgements

I tried to make a list of all the people who came to Occupy Wall Street (OWS). I easily came up with over a hundred names and had to stop. What was truly remarkable about occupy was the ever-evolving set of relationships. From every corner of the planet, people descended on the occupation at Liberty Plaza, tucked away in the Financial District of New York City. They brought their skills and talents, and most of all, their hearts. They dared to dream together. Thank you to all the occupiers who made new worlds possible! This book was a long time in the making. I would like to thank all the friends and collaborators who I’ve talked to about the ideas and approaches presented. Thank you, of course, to those who read drafts of my manuscripts, such as Mark Bray, Nathan Schneider, Lisa Fithian, A.K. Thompson and Rebecca Manski. Your insights were enormously helpful, and I know the book is better for them. Thank you, especially, to Marina Sitrin, for being such a consistent champion, and for writing the forward. Thank you to Anitra Nelson, the series editor, who believed in this book, and guided me towards finishing it. While I completed this book outside of my formal academic work, I would like to thank the School of Communication and Information at Rutgers University in New Brunswick, and the faculty who gave their time to talk with me and read early drafts. I felt challenged to answer key questions, some of which are addressed here. xxiii

xxiv Acknowledgements

I’d like to thank my family. My parents Tasha Allison-Holmes and Doug Holmes have always been supportive of my creative and intellectual projects. They also were the first ones to teach me about politics. I’m an organizer today, in part, because of them. Most of all, I have to thank my partner in life, and in struggle, Jez Bold, who I met during OWS. Ze was unimaginably patient with me for years as I wrote this book. Thank you, Jez! Neither OWS nor this book would have happened without you.

Praise for Organizing Occupy Wall Street “As an author, filmmaker, and organizer, no one is better positioned to unravel the inner workings and historical significance of the Occupy Movement than the indefatigable Marisa Holmes. She brings her firsthand experience traversing the pathways of recent global movements–from Egypt to New York to Spain to Charlottesville–to bear on her razor sharp analysis of struggle in this definitive study.” —Mark Bray, Assistant Professor of History, Rutgers University “‘This is Just Practice’ is movement history at its best: meticulous, direct, and expansive in revolutionary scope. Providing a crucial corrective to all too many reductive Occupy narratives, Holmes emphasizes the movement’s context in international struggles and centers it’s all-too-overlooked form as a horizontalist, richly lived radical experiment. This is the Occupy we need to remember; these are the practices we must carry forward.” —Natasha Lennard, Author of “Being Numerous: Essays on Non-Fascist Life” “More than a decade later, what happened at Occupy Wall Street still matters, and Marisa Holmes explains why. Democracy was not in retreat in 2011 like it so often is today, but advancing though courageous experiments in the streets. That moment and its meaning have never been so vividly described as here.” —Nathan Schneider, Assistant Professor of Media Studies, University of Colorado Boulder

Contents

1 I ntergenerational Dialogues  1 2 Th  e Squares 17 3 The New York City General Assembly 33 4 D  ay One 51 5 O  ur Park 63 6 This Is What Democracy Looks Like 75 7 D  irect Action 83 8 Media for the 99% 91 9 A  llies 99 10 R  ace in OWS111 11 G  ender in OWS121 xxvii

xxviii Contents

12 S  tructure129 13 Th  e Eviction145 14 O  ccupy Somewhere151 15 Money in the Movement163 16 All Our Grievances Are Connected173 17 All Roads Lead to Wall Street193 18 Occupy the World Social Forum205 19 I nformal Elites223 20 Th  e Founders243 21 P  ower and Leadership255 22 C  o-option263 23 R  epression283 24 N  eo-Fascism295 25 Conclusion: Building the New Society311 G  lossary323 I ndex327

1 Intergenerational Dialogues

I came of age politically during the anti-war movement of the mid-2000s, and the crash of 2008. This was also a period of reflection on the Global Justice Movement (GJM). I found that many of the lessons from previous movements, about how to organize democratically and take direct action, were applicable to the struggles of the moment.

The Zapatistas The Zapatista Army of National Liberation (EZLN) began as a Marxist-­ Leninist guerilla organization, in the 1980s, along the mountains and villages of Chiapas, Mexico. Through building with the local Mayan indigenous communities, they learned about the history of colonization in the region and how to make change through other means. Instead of seizing state power, they sought to build power from below (Holloway & Pelaez, 1998). Women played an essential role in this strategy and became core to the EZLN (Klein, 2015). By the time the Zapatistas went public in 1994, they were committed to building autonomous, horizontal, democratic territories. © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 M. Holmes, Organizing Occupy Wall Street, Alternatives and Futures: Cultures, Practices, Activism and Utopias, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-8947-6_1

1

2 

M. Holmes

On New Year’s Day 1994, the North American Fair Trade Agreement went into effect. The Zapatistas understood that this would be devastating for small farmers who would be competing with large mono crop farmers, so they decided to go public and declare war on the Mexican government. The EZLN occupied San Cristobal as well as other towns in Chiapas, using wooden guns when they lacked real ones (Conant, 2010). The insurgency was comprised of one third guerilla women, some of whom rose in the ranks to commanders, and they won (Klein, 2015). The result was a brokered ceasefire, and the establishment of autonomous territories. Immediately after, they created an organizational structure from below and to the left, with the EZLN in the service of newly liberated Zapatista communities. On 20 January 1994, the Zapatistas maintained, “This democratic space will be based upon three fundamental, historically inseparable premises: democracy to define the dominant social proposal; the freedom to endorse one proposal or another; and justice as a principle which must be respected by all proposals.” (Holloway & Pelaez, 1998). The Zapatistas created a horizontal space, where people could be heard and make their own decisions. Councils addressed sharing land, developing co-ops, running schools, and maintaining social ties within the communities. They understood that change happens through a genuinely relational process. This is perhaps best exemplified in The Story of the Question, in which Marcos writes, “‘Let’s walk,’ said the one who were two. ‘How? Said the other. ‘Where?’ said the one,” (2004). This is how the Zapatistas learned to walk by questioning.

 he World Trade Organization and Direct T Action Network The GJM was inspired by organizing practices of the Zapatistas, as well as The New Left, Women’s Liberation, and the Anti-nuke movements. Writing during the period of the GJM, Francesca Polletta draws connections with earlier organizations. She notes that many participants had previous experiences, whether in radical environmental groups, ACT-UP (the direct action organization formed around the AIDS epidemic),

1  Intergenerational Dialogues 

3

Reclaim the Streets and Critical Mass (which took over public space through direct action), or other anarchist or anti-authoritarian collectives. “What links these groups is their commitment to direct action and a deliberative style that, with varying degrees of rigor, is nonhierarchical,” Polletta (2004, p. 189) observes. Building on previous organizational structures and processes is evident in accounts of the shutdown of the World Trade Organization meeting in Seattle in  November, 1999. Lisa Fithian (2019), describes arriving in Seattle as follows: The convergence space was a hive of people creating an alternative world. There were daily trainings: nonviolent direct action, legal, jail solidarity, medic, communications, and media. There were educational events and art workshops. Food Not Bombs and Seeds for Peace were providing hot meals every day, and the comms team was setting up a system of tactical communications with everything from central dispatch to on-the-ground mobile systems. (p. 83)

The level of self-organization was incredible, even to her, who at that time was already a seasoned organizer. Like the anti-nuclear movement, the mobilization was both directly confrontational and building alternative infrastructure. Fithian (2019) aided local organizers in action planning. Affinity groups, small groups of like minded people, would take on different areas and intersections to ensure a creative and disruptive action. This was all coordinated and decided on democratically. Fithian writes, “During the nightly spokes council meetings, hundreds of people sat on the floor, divided into affinity groups with their spokes-person in front sitting in an inner circle. These meetings sometimes continued long into the night” (2019, p. 83). In the lead up to Seattle, or what was originally termed N30, the Ruckus Society, a group of non-violent direct action trainers, held a camp. This was typical for them before any large mobilization, and often took place in a beautiful, remote location, where participants could practice a variety of skills whether banner drops, tree sits, or facilitation. According to David Graeber (2008a, p. 290) it was at this camp in the

4 

M. Holmes

summer of 1999 that the idea of the Direct Action Network (DAN) was first tossed around. However, it didn’t take hold until the end of the Seattle convergence, while many of the organizers were in jail. Those still outside threw together a somewhat haphazard Interim Body, charged to “spend the next three months working with their local groups to develop a proposal for a future Continental DAN that would operate under the principles of non-hierarchy, decentralization, local autonomy, and direct democracy” wrote Graeber (2008b, p. 291). In the following months, an informal regional spokes council developed over conference calls, before some sort of founding statement could be consented to. The Continental DAN Mission read; We are a continental network committed to overcoming corporate globalization and all forms of oppression. We are part of a growing movement united in common concern for justice, freedom, peace, and sustainability of all life, and a commitment to take direct action to realize radical visionary change. (Graeber 2008c, p. 291)

While DAN was continental, the NYC DAN provided a model, which other chapters followed. There were general meetings that were open to anyone who wanted to attend, as long as they abided by the principles. Out of these meetings various working groups and collectives formed. Decisions were made by a modified consensus process, with strong facilitation. This allowed for DAN to excel at planning for mass mobilizations, such as shutting down summits, and in spreading a democratic process. The later was what really intrigued Graeber, who was a participant in the group. He wrote, “During my first year in DAN, I spent a lot of time trying to understand what this ‘spirit of consensus’ was really all about. It was clearly not just about decision making. It wasn’t even just about conduct during meetings. It was more an attempt—inspired by reflections on the structure and flow of meetings—to begin to reimagine how people can live together, to begin—however slowly, however painfully—to construct a genuinely democratic way of life” (2008d, p. 297). The process of consensus for Graeber was opening up new possibilities for those involved.

1  Intergenerational Dialogues 

5

More important than everyone identifying as an anarchist, was the cultural shift through the practice itself. He called this small-a-anarchism (Graeber, 2002). During the GJM, media also played an essential role. With the emergence of the internet as a popular and consumer technology in the late 1990s, there was a new wave of media activism. Inspired by the Zapatistas, networks formed and converged in Seattle (Wolfson, 2014a). Alongside the convergence center, there was a physical independent media center (IMC) and launch of indymedia.org. The first message on the site read: Welcome to indymedia. The resistance is now global … trans-pacific collaboration has brought this website into existence… The web dramatically alters the balance between multinational and activist media. With just a bit of coding and some cheap equipment, we can set up a live automated website that rivals the corporates. Prepare to be swamped by a tide of activist media makers on the ground in Seattle and around the world, telling the real story behind the World Trade Agreement. (As cited in Wolfson, 2014, p. 71)

Over the course of the next few days, media activists would deploy into the streets of Seattle, record whatever they could, and bring reports back to the IMC for editing, and uploading to the site. Chris Robe (2017, p. 215) describes how the IMC served as a hub for independent journalists, videographers, and photographers. He credits the website’s open publishing format that allowed participants to post their media and expose police violence. This grassroots non-professional approach to media making offered a counter narrative to the mainstream news media. Like DAN, a global network grew in the aftermath of Seattle. The first description of the Independent Media Center Network (IMCN) read: The Independent Media Center Network (IMCN) is based upon principles of equality, decentralization, and local autonomy. The IMCN is not derived from a centralized bureaucratic process, but from the self-­ organization of autonomous collectives that recognize the importance in developing a union of networks. (As cited in Wolfson, 2014b, p. 131)

6 

M. Holmes

Unfortunately, by the mid-2000s the GJM, including indymedia, receded into the background due to its own trajectory of co-option and repression. Inability to navigate oppression, informal hierarchies, and difficulty in distributing resources contributed to decline (Wolfson, 2014c). However, the movement was most challenged by the changing context after 9/11 (Graeber, May 16, 2009).

The New Students for a Democratic Society After 9/11, the urgency around stopping the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan took over activist circles. A new anti-war movement emerged that was organized along more vertical, top-down, structures imposed by Act Now to Stop the War and End Racism (ANSWER), a front group for the Revolutionary Communist Party (Conantz, February 9, 2012) and United for Peace and Justice (UFPJ), which was heterogenous but trended liberal (ISR, November–December, 2007) These groups were responsible for mass demonstrations against the War in Afghanistan, War in Iraq, and the more all-encompassing War on Terror. The anti-war movement was effective in turning out millions of people, and these were some of the largest demonstrations in history. However, they seemed to have little impact in actually stopping the wars. Watching this unfold, Pat Korte and Jessica Rapchik, two young white student activists, felt it was time to have a more militant youth wing of the anti-war movement and looked for inspiration in The New Left (Phelps, April 2, 2007). Both were a bit bookish and had been reading obsessively about the original Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) of the 1960s. They issued a press release in January 2006, declaring the formation of the new SDS, which would be in conversation with original SDS members such as Al Haber and Paul Buhle. It was designed as an intergenerational dialogue, and to integrate some of the lessons learned. Movement for a Democratic Society would be a sort of parent organization to the new SDS. They ended with the description: SDS is an education and social action organization dedicated to increasing democracy in all phases of our common life. It seeks to promote the active

1  Intergenerational Dialogues 

7

participation of young people in the formation of a movement to build a society free from poverty, ignorance, war, exploitation, racism and sexism. (SDS, January 16, 2006)

There were already chapters in the works and plans to hold a national convention in Chicago that summer. I happened to be a student in Chicago at that time, and reached out to Korte, Rapchik, and some of the early organizers. At first, I saw my role primarily as a documentary filmmaker, bringing my camera along for meetings and actions. For a while, I joined the Chicago Independent Media Center (IMC), one of the last remaining IMCs of the indymedia network. However, I didn’t want to merely record events, and I quickly drifted into more of an organizing role. Over the course of the next few years, I ended up on the road, crisscrossing the country, and sleeping on coaches. I was struck, time and again, by how serious everyone seemed to be, especially my peers. During one of our conventions the slogan was optimistically, ‘a revolution in our lifetimes’ (Miller, August 5, 2008). The structure of the new SDS was similar to the original, in that it was chapter based and national in scope. However, there was no executive committee. Like the Anti-nuke Movement and the GJM, there was a working group structure. Anyone from the local chapters could participate in the working groups, and there were always new ones forming. I joined the SDS Media Working Group (which included both creating our own media and doing press work) as well as the SDS Chapter Outreach Group. SDS used a consensus process, in the working groups and during national conventions. Furthermore, those in attendance for the conventions did not have a final say. They were effectively only delegates or spokes as all major proposals were sent back to the chapters to ratify before adoption. It was truly bottom-up and directly democratic. Like indymedia, SDS utilized websites, listservs, and chats to communicate. There were regular conference calls regionally and nationally. The organization grew exponentially in its first year. There were over a hundred chapters, from the District of Columbia to Ann Arbor, Michigan to Olympia, Washington (Students for a Democratic Society, 2008).

8 

M. Holmes

During this time, I learned how to facilitate meetings, map a spectrum of allies, engage in strategic planning, and move in the streets. It was a real crash course. Every young organizer should be so lucky. I met many movement elders that took the time to talk with the new generation, especially those from the GJM such as Lisa Fithian. One of my favorite early memories of her is talking during a convention in Detroit. Some of us young women in the organization felt we were being sidelined by men, who were friends and made decisions behind our backs. We were also tired of the constant devaluing of our work. Lisa took us aside and talked us through some options, and we formed the SDS Women’s Caucus as a result. Lisa and I kept in touch over the years, and she was one of the first people I called during the planning process for Occupy Wall Street.

The 2007–2008 Crash In September 2008, the stock market crashed. As is now well known, there was a housing bubble which had been building for years and hit a peak in 2007. This was propped up by predatory lending practices whereby poor people, mainly of color, were given high interest loans that they could not possibly pay back. These were re-packaged as mortgage backed securities and sold to the highest bidder. Lehman Brothers, Bear Sterns, and other financial heavy weights got in too deep, and started folding. This sent shock waves through the financial sector and the larger economy both in the US and internationally (Taylor, 2019). In the last days of the Bush administration, the banks and financial firms were deemed ‘too big to fail’ and bailed out to the tune of billions of dollars in relief, as well as offered ongoing credit lines with the Federal Reserve. There was no bailout for the people. Instead, the crisis was used as an opportunity for cut-backs and lay-offs. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (2008), unemployment rates for the general population hovered around 10% but were closer to 14 or 15% for young people. Those who were lucky enough to have a job kept it, and no one was hiring. Even then President Barrack Obama, who was elected on a platform of hope and change, towed the line of Wall Street bankers. Discontent was growing in schools, workplaces, and neighborhoods. It was increasingly

1  Intergenerational Dialogues 

9

clear that there was simply no future in a capitalist system, and that politicians weren’t going to save us. I was the class of 2008. Like many in my generation I had mountains of student debt and could not find a job. I would send out hundreds of applications and hear nothing in return. Thus, I decided to fight for a future worth living in.

Student Occupations There was an emerging interest in occupations in SDS and throughout the broader student movement. On 18 December 2008, The New School SDS chapter, along with a coalition of other groups, occupied the university in response to corporate policies and its lack of democracy. On the first night, they were live blogging and issued the New School Occupation Statement, which read: We have come together to prevent our study spaces from being flattened by corporate bulldozers, to have a say in who runs this school, to demand that the money we spend on this institution be used to facilitate the creation of a better society, not to build bigger buildings or invest in companies that make war. We have come here not only to make demands, but also to live them. Our presence makes it clear that this school is ours, and yours, if you are with us. (New School in Exile, December 18, 2008)

The New School Occupation Committee declared itself “The New School in Exile” in honor of the history of the school providing refuge for Jewish intellectuals fleeing Nazis Germany. The name called the university to live up to its founding mission. Immediate demands included the resignation of Bob Kerry, then president, along with multiple other administrators. The occupation held out through the end of the semester but was cleared without these demands being met. A follow-up occupation on 9 April 2009 targeted the president’s office but was immediately and violently repressed (Moynihan, April 10, 2009). In the fall of 2009, the student networks in the University of California (UC) system were gearing up for a fight over a massive 32% tuition hike, threats of lay-offs, and other austerity measures (Lewin, November 20,

10 

M. Holmes

2009). Occupations were organized at five different campuses, with the largest and most high profile one at UC Berkeley. The night of 19 November a group of a dozen occupiers broke into Wheeler Hall and began shutting down auditoriums and classrooms, before barricading themselves in. By the morning they were public with the student newspaper, The Daily Cal, live tweeting from inside. Throughout the afternoon, hundreds of supporters gathered outside cheering them on, before they were dragged out by security and arrested. A few days later, on 22 November, the student organizing blog had a new post: WE ARE THE CRISIS: The Student Movement and the Coming Decade. They spoke of navigating a world in which there was no longer any illusion of upward mobility, in which there were no jobs, and crushing student debt. They spoke of the university, even a public one, succumbing to private interests. They charted the future of the movement and listed five features of what was already under way: • coming-together without the illusion of unity • direct action and occupation of space • the organization of councils & assemblies to make decisions, the rejection of leadership models • a broad vision & solidarity across traditional lines that divide • joy and community as well as rage and protest. (We Are The Crisis, November 22, 2009) While I was not involved in any of these occupations, I watched them from afar and helped however I could to disseminate news from inside across the student movement. I saw parallels to the original SDS occupation of Columbia University in 1968. Occupation was what I had always dreamt of, but seemed like another time, another moment. Now, it was our moment.

1  Intergenerational Dialogues 

11

Workplace Occupations On 2 December 2008, Republic Windows and Doors based in Chicago (Illinois) declared bankruptcy, and was put under control of its creditors, Bank of America and J.P.  Morgan Chase. The company began closing down its warehouse on Goose Island, on Chicago’s near west side, and informed 240 workers that they would be losing their jobs. Luckily, the workers were represented by United Electrical Local 1110, a rank and file union, which embraced a more democratic and bottom-up culture of decision making. The leadership made the same wages as the average worker and was accountable to the membership. Immediately, a rally was held in the loop (the downtown area) calling on the banks to extend lines of credit. I was still living in Chicago at the time, and joined in the picket chanting, “You got bailed out! We got sold out!” There were hundreds of us, bundled up in winter scarves and mittens, and waving United Electrical signs alongside Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) banners. The local Food Not Bombs group was onsite offering hot drinks to workers (Holmes, Dec. 3, 2008). In the coming days it became clear that not only were workers losing their jobs, but that the company was refusing to give them adequate notice or holiday pay. This was in violation of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act. Close observation at the warehouse revealed equipment was rapidly being moved out. Conversations ensued on the factory floor and union offices about how to proceed. The United Electrical News reported: So at the end of their final workday on Friday, workers did not leave. People from the other shifts came in and joined them. They refused to leave until they had achieved some justice. In the words of Melvin Maclin, the local’s vice president, “We hoped to get back some of our dignity”. (United Electrical, Dec 5, 2008)

12 

M. Holmes

On 6 December, after the sit-down strike commenced, a loose eviction defense network came together among organizers across Chicago. Community groups, churches, and collectives of all kinds joined in solidarity. There were phone trees for groups to coordinate factory shifts. The Lichen Lending Library, an anarchist social center in Pilsen on the southwest side, was one key base of operations. I was volunteering there at the time and would support the occupation. This included everything from preparing and delivering meals to attending emergency demos (Crane, Summer 2009). Within a few days the occupation became a national news story, and garnered widespread political support. The well-known political activist Jesse Jackson came by with a truck load of turkeys. The documentary filmmaker, Michael Moore, gave stump speeches. Even president-elect Obama made a statement. The workers became emblematic of the effects of the crisis. By 10 December, less than a week into the occupation, the workers had a settlement totaling US$1.75 million, which included: • Eight weeks of pay they were owed under the federal WARN Act • Two months of continued health coverage • Pay for all accrued and unused vacation. (UE News, Dec 10, 2008) Chase and Bank of America covered the cost, and a separate solidarity fund was established for the workers to be paid directly. It was an incredible victory, for it not only met their immediate demands, but also went beyond them. Later on, the workers were able to establish their own cooperative workplace. This served as an example of the effectiveness of militant workplace organizing in the context of the crisis, and the power of occupation.

Housing Occupations When the housing bubble burst in 2007, it was increasingly impossible for homeowners to keep up with payments. Within a few years over four million homes had been foreclosed on, which affected at least ten million people, largely people of color. Banks would call the police or hire their

1  Intergenerational Dialogues 

13

own security to forcibly evict people from their homes. Laura Gottesdeiner (2013) writes, “The collapse of the home—and home ownership—that began surfacing in late 2007 has created not only an economic disaster but a crisis in national identity. On the surface this catastrophe is about the price of our houses. But more fundamentally, this ongoing crisis challenges the very foundation of American democracy,” (2013). In this context, grassroots organizers across the country encouraged people to resist evictions and stay in their homes or take over vacant spaces. Take Back the Land was originally formed in 2006  in Miami by houseless folks who seized a plot of public land for an encampment called Umoja Village Shantytown. Miami was an early epicenter of the housing bubble with rapid gentrification displacing black and brown residents of the city. The camp drew attention to this and provided a hub for organizing. While it only lasted a few months, it inspired organizers around the country to do similar actions. Throughout 2007 and 2008, with the expansion of the crisis, the Take Back the Land network grew with dozens of chapters. Each one would engage locally around what was needed and provide eviction defense for squatted buildings. Vacancy was high, especially in urban centers, and it was only logical that vacant buildings be put to use (Rameau, 2008). My own housing situation at the time became increasingly precarious. In an attempt to save money, my then partner and I had moved into a run down one-bedroom apartment in Pilsen on the Southwest Side of Chicago. The building was old enough that it had survived The Great Chicago Fire of 1871, and somehow managed to stay standing up to the present. The stairs dipped, electrical boxes sparked, and the foundation was revealed, upon exploration, to be pure mud. We figured there were at least a dozen or so code violations. On top of it all, the landlord, one of the largest in the neighborhood, was in foreclosure, but still collecting rent payments, so we went on rent strike. It lasted six months or so, before we were forced out of the building.

14 

M. Holmes

Riding the Wave My personal journey was connected to the political, economic, and social context of the mid-2000s. I became aware of my place in society, and the world, and committed myself to changing it. Through learning from previous generations and having my own organizing experiences, I became an anarchist. I understood that the problem was dominant power (power-­ over) whoever wielded it, and to counter this required a counter power, from below, built through coalitions of exploited and oppressed people. I also had the unique combination of being both a media-maker and facilitator, two roles that would be essential in the next wave of struggle.

References Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2008). Employment and Unemployment Among Youth, Summer 2008. Retrieved August 22, 2022, from https://www.bls.gov/ opub/ted/2008/aug/wk4/art05.htm Conant, J. (2010). A Poetics of Resistance: The Revolutionary Public Relations of the Zapatista Insurgency. AK Press. Conatz, J. (February 9, 2012). The Revolution We Really Really Don’t Need. LibCom. https://libcom.org/article/revolution-­we-­really-­really-­dont-­need Crane, S. (Summer 2009). Pilsen: Chicago’s Revolution of Everyday Life. Retrieved from https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/silas-­crane-­pilsen-­ chicago-­s-­revolution-­of-­everyday-­life Fithian, L. (2019). Shut it Down: Stories from a Fierce Loving Resistance (p. 83). Chelsea Green. Gottesdeiner, L. (2013). The Dream Foreclosed: Black America and the Fight for a Place to Call Home (p. 6). Zuccotti Park Press. Graeber, D. (2002). The New Anarchists. New Left Review. Graeber, D. (2008a). Direct Action: An Ethnography (p. 290). AK Press. Graeber, D. (2008b). Direct Action: An Ethnography (p. 291). AK Press. Graeber, D. (2008c). Direct Action: An Ethnography. AK Press. Graeber, D. (2008d). Direct Action: An Ethnography (p. 297). AK Press. Graeber, D. (May 16, 2009). The Shock of Victory. Infoshop News. Retrieved from https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/david-­graeber-­the-­shock-­of-­ victory

1  Intergenerational Dialogues 

15

Holloway, J., & Pelaez, E. (1998). Zapatista!: Reinventing Revolution in Mexico (p. 131). Pluto Press. Holmes, M. (December 3, 2008). Personal Video and Photo Collection. Klein, H. (2015). Companeras: Zapatista Women’s Stories. Seven Stories Press. Lewin, T. (November 20, 2009). Regents Raise College Tuition in California by 32%. NY Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/20/education/ 20tuition.html Marcos, S.  I., & Vicente, R.  G. (2004). Ya Basta! Ten Years of the Zapatista Uprising (Z. Vodvnik, Ed.). AK Press, p. 69. Miller, A. (August 5, 2008). Revolution in Our Lifetime. Retrieved August 20, 2022, from https://aricmiller.wordpress.com/tag/sds/ Moynihan, C., & Chan, S. (April 10, 2009). Police Arrest 22 At New School Building. NY Times. https://archive.nytimes.com/cityroom.blogs.nytimes. com/2009/04/10/students-­occupy-­new-­school-­building-­again/ Phelps, C. (April 2, 2007). The New SDS: Can the New Students for a Democratic Society Avoid the Internal Conflicts that Plagued the Original Group? The Nation. Retrieved August 20, 2022, from https://www.thenation. com/article/archive/new-­sds/ Polletta, F. (2004). Freedom is an Endless Meeting (p.  189). University of Chicago Press. Rameau, M. (2008). Take Back the Land: Land, Gentrification and the Umoja Village Shantytown. AK Press. Robe, C. (2017). Breaking the Spell: A History of Anarchist Filmmakers, Videotape Guerrillas, and Digital Ninjas (p. 215). PM Press. Students for a Democratic Society (SDS). (January 16, 2006). SDS Press Release. Retrieved August 20, 2022, from https://web.archive.org/ web/20070704023258/http://www.studentsforademocraticsociety.org/ michigan/pdfs/Students%20for%20a%20Democratic%20Society%20%20Original%20Press%20Release.pdf Students for a Democratic Society (SDS). (December 18, 2008). An Open Letter: Come Occupy a Building with Us … Now. New School in Exile. Retrieved from https://www.e-­flux.com/announcements/38593/an-­open-­letter-­come-­ occupy-­a-­building-­with-­us-­now/ Taylor, K.  Y. (2019). Race for Profit: How Banks and the Real Estate Industry Undermined Black Homeownership. University of North Carolina Press. Students for a Democratic Society (May 23, 2008). SDS National Convention Bulletin 1. Retrieved August 22, 2022, from https://sdsconventionbulletin. wordpress.com/2008/05/23/hello-­world/

16 

M. Holmes

United Electrical. (December 5, 2008). They Took Control of Their Workplace— And They Won. UE News. Retrieved August 20, 2022, from https://www. ueunion.org/ue-­news-­feature/2018/republic-­windows-­and-­doors-­plant-­ occupation-­10th-­anniversary United Electrical. (December 5, 2018). They Took Control of Their Workplace-­ And They Won. UE News. Retrieved August 20, 2022, from https://www. ueunion.org/ue-­news-­feature/2018/republic-­windows-­and-­doors-­plant-­ occupation-­10th-­anniversary WE ARE THE CRISIS. (November 22, 2009). WE ARE THE CRISIS: The Student Movement and the Coming Decade. https://wearethecrisis.blogspot. com/2009/11/we-­are-­crisis-­student-­movement-­and.html Wolfson, T. (2014a). Digital Rebellion: The Birth of the Cyber Left. p. 39 Wolfson, T. (2014b). Digital Rebellion: The Birth of the Cyber Left. p. 70 Wolfson, T. (2014c). Digital Rebellion: The Birth of the Cyber Left. p. 131.

2 The Squares

In They Can’t Represent Us!: Reinventing Democracy from Greece to Occupy, Marina Sitrin and Dario Azzelini (2014) offer a transnational analysis of 2011. They state, “We believe we have entered another significant historical epoch. This one is marked by an ever-increasing global rejection of representative democracy, and simultaneously, a massive coming together of people who were not previously organized, using direct democratic forms to begin to reinvent ways of being together” (2014, p. 6). Drawing on accounts of the movements in Spain, Greece, and the United States, they tell the story of a global democratic uprising. According to their interviews and observations, the squares movements of 2011 varied depending on each local context and organizing history. However, what was shared was a rejection of representative democracy and an insistence of real or direct democracy in its place. I agree that Occupy Wall Street (OWS) was part of this global revolution already under way. People were taking space in order to challenge liberal democracy. The square existed in the liberal imaginary as the stand in for the public sphere. Taking it over created a space of confrontation as well as experimentation with alternative democratic forms and processes.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 M. Holmes, Organizing Occupy Wall Street, Alternatives and Futures: Cultures, Practices, Activism and Utopias, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-8947-6_2

17

18 

M. Holmes

What is also essential to add, is that direct connections were made across different contexts, especially in Egypt and Spain. These informed how OWS was organized.

Egyptians in New York City Throughout winter and spring of 2011, I followed the uprisings in North Africa and the Middle East from a distance on my computer. I watched as Tunisians took over the Kasbah in the capital, Tunis, the first square, and then as Egyptians occupied Tahrir. I spent hours skimming through Facebook, and Twitter trying to make sense of different accounts, and sharing whatever I could with the student and youth movement in the US. In the process, I connected with some members of the April 6 Youth Movement, who had mobilized people to go to Tahrir. Ahmed Maher, in particular, took the time to talk with me. He also happened to be making his first visit to the United States and coming to NYC in April, so we planned to meet. I organized an event for Ahmed and his friend Waleed Rashed at the Brecht Forum, a Marxist social center in the West Village on 26, April 2011 to discuss the revolutionary transition in Egypt (A. Maher, personal communication, April 25, 2011). Ahmed was an unlikely revolutionary, being well educated, part of the Egyptian middle class, and trained as a civil engineer. He was not imposing, as a medium build man with glasses, and spoke in an even and diplomatic tone. Waleed, in contrast, was tall, with dark hair, and often added rhetorical flair. Ahmed and Waleed spoke to the room about the mobilization for 25 Jan street battles with police and taking Tahrir. Both of them were incredibly optimistic about the chances of a revolution succeeding. After the talk, we wandered through the village together chatting and Priya Reddy joined us. She was a petite Indian woman previously involved in indymedia and the Global Justice Movement (GJM). Since then, she had kept making media, and we had met a few years prior in media activist circles in NYC. We all agreed to sit down in Bryant Park, a central location nearby where they were staying, for an interview (P. Reddy, personal communication, April 30, 2011). When Priya and I arrived with our camera gear, Ahmed and Waleed were ordering ice cream from a nearby truck to celebrate the revolution and to try their first ever soft serve. They were very

2  The Squares 

19

confused, wondering why it had no flavor, and determined Egyptian ice cream was much better. I laughed, and said they were probably right. Waleed helped translate for Ahmed, who gave more background on their organizing. Ahmed explained that, in the beginning, they were in touch with older generations who were part of the opposition movement, and they gave them some ideas of how to organize and talk with people. He stressed that social media was important, but that there were other ways they organized, too: We can use Facebook and Twitter for some people like us in Egypt who are using Facebook and this kind of technology. Fine. But 40 per cent of Egyptians are living on the poverty line in Egypt. They don’t know what Facebook means. What we did many times was come down into the streets to explain to them and talk to them why you are silent. Yeah, yeah. It was very very important to come down into the street … Our talking with people was very dangerous against the regime.

Ahmed wanted to emphasize non-centralized organizational structures and decision-making, which he saw as fundamental for their growth. “First of all, to work as an organization and be in a lot of cities and places, things like that, you must have non-central decisions. Non-centralized. Yeah. And also, you need to have some specialization so if I know how to deal with media, I will be in the media group … If I know how to be with people in the streets, I will be with those people talking. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Everybody must work in a group according to his mentality, his studies, his interests—something like that. That is number one.” They did not have a hierarchical model based on coercion and discipline, but a more horizontal one in which people were self-organizing to meet their needs. Everyone had something to contribute, and they encouraged participation. He thought this prepared them well for the revolution: Let’s talk about the revolution days, and how people were organizing themselves. Actually, what happened during the revolution days … was a­ ccording to the character and mentality of the people. When people are coming together in difficult times, they can organize themselves and help each other. What I would like to say is that nobody controls them. Nobody tells them what to do at what time or where to go in Tahrir Square. They know already in these kinds of cases what you should do. You should make the

20 

M. Holmes

full support, the full help, and be helpful to each other. It was according to the nature of people. We knew once we were in Tahrir Square everybody could organize themselves.

Priya asked them about the US support of Mubarak, and its larger role in the region. Ahmed was very critical and clear saying: I’d like to ask a question: Was Mubarak a friend or enemy of Obama and his management? Of course, he was a best friend to them. He was the best friend of U.S. management. So how come he was the best of friends of them and they are saying now that they are supporting? I’d like to explain to everybody that the revolution in Egypt happened because of Egyptians only. Only Egyptians. Nobody supported them. Nobody supported Egyptians. And we’re going to complete our revolution with Egyptians and no one else.

Priya asked about Hillary Clinton visiting Egypt, which seemed to make both Ahmed and Waleed even more upset. They were well aware of the US military aid to Egypt and had seen the violence this inflicted firsthand. This was their reasoning for declining to meet with Clinton. Ahmed emphasized, “When Hillary Clinton was in Egypt one month ago, she asked to be in a room in a meeting. We refused it simply because the teargas was thrown against us, the protestors, and some of our colleagues in the movement were killed, and some of them lost their eyes. This was Made in USA.” Ahmed and Waleed wanted Americans to know what was happening in Egypt, and to cut through the dominant narratives in the U.S. press. They wanted people to know that the future of Egypt belonged to Egyptians, and that they were part of a broader movement in the region. They wanted people to see for themselves and invited us to come to Egypt (Holmes, April 30, 2011a).

Chasing the Revolution I wanted badly to see first-hand what was happening in Egypt, but I was broke. I had been trying as best I could to save money from working freelance gigs in New York. It still wasn’t much—maybe $1000. But I did

2  The Squares 

21

have a few relationships with left-leaning media outlets like Truthout.org, who promised to publish what I wrote. With this assurance, I booked a ticket on my own to Cairo in mid-May 2011 (personal communication, May 6, 2011). I had my life in a backpack, but I was ready for anything. The taxi driver told me that one of the main streets had been named after Mubarak, but since the revolution had been renamed, so directions were confusing. By the time we got to the city center, it was night. Warm streetlamps flickered and illuminated the remnants of colonial era architecture. We rode along the Nile, past the October 6 bridge, and the Egyptian museum, before arriving at the place where I was staying. It was in an older nineteenth century building with wrought iron railings, and a winding marble staircase. A layer of sand dust coated nearly everything. The space looked almost abandoned, except for two stray tabby cats who came to greet me, but I ventured upstairs. Suddenly, a friendly young man appeared in a fitted football t-shirt, who mentioned he was the owner’s son. It was clearly a family operation with makeshift systems in place. They all lived in the building and were renting out a floor to earn some extra money. Once inside, the hospitality was almost overwhelming with offerings of tea and whatever else was needed. I took a room toward the front, so I’d have a view. Tall stained-­ glass doors opened to a balcony overlooking Tahrir.

April 6th Youth Movement Offices The next morning, I began mapping out meet ups and interviews. Waleed was the first to get back to me and offered to show me around (W. Rashed, personal communication, May 19, 2011). He suggested I meet him at the new April 6 Youth Movement offices in Dokki, a suburb of Cairo. During the week, when they were open, I went across town via taxi. The area was home to many universities and non-profits, and lush with trees and gardens. I arrived to find a modern office building hidden on a side street. Waleed appeared in a light polo shirt and black sunglasses. He was just getting off the phone, obviously juggling many simultaneous requests for his time and energy, but he greeted me warmly and took me upstairs

22 

M. Holmes

to meet Mohamed Adel, a heavier set and self-effacing man, who was organizing their outreach operation. It looked as though they had just begun assembling desks, computers, and a giant copy machine. Young people (mostly men) sat around in circles cracking jokes and running off flyers. Waleed apologized for having to leave, but left me with Adel, who sat down for an interview (M.  Adel, personal communication, May 24, 2011). I discussed with Adel how he saw his own power in the organization, and what role he played. He laughed and said, “As far as my job … I’m just a trainer. Sometimes people call me a trainer of the revolution, but I’m just a trainer of how to talk to people and do the street work.” Then he noted, “Second thing, I’m a spokesperson for April 6.” He shrugged his shoulders indicating the role’s lesser importance. At first, he explained how the organization had progressed and said, “On 6, April 2008, we aimed to start a youth movement, and the people on Facebook started this movement, and we named it the first independent youth movement in Egypt.” They had grown, intentionally over the course of three years. At first, they were mainly a solidarity movement with workers in Mahalla who had problems with conditions on the job. The next year, they were an oppositional protest movement. The third year in 2010 and the beginning of 2011, they had moved into what he described as a phase of resistance not just in Egypt but throughout the Middle East. He said, “Now, we are trying to be like a political organization.” He distinguished this from a political party. I asked him why this was important, and he smiled saying, “Here in Egypt you will find many groups that are trying to start their own parties … We had about 50 new parties, and I think if you are going to make a party, a new party, it’s a mistake, and you are stupid to start a new party, because this is not our job. When we started the movement, we were not seeking to power. We didn’t need power.” For Adel the people themselves, and especially the revolutionary youth had a different power. He declared, “The youth movement is the hidden power. Some people say, oh but what can youth movements do! But I think it’s the hidden power. They are the best and able to work everywhere and talk to people about what they want.” I asked him what he thought people wanted, and what it was like to talk with them. He

2  The Squares 

23

mentioned their latest project, “Know Your Rights” in which they would go out into the streets, inform people what rights they had, and encourage them to push back against the dictatorship. It sounded so simple, even banal, but especially important in a context where basic rights were not respected. The scale was very impressive. He explained, “Now, we are working in 22 out of 25 governances all over Egypt. There are many groups in each, who are going out and starting gatherings for general speech in all the squares in every village and every city.” With 27 May their next big day of action coming up, I was wondering about turnout. He indicated that hundreds of thousands of flyers had been printed and distributed throughout Egypt, alongside in person events and door knocking. They also used Facebook and Twitter to mobilize. I probed a bit more about the reasoning behind the demonstration, and he elaborated: Ok. Many people in Egypt now are saying, oh, that’s enough. We don’t need any more revolution or demonstrations and things like that … but we are telling them that we need a minimum of salaries and maximum of salaries for rich people, and we need basic rights for workers and everything. Also, on political demands … We need to kick out the assistant of the premiere ministry, and we need a local parliament in every regional governance. We need to end the army court, the Supreme Court for civil cases. We need the people arrested under this court to be free. And the important thing is that we need to send every Mubarak regime leader to the court and start that process. We need to really stop them. The Mubarak regime leaders are now in jail, but the process is very slow, and we need to speed that, because they are working for the anti-revolution against our revolution and trying to come back.

After a pause he added, “But I think that they can’t.” Adel suggested I go out with the Know Your Rights street team that night and handed me off to one of the other members,  a young man named Yasser. He invited me to their old offices, in a poorer neighborhood on the other side of the city. Yasser joked about it being ‘the cave.’ It was definitely dark and cavernous. Walls were falling in, and there was no electricity or running water. This is where the street team met to divide

24 

M. Holmes

up flyers and discuss strategies for messaging. Around a dozen or so were there that night, and some older members had brought their children along with them to help with distribution. After a short convening, we deployed into the streets. It was early evening, and team members approached people getting off work at the train stations and minibuses. They talked to taxi drivers, vendors, and the local butcher while he cut through chicken parts for customers. Everyone seemed receptive and took the flyers (Holmes, May 24, 2011b).

Amal Another night in the city center, I met with Waleed, Ahmed, Adel, and others from April 6, at one of many cafes, where tables spilled out into the street. Amal Sharaf, a petite young secular woman with long hair was there drinking tea and hunched over her computer busily monitoring messages. She explained, “We all met each other in the movement from the general strike in 2008. We all were writing in the Facebook group and started talking. I knew Ahmed at that time and some old members … When I heard about Adel he was in jail. I remember that when he was in jail, I was distributing flyers and things for him to get out, and then he got out of jail and we became friends” (Holmes, May 25, 2011c). That night, she couldn’t talk much more though, because she needed to work on outreach. She was a bit frustrated, and explained, “They blocked the event of Friday 27 May. I tried to make another one and I couldn’t. They blocked that also.” Next to her was her daughter, who looked around 8 years old, also in front of a laptop and fixated on the screen but playing the video game Grand Theft Auto. “I want to play for 10 min only!” she said with a sly smile. Of course, she continued for much longer, driving cars over ramps and highways. She clearly enjoyed all the twists and turns and was very focused. She insisted, “Don’t distract me!” “Why?” I asked. “Because the police will arrest me. You understand what this means, arrest?” For a moment, she was no longer smiling. She just kept playing, almost compulsively. Her car was outrunning the police and finally smashed into a

2  The Squares 

25

barricade. She squealed with delight and exclaimed, “Ah, he died! All of them died!” On another day, when she was less busy, I had dinner with Amal to discuss further her role in April 6 (A. Sharaf, personal communication, May 26, 2011). Since joining the movement her life had been a series of cat and mouse games with the police involving ducking many arrests, injuries, and threats. It became very apparent that she was a real militant, perhaps stronger than any of the other April 6 members I’d met. She described the attack on Tahrir on 2 February saying, “When I got there, the scene was like nothing I had ever seen in my life. I did not imagine that Mubarak would torture his own people to keep himself in power. Sure enough, he came down to torture us. There were people around me with camels, swords, dogs, pigs, and so on. There was no one who didn’t get hurt. I anticipated everyone was going to hurt each other.” The next day, 3 February Amal was involved in an occupation of the military police office. She detailed: I was sitting in the center of Mubarak’s compound with around 30 activists. We were sitting. Again, there were people coming and going to Tahrir, and so on. The news reported that the military police were back in Tahrir. We said, “what are we going to do? what can we do?” One of us went down there and got injured. After a while, we hadn’t expected that the situation would get any worse. Some military police officers entered along with security officers, people from jail, and journalists. They came in and sat on some chairs. They had pistols. One hit an old woman on her head and left her to die. Another military officer entered and told us to sit on the ground with our hands behind our heads, so we sat on the ground and put on hands behind our heads. My daughter was with me, and when she witnessed this scene, she burst into tears. And this old woman who was there began crying as well. They took me, my daughter, and the old woman to another room, and began disciplining us. Afterwards, they escorted my daughter and I out of the room, and one the officers pushed me, and only let me go because of my daughter. He dropped me off, along with the older women, and my daughter, and he took everyone else.”

When I asked her about 27 May, and why it was important to go back to the square she stated, “The soldiers of the military council are responsible

26 

M. Holmes

for the plight of the people, even though there’s no basis for this responsibility. What are the demands that we’re supposed to discuss? What are the important points? Who’s putting together these points, and on the basis of what? Who’s responsible for this dialogue? There wasn’t a dialogue for people to engage in. The revolution will continue by any and all means.”

The Second Friday of Anger On the afternoon of Friday, 27 May 2011 there were the largest demonstrations since the early days of the revolution with tens of thousands in the squares throughout Egypt. Cairo, Alexandria, and Suez. Smaller protests occurred in northern Sinai as well as in the city of Port Said on the Suez Canal. April 6, the 25 January Coalition, and the rest of the youth movement signed on. From my balcony I watched as crowds of people flowed through the streets of downtown Cairo and into Tahrir. I headed down, camera in hand, to document (Holmes). Immediately, I was struck by the decentralized nature of the space. There were people of all backgrounds, but they were not facing one direction or listening to one particular charismatic leader. They were largely self-organized in smaller groups, around multiple stages and speakers. In one corner was an Imam doing a call to prayer with a hundred or so people following. On the other side of the square was a larger secular stage with thousands of people watching. There, Ramy Essem, a young singer and guitarist who had been tortured by the regime, took the mic singing the sarcastic refrain, “Bow your head, bow it down, you are in a democratic homeland.” The vast majority of those present, were having their own side conversations and speaking for themselves. People of all sectors of society were gathered everywhere and engaged in heated debates. Some formed circles and clapped together as they sang in call in response. An older man bent over with brushes, painting the street with poetic turns of phrase. One read, ‘People and People one hand’ a play on the slogan ‘People and the

2  The Squares 

27

Army One Hand.’ A group of children excitedly ran up to me asking to paint my face and enlist me in the festivities. There were almost as many cameras as there were people. With phones in hand protestors took pictures, texted, and distributed messages on social media. It seemed almost as an important to be seen as to be present in the space. I noticed a group of young people with white hats that said Egyptian media in English on them. One of them, a young woman Mona, explained, “In our culture it is an insult to put something on your head like this. … This is the way we are confronting and saying that the Egyptian media is making us dumb. This says here (pointing to a sign in Arabic) that the media is trying to distract the Egyptian people from the reality that they face to distract them from their main core issues that Egyptians should be talking about … For example, they are talking about two ladies that converted to Islam or whatever, and they just ignore the economic status that we are living right now.” She insisted, “All the people agree with us, and these are the things that are happening here that the Egyptian media is fooling us even after the revolution. The Egyptian media should be on our side, and this is not happening. This is not what they are doing.” She was very committed and planning to stay the night. I asked the young man, Beshoy, who was a photographer, standing next to her with black rimmed glasses and a hat, if he was also going to stay. He said, resolutely, “Yes, I will stay tonight with my friends, in Tahrir Square,” and smiled widely. “Why?” I asked. He responded simply, “Well, after the revolution we wanted to change many things, but I didn’t feel the change” (Holmes, May 27, 2011d). Late into the night, thousands remained in Tahrir with their own blankets and tents. There were committees for organizing the space. Some provided juices and teas. Others swept up debris that had been left behind. The security team was perhaps the most visible as they took shifts and checked names and IDs at the perimeter. A man who tried to break through, was quickly surrounded by a dozen or so men who lifted him up, shouted at him that he should be ashamed, and escorted him out of the space. I stayed through the night into the next morning, observing the scene.

28 

M. Holmes

Negotiation I had anticipated that 27  May would transform into a permanent encampment, or at least that people would stay until they were forced out. However, the following day, those who had stayed the night left on their own. The police and military were noticeably largely absent. A few vans were parked nearby, on side streets, and some police officers hung around a bit, chuckling at the protestors, but they did not intervene— not then. Both the protestors and police seemed to be treading lightly in the space, and I didn’t know why. I wondered what kinds of negotiations, if any, had occurred, and what was happening behind the scenes. I could never get a full picture, to be honest. I tried the best I could. I scheduled another interview with Ahmed at his engineering office, which was separate from the April 6 offices a few days later (A. Maher, personal communication, June 1, 2011). Ahmed and I walked through the halls talking, and he told me matter-of-factly, “We tried to meet the week before Friday with the highest command of the military and we were supposed to agree on some issues in the meeting, but 48 hours before the meeting they cancelled on us. Some people still went there and agreed there wasn’t any negotiation going on with the military and they told us we’d look into it and let you know. The atmosphere at the military isn’t promising, but we’ve decided to keep the pressure on the military to force them to listen to our demands including forcing everyone from the previous regime to be ousted.” He was trying to restrain himself, but visibly frustrated and unsure of what lay ahead for the revolutionary transition. He explained, “The creation of the current ministry was decided without any involvement from the factions nor from any votes by the people. In essence, they did not involve the factions that were supposed to be involved in the current new government. Still, there is an old ruling party that continues to accept corruption, shifting large amounts of money around to different factions and others, and it’s these people who have made decisions about the ministries without discussing it with anyone. They made the decision on their own. With regard to upcoming elections, still it’s sitting in the dark, no one knows how it will turn out and who’s going to run—whether it’s a

2  The Squares 

29

faction or parties or individuals—we have no clue till now.” While April 6 was not a political party, and wanted to remain an independent grassroots organization, there were concerns about how the election process would impact their organizing efforts, and chances of revolutionary change. He was particularly concerned about the relationship of the Muslim Brotherhood to the military and said, “Factions like the Muslim Brotherhood, the strongest one, will enter the elections” (Holmes, June 1, 2011a). Ahmed drove me back to where I was staying. A curfew was in place; so it was unsafe for me to travel alone, he warned. As we drove through Cairo, he played some of his favorite anti-colonial songs from the time when Egypt won its independence from the British. He said they should have stayed in the square beyond 27  May and would return later that summer. We circled around Tahrir Square, and he encouraged me to do whatever I could to make Tahrir happen the US. The responsibility of this weighed heavily on me as I prepared to go back home to New York.

From 15 M to Occupy When I moved to NYC in 2009, I was looking for activist media collectives, and was curious if indymedia was still around. It wasn’t, unfortunately. A series of internal divisions brought about by political differences and personal tensions had fractured NYC IMC. Some had left to form The Indypendent, while others moved on with their lives. But there were new media projects that, while not direct descendants of indymedia, held many of the same underlying principles and objectives. Glassbead was one of them. They had been doing guerilla projections of video on government buildings most notably—the FBI. I reached out, and went to meet Vlad Teichberg, a Ukrainian American media activist from Glassbead, who lived at the edge of Bushwick in the industrial zone (V. Teichberg, personal communication, September 14, 2009). A group of a dozen or so had converted a building into an activist social center called 13 Thames. My first impression was that it was pretty haphazardly constructed with paper thin walls, and probably a fire hazard, but in the back of the first floor, there was a studio. Vlad was hunched over a panoply of

30 

M. Holmes

computer parts and cords, trying to configure multiple projectors and remix Guy Debord’s film, Society of the Spectacle. He was not satisfied with a single channel projection and was convinced that multiple screens were needed. I thought Vlad was too intense to collaborate with at that time. I was busy working a day job, and not ready to plunge into what I knew would be an alternate reality. However, we kept in touch over the next few years. In the spring of 2011, separately I went to Egypt, and Vlad went to Spain. We met up again when we were both back in town during the summer in advance of Occupy Wall Street (OWS) and finally worked together in the context of the OWS Media Working Group. In an interview Vlad gave me some background on media during 15 M (October, 2013). He mentioned that with Glassbead he had been there on tour doing creative interventions in public spaces in Europe. In the process he met some activists in the Spanish punk scene, including the musician and performance artist, Nikky Schiller (http://www.heroinas.net/2013/02/ nikky-­shiller.html) [pseudonym] (Hernandez, 2013). I probed a bit more about his meeting Nikky, and he said, “The thing about Nikky is that she was a very serious activist. When the war started in 2003, she started this campaign where they were throwing eggs at all the military installations. It went viral. Apparently, the police were looking for her. It got really kind of crazy, right? But they put a call out to throw eggs, threw a few eggs, and posted a few photos of it, and then everyone started throwing eggs … It was a good protest, I think. So she was doing that kind of stuff for years. So the whole point was to do stuff like that when I got to Spain.” The two of them were watching the revolutions in North Africa and the Middle East and anticipating where the momentum would go next. Initially, they thought the revolution would spread to Sub Saharan Africa. Vlad explained, “We did not feel like Westerners could actually go in there and have an impact. It had to be done through locals. Our whole idea was to work with the revolutionary movements of North Africa to go to South Africa.” They were assembling cheap equipment like 30-dollar routers and old DV camcorders- whatever they could afford—and developing kits with training materials. He said, “That was the game plan, but then while we were preparing the revolution started in Spain.”

2  The Squares 

31

Things were obviously brewing locally. There were mid-term elections coming up and threats of austerity measures. Vlad kept telling everyone ‘something big was gonna go down’ but thought maybe it would happen in August. It ended up being much sooner, on 15 May. “I was actually there when we occupied it,” he said as his face lit up. “It was too few people the first few days. The first day it was like 30 people who got arrested. The second day it was like 50 people. But the third day people got really pissed about all these people getting arrested for being in the park and it was 50,000 people and no one got arrested. That’s when I showed up in Puerta del Sol. And people started saying, the commission in charge of setting up the camp meets over there. And I was with Nikky, and said, that lamp post over there I think is going to be the media center. And so Nikky got on there and said, “Hey media team over there!” That’s how the Puerta del Sol audiovisual commission started.” Vlad went on to describe how they set up operations. At first, they were just talking with people in the square and offering training. However, there were all kinds of lies coming out about the occupation in the more traditional news media, so they felt compelled to counter them with their own narratives. “We started livestreaming from there to show who really was at these general assemblies. And it wasn’t just a bunch of hippies smoking weed. It was everybody … The mainstream media at the time was saying that this was a specific subset of the population, people you could not connect with. They tried to divide us and minimize our importance or whatever. So we started livestreaming from the general assembly so people could actually see who was actually speaking, who was there, and that’s how the whole livestreaming started at Puerta del Sol,” he explained. They called their group ‘Global Revolution.’ Sol was the example for the rest of Spain. Soon dozens of other encampments started under the #15  M and #spanishrevolution using general assemblies and commissions. Through Internet Relay Chat (IRC), and the website, Take the Square, coordination developed around amplifying best practices and days of action. Vlad continued, “So I did that for two months. Through the occupation of Sol, we decided to leave Sol. In Madrid we decided to actually leave the camp rather than try to push the whole eviction thing, because we actually used the time in the camp to organize all of the community assemblies all around Madrid and Spain

32 

M. Holmes

and everything.” These assemblies were growing, and connecting with different struggles around healthcare, education, and most widely, housing. Vlad and Nikky considered staying in Spain but were broke and out of gear to work with. He lamented, “We lost all the equipment that we had, which is what happens when you’re in the heat of the battle,” and laughed. “I came back to New York with the sole purpose of what I started calling the tactical media P.C., a $200-300 laptop that can do everything.” He was busy back in his studio at 13 Thames and tinkering away when he heard rumors about occupying Wall Street.

References Hernandez, H.  Nikky Shiller Arte Activista (February 20, 2013). Retrieved September 4, 2022, from www.heroinas.net/2013/02/nikky-­shiller.html Holmes, M. (June 1, 2011a). Personal Video and Photo Collection. Holmes, M. (May 24, 2011b). Personal Video and Photo Collection. Holmes, M. (May 25, 2011c). Personal Video and Photo Collection. Holmes, M. (May 27, 2011d). Personal Video and Photo Collection. Holmes, M. (October 25, 2013). Personal Video and Photo Collection. Sitrin, M., & Azzelini, D. (2014). They Can’t Represent Us!: Reinventing Democracy from Greece to Occupy (p. 6). Verso Books.

3 The New York City General Assembly

Throughout the planning for Occupy Wall Street (OWS) there was an emphasis on horizontal as opposed to vertical ways of organizing. The NYCGA was a structure for communicating and sharing power. Decisions were made through a consensus process which valued the contributions and feelings of all those present. The process facilitated the creation of the ‘99%’ identity, our messaging and taking of and physical and digital spaces. The process was so central that it was the plan of action for #S17 on 17, September 2011, and it was what made us effective. David Graeber proclaims in The Democracy Project, “There’s nothing that scares the rulers of America more than the prospect of democracy breaking out” (2013a, p. 8).

NYC Uncut Inspired by anti-austerity group UK Uncut, a group of activists formed NYC Uncut in early 2011 (Kilkenny, March 17, 2011). I had been initially drawn in to do some media support work (Holmes, April 23, 2011a). The make-up of the group was politically pretty heterogeneous ranging from liberal to anarchist. Bernadette Evangelist from the Big © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 M. Holmes, Organizing Occupy Wall Street, Alternatives and Futures: Cultures, Practices, Activism and Utopias, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-8947-6_3

33

34 

M. Holmes

Apple Coffee Party and Chuck Zlatzin from the Postal Union, both older white activists in NYC, were heavily involved (B.  Evangelist, personal communication, March 2011). We didn’t always share the same positions, but they were very kind and principled, and I enjoyed working with them. The April 6 event in NYC was supported by many of the Uncut members. This was, in part, how I was able to organize it so quickly. After the event, Priya introduced me to her friend, a white man who was wearing an Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) t-shirt and long leather jacket—the anthropologist and anarchist David Graeber. He ended up with all of us walking through the village after and staring out at the Hudson River wondering what a revolution might look like in the US. I invited David to come to our next meeting for NYC Uncut at the small health food store in the Lower East Side. Our next action had a teach-in component, so I quickly enlisted him to join and play the part of the professor. On the day of the action, we marched through the village and conducted a soft occupation at the local Bank of America branch in Lower East Side. David came with us wearing a classic tweed suit and vest, and his hair a bit disheveled as he mused about debt and democracy. (Holmes, April 30, 2011b). The security was called over, and the sit-in quickly cleared out, but it was a fun piece of performance none the less. David and I kept in touch in the coming months and considered what other actions might be possible.

12 May and Bloombergville In the spring of 2011, there was also a local network of left groups in NYC building to oppose the budget cuts, which would affect schools, healthcare, and other social services. This was largely inspired by the occupation at the Capitol building in Madison, Wisconsin that happened in February (Fithian, 2019). The On May 12th Coalition formed from community based organizations and more left leaning blocks within the unions. They planned a week of actions to escalate against austerity culminating in a march on Wall Street. Rather than stay and occupy, though, most went home. A subset of the coalition kept escalating. This included the Workers World Party, which

3  The New York City General Assembly 

35

held a Marxist-Leninist and Stalinist line in support of Third World struggles, the International Socialist Organization (ISO) that was Trotskyist, and Organization for a Free Society (OFS), which was inspired by Z Institute and the writings of Michael Albert, among other radical left groups in the city (Tarlton, July 22, 2011). They converged in mid-­ June in front of City Hall for an encampment named ‘Bloombergville’ after Mayor Michael Bloomberg and as a nod to the ‘Hoovervilles’ of the Great Depression (Democracy Now, June 24, 2011). Bloombergville was headed in the right direction but was limited by the focus on the budget fight and their hierarchical structure which did not allow it to grow. By the end, they were pushed from City Hall across the street and were dwindling in numbers. A few remained camping out front. There was a disruptive action at the council in which arrests were made. However, the vote still did not go in their favor. Having lost, they were at a bit of a crossroads as to what to do next.

Adbusters On 13 July Adbusters, a culture jamming magazine, issued their first ‘tactical briefing’ calling for 20,000 people to descend on the Financial District to #OccupyWallStreet on 17 September (Adbusters, July 13, 2011). Since they were in Canada, Adbusters wasn’t planning to organize anything on the ground. Initially some of the Bloombergville participants were interested, though. On the BudgetCutsDiscuss listserv, an announcement went out for a ‘People’s General Assembly on the Budget Cuts’ on August 2 at the bull at Bowling Green (New Yorkers Against Budget Cuts, July 25, 2011). While the event was termed an assembly, it resembled more of a rally with a sound system and line up of speakers from the coalition. Unfortunately, Workers World had taken the opportunity to commandeer the stage. Members spoke about the importance of building a political program and reclaiming the shared resources of ‘the people.’ They even unveiled what was called the ‘Bill of Particulars.’ There was growing resentment in the crowd, that had been promised an assembly, where

36 

M. Holmes

they’d be able to participate, and were instead being talked-at for an hour (Holmes, 2016). Present were members of the Industrial Workers of the World, Food Not Bombs, and various anarchist and autonomist collectives in the city. Some began to drift off to the edges and move to the nearest subway stop. At that exact moment, Georgia Sagri, a young Greek woman with long blonde hair who was an anarchist and performance artist, interrupted the rally and exclaimed, “This is not a General Assembly! This is a rally put on by a political party! It has absolutely nothing to do with the global General Assembly movement,” (Graeber, 2013b). This created a great deal of confusion, and a split in the crowd between those who wanted to continue with the rally and were more vertically inclined versus those who favored a more horizontal approach. Interestingly, a report sent to the BudgetCutsDiscuss list the following day confirms the split but also reveals an openness to horizontality. The report states, “As the power began to die from the loudspeaker, the group voted by simple majority to move to the traditional GA and joined the circle, in which the GA was already under way” (J. Bold, personal communication, Aug 3, 2011). Some of those involved in the Bloombergville coalition, the Trotskyists in the ISO, and others, had actually wanted an assembly, and were frustrated by Workers World, so when the intervention happened, they welcomed it.

The Process After the 2 August meeting at Bowling Green, a ‘process group’ was initiated by David, in order to discuss how the assembly might operate. There were varying levels of experience among those involved in the assembly, and there was a need to adopt some shared set of practices. Knowing my history with facilitation in SDS, and connection with Egypt, David recruited me to be part of this ‘process group’ (Holmes, September 4, 2021). I was a bit skeptical of the plausibility of actually occupying Wall Street, but his optimism won me over. Often, on the left, even the antiauthoritarian left, there is a tendency to think in terms of the existing

3  The New York City General Assembly 

37

structures and systems, but David had this unique ability to see beyond the present and move toward other possibilities. He invited me to a strategizing session among some of the more ‘horizontally oriented’ participants later that week, so I took the train to Williamsburg, and got off at Bedford Ave. I ran through the rain, found the address, and buzzed up to a small seemingly squatted apartment, with very little furniture. David, Georgia, and others made a circle on the floor and shared food and drinks. Throughout the night we discussed over candlelight the current context, the various political tendencies, and how to proceed with the NYC General Assembly (D. Graeber, personal communication, August 3 & 4, 2011). The first official meeting (after the split occurred) of the New  York City General Assembly (NYCGA) was on 9 August at the Irish Potato Famine Memorial. It was tucked away on the edge of the Financial District overlooking the Hudson River. A large stone wall curved around to shield us a bit from the summer heat. When I arrived, I was welcomed by Chris, a young Korean man with glasses, who cheerfully handed me a cup of lemonade. He had been working with Food Not Bombs, the longtime anarchist mutual aid project serving food to people living on the streets. He made me feel immediately welcomed and cared for, and we chatted until the assembly began. At this meeting I also met Amin, a Palestinian man with broad shoulders, who was a corporate lawyer turned activist. Over the summer there had been an Autonomist Marxist reading group on ‘the commons’ at 16 Beaver, an art space around the corner from Wall Street, and he had participated in this group. He  volunteered to facilitate the assembly  with David, and the first item on the agenda was precisely what we meant by process. A modified consensus was proposed and supported by many people in the assembly. It was easily consented to. While the memorial was a lovely spot, it was a bit out of the way. Tompkins Square Park was proposed as a more accessible and central location. It also had a long history as a meeting place for anarchist and autonomist movements in the city. Throughout the rest of the summer, we met every Saturday afternoon under the Hare Krishna tree at Tompkins. I facilitated most all of these meetings, and would bring in others to co-facilitate, take stack, or play different roles. We used the modified consensus process, which meant we

38 

M. Holmes

would attempt to reach a full consensus (consent of all those participating to move forward with a decision), and then drop to a 2/3 majority vote if a decision was particularly contentious. I’d move through a more open discussion, and then questions and concerns. If there were reservations, participants could state them as ‘stand-asides.’ If there were no blocs, then consensus would be reached (D. Graeber, personal communication, August 10 &11, 2011).

The Question of Demands On 20 August, I co-facilitated with David. On the agenda was a conversation about ‘messaging.’ Doug, a white man, who was a grad student and looked older than he was, interjected. He did not like long meetings, and preferred clear rules and concision. He wanted to know when we would get around to adopting some reasonable demands like a tax on the rich or corporations. He was an organizer with the International Socialist Organization. Georgia was next on stack. She stood up and commanded our attention. “Demands are impossible!” she said, waving her arms, and glaring at Doug. “We don’t need demands. We just need each other,” she proclaimed. Georgia could be very forceful in her approach but was certainly persuasive. As the discussion continued, her position won out, and we consented to not having demands (NYCGA, personal communication, August 20, 2011). Rather than make demands of the state or corporations, the assembly itself would act as a proof of concept. Simply by existing, and engaging in a directly democratic process, we would present an alternative to the current political system. While the conversations could be tension-filled, people kept coming back throughout the summer. On 3 September the assembly consented to the following definition: NYC General Assemblies are an open participatory and horizontally organized process through which we are building the capacity to constitute ourselves, in public as autonomous collective forces within and against representative politics, cultural death and the crisis of our times. (NYCGA, personal communication, September 3, 2011)

3  The New York City General Assembly 

39

There was a shared sense that we were living in a time of crisis, and part of a revolutionary wave sweeping the globe. Each night after the NYCGA, we would go for drinks in the East Village, often at Odessa’s or Grassroots Tavern, discussing the latest happenings in the squares of the Middle East or Europe. Longwinded debates would continue over pierogis and cheap pitchers of beer. While we didn’t always all agree, what held us together was the practice of direct democracy, and a willingness to hear each other. The 10 September assembly consented to the plan for #S17. Rather than a prepared list of predetermined speakers dictating to a crowd, there would be facilitators providing information on the process. The minutes for the following week state; The New York City General Assembly (NYCGA) of 17 September 17th will be organized initially in one massive meeting with the purpose of: providing essential points of information for simply conducting a general assembly, providing help and information necessary for the NYCGA to split into smaller assemblies capable of facilitating their own fair, democratic process.

Within the smaller assemblies, facilitators would, “Begin with a discussion of problems that we as individuals, we as a community and/or we as a society are facing, will face, or have faced, then have a discussion of vision for the future.” They would end with, “discussion of what one may possibly feel are solutions to the problems that were discussed or otherwise before reporting back to a larger general assembly that night” (NYCGA, personal communication, September 10, 2011). This was the plan of action. We imagined that the NYCGA would be one of many assemblies, and simply generate a process which could be replicated. It was an invitation to participate in building a better world.

We Are the 99% The 99% was the product of collective intelligence. For many years economists and sociologists had been studying the increasing stratification of wealth globally, and in the United States. In the aftermath of the crash of

40 

M. Holmes

2008, this work had become more popular. In early 2011 the agitprop group, The Other 98%, was producing video content for online campaigns against the 2% who held the majority of wealth. On 31 March Vanity Fair ran an article by economist Joseph Stiglitz entitled, “Of the 1%, By the 1%, For the 1%” (Stiglitz, March 31, 2011). In the piece he claimed that in America “in terms of wealth rather than income, the top 1 percent control 40 percent” and that globally it would be “less than 1%.” He described how wealth concentration in North Africa and the Middle East, along with youth unemployment made for revolutionary conditions, and stated, “As we gaze out at the popular fervor in the streets, one question to ask ourselves is this: When will it come to America?” The article was referenced on the BudgetCutsDiscuss list  used to plan Bloombergville, as well as other networks in NYC. In parallel, David had just finished the book Debt: The First 5000 Years, which argued that debt was foundational to capitalism, and that finance capitalism was built on a system of creditors and debtors (2011). He was already thinking about debt and wealth, when he saw the Stiglitz piece. He later wrote, “What particularly struck me in Stiglitz’s argument was the connection between wealth and power: the 1 percent were the ones creating the rules for how the political system works and had turned it into one based on legalized bribery.” Immediately following the August 2 split and formation of the NYCGA the september17discuss listserv was created, and ideas were floated about the kind of movement we were all envisioning. On 4 August David suggested: What about the “99% movement”?Both parties govern in the name of the 1% of Americans who have received pretty much all the proceeds of economic growth, who are the only people completely recovered from the 2008 recession, who control the political system, who control almost all financial wealth. So if both parties represent the 1%, we represent the 99% whose lives are essentially left out of the equation. (Personal communication, Aug 3, 2011)

The Outreach Working Group was comprised largely of Spanish ex-pats connected to 15  M, including the couple Luis Moreno-Caballud and Begonia Santa-Cecilia, who were very sweet and analytical, and always

3  The New York City General Assembly 

41

making helpful suggestions. They felt that there needed to be something larger than the sum of its parts. They built on the 99% idea and added the “We.” The flyer for the 9 August assembly included, “We, the 99%, call for an open general assembly” (August 2011). This was distributed to assembly participants including Chris from Food Not Bombs, who then registered the wearethe99% Tumblr page, where people could connect their own individual stories to a collective identity of the 99% (Graeber, 2013c). Through the process, the political subject of the 99% was born. The 99% was simply shorthand for those who did not have power in society. In a capitalist society this meant those without access to wealth or political decision making. In a context of the post-2008 economic crisis, the identity was tactically useful in that it built bridges of solidarity. There were, of course, differences within the 99%. The 99% was black, brown, indigenous, queer, and disabled. It could include the working class, but also the downwardly mobile middle or even upper middle class. The multitude of expressions of the 99% came through in the wearethe99% Tumblr, and across Twitter feeds, as individual stories of exploitation and oppression were connected with the collective. The 99% was an identity that included many identities.

Test Run In the NYCGA there was discussion throughout August as to what qualified as a legal v. illegal encampment. According to the American Civil Liberties Union, “Generally, all types of expression are constitutionally protected in traditional ‘public forums’ such as streets, sidewalks and parks. In addition, your speech activity may be permitted to take place at other public locations that the government has opened up to similar speech activities, such as the plazas in front of government buildings” (2011). Given the ‘public’ nature of the streets in front of the stock exchange, it seemed possible to establish a presence there. Jez Bold, a queer white librarian from North Dakota, who was part of the NYCGA, had been busily doing research. Ze wrote on 31 August to the september17discuss list, “I undertook an extensive search today, from

42 

M. Holmes

NYC City Planning, to Department of Transportation, and eventually all the way to the 1st precinct of the NYPD. At each location, I gathered the understanding that there are virtually no private streets in Manhattan, that while the pit of Wall Street is prohibited to almost all vehicular traffic it remains open to pedestrians, and that, aside from the fenced-in area just in front of the NY Stock Exchange, the sidewalks on Wall Street and Broad are PUBLIC SIDEWALKS (this came from the mouth of the NYPD officer herself!)”(personal communication, August 31, 2011). At Bloombergville the camp had established itself within the actual public park in front of City Hall, but was moved by the NYPD several times, before being allowed to remain on the sidewalks across the street. Many of those participating in the NYCGA had been present for Bloombergville and, based on both legal precedent and their own experience, thought that they would be able to sleep on Wall Street. To ‘test’ this hypothesis, the Arts and Culture working group of the NYCGA, planned to camp out on 1 September (J.Bold, personal communication, August 31, 2011). The Arts and Culture Working Group set up at the base of the George Washington statue at Federal Hall steps. Carved into the podium were the words, “On this site in Federal Hall April 30th, 1789, George Washington took the oath as the first president of the United States of America.” They spread out a blanket, and sleeping bags, and sat in a circle. Someone had, half-jokingly, brought a game of chess. “This street is our street!” declared Alex Carvalho, an Afro-Brazilian student. He broke out the guitar playing, “Free Fallin” as Richie Machado, a young queer Boricua student, sang along exclaiming, “Yeah, I’m FREE!” Testing their strength, they began to practice capoeira, the Afro-Brazilian dance created as a way to resist slavery. The first police van drove up slowly to the scene, observing at first, before opening to reveal a group of blue-shirt (lower rank) officers. Cyn [pseudonym], a young man from Nepal, also a student, enjoyed engaging in debate, so pulled aside a black cop to talk to him on a human level saying, “There’s a big difference between the person, and the uniform. What we’re against is the institution. We want you to leave it.” The cop responded, edging out of view of the camera, “Look, I’m working here. My superiors are gonna call me and say go here or there. I don’t

3  The New York City General Assembly 

43

really have options, you know.” He said, “Neither do I at my minimum wage job.” “But you do what it takes to survive, right?” asked the officer. “See, I want to change the system so that’s not what you have to do anymore. I want to go beyond that, beyond what we consider politics to be,” he insisted. “I agree with you. I don’t know what you want me to say,” responded the officer, before he looked to the side, self-conscious of being watched. Meanwhile, Jez climbed to the podium above, in front of the statue, and declared the beginning of a “Second American Revolution” for “True emancipation can never happen through the present dominating institutions for they are the very ones that generate or replicate the hierarchies of injustice!” More officers rolled up in a black sedan, and surrounded the gathering, singling zim out saying, “Hey! You, get down!” Jez was indignant, and asserted zis rights, “I can speak as a human being with the product of my own voice. That is the first amendment. That is guaranteed by the first amendment. If you don’t think that is protected by the constitution of the United States, then I think we’re living in different countries.” The cop interrupted with, “You can, individually you can, but you produced a gathering of people.” Jez declared, “I didn’t produce a gathering of people. A gathering of people produced itself!” Ze was quickly handcuffed along with all those within reach. In total nine were arrested including one of the camera women (Zettler & Maria, September 6, 2011). The event served as a reminder that the law on paper and what actually happens in the street are two totally different things. In fact, what happened that night was part of a long history of the NYPD not following the law. During the Giuliani administration, in 2000, there had been a growing housing movement, after a proposed increase to rent-stabilized apartments threatened to push more people out on the street. Tenants’ advocacy groups organized a vigil in the park adjacent to Gracie Mansion, the mayor’s residence. The NYPD allowed the vigil, but when protestors attempted to sleep out on sidewalks, the police drew a line, and informed them they’d be arrested. Christopher Dunn, from the New  York Civil Liberties Union represented the protestors in the case Metropolitan Council, Inc. v. Safir. He explained in an op-ed that there was no law or regulation barring them from sleeping on public sidewalks, “Rather, the

44 

M. Holmes

NYPD had a practice of not allowing anyone to sleep on sidewalks for any purposes because, the department claimed, doing so would amount to disorderly conduct under a New York Penal Law section that bars persons from intentionally blocking pedestrian or vehicular traffic” (September 9, 2011).

The OWS Media Working Group The first meeting of the Media Working Group was on 10 September, at Café Pick Me Up near Tompkins Square Park (V.  Teichberg, personal communication, September 10, 2011). Vlad and Nikky had fallen in love at Puerta del Sol and gotten married over the summer. They arrived a bit late carrying gear and were seemingly in a rush, but full of energy. I finally got to meet Nikky in person. She was tall with short dark hair and light skin and had this very direct way of speaking that made everything seem urgent and possible to achieve. She and Vlad had been talking media strategy and wanted to start a Global Revolution Livestream channel and the hashtag #GlobalRevolution to connect all our networks for #S17. To be the most effective in generating traffic and reach, it was decided we would have multiple arms of the media work. There would be the livestream with the Global Revolution channel, alongside social video content that could be either cop-watch style documentation of the police or more editorialized videos about what we stood for. This would also make the most of all our skills. My notes on the meeting stated the following action steps: We will have at least one dedicated ny channel on livestream, but will coordinate with other channels We will be fluid in our movement on the 17th and work in teams. One will have a laptop and manage the livestream. The other will be shooting. We will have on location coordinators in communication with the office and folks on the ground. We will recruit others to handle press inquiries, so that we can focus on creating our own media. (Media Working Group, personal communication, September 11, 2011)

3  The New York City General Assembly 

45

On Sunday, 11 September, which happened to be the 10th anniversary of 9/11, I sent out an email to those who had shown interest with the title “Livestream media training,” and declared, “Let’s occupy digital space together!”(Media Working Group, personal communication, September 11, 2011). We met the following night, Monday, at No Space. The artist/ activist collective Not an Alternative had carved out a storefront for the Change You Want to See Gallery. There, we assembled a long folding table, where we circled around with our laptops. The channel was launched just before the meeting, and Vlad sent me the message, “Alsothe channel is now live it’s located @ http://livestream.com/globalrevolution. We can discuss and make graphics today (lower thirds etc.)” (V.  Teichberg, personal communication, September 11, 2011). All the kinks were to be worked out, and some of this happened in the course of the training itself. A dozen or so people came including Lorenzo Serna, a queer Chicanx writer who was interested in telling stories through digital media. They listened attentively to the training and made insightful interventions, absorbing all that they could. We decided we needed a real life ‘test run’ of the stream like what others did for the Arts and Culture Working Group. The next night there were whispers of a ‘graffiti flash mob’ happening in the East Village. It was supposed to start at 8 pm, but was pushed to 11 pm, and then later—operating on anarchist time. Whatever the hour, the mob finally emerged, a bit disorderly, from an undisclosed location. They deployed into the street, stencils in one hand, and spray paint in the other. To get a strong enough Wi-Fi signal we strapped teradeks to our camcorders and panned the scene. Within a matter of minutes, the block was filled with quotes from Malcom X alongside seeds growing into sunflowers. This beautiful reclaiming of public space was the first real broadcast to the channel (Serna, September 13, 2011).

Tweets from the Streets The next morning, on Wednesday, I headed to Wall Street and met up again with the Arts and Culture working group. The arrests, and attention they received, just encouraged them to go back. There were speak

46 

M. Holmes

outs on Wall Street from a makeshift podium in front of the George Washington statue. The ‘people’s pedestal’ was open, and Jez asked, singing, “Why, why, will you occupy wall street? Why, why, will you stand up for your rights, and stand in the street? Why, why, will you, join the general assembly? Why, why will you occupy wall street?” Ze then bowed dramatically before jumping up and shouting, “Welcome everybody! This is a free speak out on Wall Street!” Jez acted as a facilitator between the digital and physical space. Tweets started rolling in, and Ze read out, to Wall Street, “SkippinStones says I will occupy wall street, because I want to chart unexplored territory on the map of new utopias.” A crowd started to gather around watching, curious but skeptical of what they were hearing. Jez smiled, saying “AshAnderson I will occupy wall street because it is the people’s duty to replace sociopaths who currently occupy wall street. WashSpin says I will occupy wall street for the families that have been deceived and had their homes taken away. Critmasspanic says I will occupy wall street, because I want a future with clean air, clean h20, right to peaceable assembly, and the right to speak”(Holmes, 2011c). Later that evening, I checked in with Vlad to see what was happening with the channel, and we chatted: Me: I filmed the speak out today. Vlad: that would be good for the channel. Cool. We need to make a workflow so we digitize and upload stuff. Me: but I just got back so I haven’t had a chance to edit. It was great. Vlad: of course. Flux is very good. To help with that. You give him footage and 3 hours later you get a movie. He is a machine. Me: ok, well, I’m going to do it now, and then crash. I literally got home like 10 min ago and haven’t slept. Vlad: yah I figured. Cool. Me: did you go to tactical. Vlad: tomorrow lets have an editing place we can drop stuff to be put online. No. I woke up at 6. And organizing the global part of this now. Me: oh- also, I’m doing WBAI tomorrow morning with David. Vlad: cool. Me: and I emailed Miguel in Spain.

3  The New York City General Assembly 

47

Vlad: good. Me: he’s sending us skype info. Vlad: great. Me: I need to respond to these folks in Wisconsin. They’re psyched. Vlad: do they want to send us feed? Me: and keep emailing me. Yes. Vlad: ok ask them if they want to help edit the channel. Me: and they’re social media kids. Vlad: we are basically setting up a group chat. Perfect. We need help with that. Me: I did already. Vlad: ? Me: Harry might be able to do it. Vlad: we have a group chat already in livestream. Basically, there is a producer chat tab. All the editors worldwide will be in that chat. And discussing how to program channel. Where good stuff is happening where Etc. Me: ok… breathe. We’re talking over each other. Vlad: haha. Ok. I’ll shut up. (V. Teichberg, personal communication, September 14, 2011c) This was fairly typical of my communication with Vlad, which seemed always to flow in disjointed but associative phrases, much like a feed or channel. Somehow, though, we were able to coordinate and build out infrastructure. There was a mutual respect and trust.

Trainings David and I had started reaching out to friends and comrades to do trainings. Almost everyone was too burnt out or busy to get involved. However, a committed few responded like Marina Sitrin. She had been part of the Direct Action Network (DAN) during the Global Justice Movement (GJM) and had done extensive work in Argentina during the economic crisis in 2001 (Sitrin, 2006). She was excited about the possibilities of

48 

M. Holmes

assemblies, and had looped in her DAN friends Mike, a street medic, and Smokey [pseudonym], who did activist legal support (personal communication, September 9, 2011). Our first meeting of the Trainings Working Group was on Friday, 9 September, in the old A.J. Muste building at 339 Lafayette on the corner of Bleeker known as the ‘Peace Pentagon’ in movement circles. It had seen better days. The stairs and floors were uneven, but it remained a hold out in the village, otherwise overrun by luxury condo development. At the door was Jason Ahmadi wearing a rainbow patterned sweater and flip-flops. They had an Iranian/Irish background and were a free spirit from California more at home among trees than the concrete urban landscape. A year prior they had been part of Think Outside the Bomb, a youth anti-war network, which held a convergence in Albuquerque, New Mexico. It ended with an encampment which shut down the nearby Los Alamos National Laboratory. Since then they’d been traveling from action to action before ending up in NYC working with the War Resistors League, whose office they occasionally slept in (J. Ahmadi, personal communication, May 2013). Marina, Mike, Smokey [pseudonym], Jason, and I laid the groundwork for the trainings working group in this first meeting at the War Resistors League. It turned out that we all knew Lisa Fithian, the veteran direct-action trainer from the GJM and other movements. This connection seemed to connote some shared sense of values around organizing practices and immediately created trust. We discussed the latest goings on in the assembly, and the need for skill shares as #S17 rapidly approached. Marina and Jason volunteered to take over for the assembly the next day, Saturday, 10 September. Legal, medical, and direct-action trainings were scheduled for the following week. We were able to secure space at The Commons on Atlantic Ave in Brooklyn on 16 September (the day before the action) (Trainings Working Group, personal communication, September 13, 2011), but It was really down to the wire. Most of us from the assembly hadn’t been sleeping much that week due to last minute preparations. The trainings were a chance for us all to be together again, and touch base, before the big day. Marina ran a know your rights training with Smokey, in which they took us through what we might expect when interacting with police and other law enforcement and impressed upon us the importance of never talking

3  The New York City General Assembly 

49

to cops. Mike gave us a street medic 101 training, which included what to bring with us to the action, and how to do eye washes if we happened to be hit with pepper spray. Lisa had just rolled into town and jumped into the trainings work (L. Fithian, personal communication, September 15, 2011). Her Nonviolent Direct Action training began with running through role plays (Fithian, 2019). We lined up on either side of the room. One side played protestors, and the other cops, and the goal was for the protestors to get through the police line. There were several options—circle, wedge, square. If you were a circle, you would float around the line. If you were a wedge, you’d force your way through an opening. A square would be formed with arms linked with the person next to you holding the line. These exercises, while seemingly silly at times, helped us all relax, and practice feeling what a confrontation might be like in our bodies. They were an essential step toward overcoming fear.

References Adbusters. (July 13, 2011). #OCCUPYWALLSTREET. Retrieved August 25, 2022, from http://www.tacticalmediafiles.net/events/4770/P; https://web. archive.org/web/20110715190208/; http://www.adbusters.org/ American Civil Liberties Union. (2011). Know Your Rights: Demonstrations and Protests. https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/field_pdf_file/kyr_ protests.pdf Democracy Now Web Exclusive. (June 24, 2011). Welcome to Bloombergville: New York Activists Fight Budget Cuts By Camping in Front of City Hall. Democracy Now!. Retrieved September 2, 2022, from https://www.democracynow.org/2011/6/24/welcome_to_bloombergville_new_york_activists_ fight_budget_cuts_bycamping_in_front_of_city_hall Dunn, C. (September 9, 2011). NYCLU OpEd. Retrieved September 4, 2022, from https://www.nyclu.org/en/taxonomy/term/108?page=36 Fithian, L. (2019). Shut it Down: Stories from a Fierce Loving Resistance (p. 197). Chelsea Green. Graeber, D. (2011). Debt: The First 5,000 Years. Random House. Graeber, D. (2013a). The Democracy Project: A History, A Crisis, A Movement. Random House. p. 8.

50 

M. Holmes

Graeber, D. (2013b). The Democracy Project: A History, A Crisis, A Movement. Random House, p. 36. Graeber, D. (2013c). The Democracy Project: A History, A Crisis, A Movement. Random House. p. 39. Holmes, M. (April 22, 2011a). Tax Day 2011 US Uncut NY. https://vimeo. com/22760288 Holmes, M. (April 30, 2011b). US Uncut Holds a BOA Teach-in. https://www. youtube.com/watch?v=ynp7vAb0etQ Holmes, M. (September 14, 2011c). Personal Video and Photo Collection. Holmes, M. (Director). (2016). All Day All Week: An Occupy Wall Street Story [Video; Vimeo Release]. HD. Holmes, M. (September 4, 2021). David Graeber’s Real Contribution to Occupy Wall Street Wasn’t a Phrase—It Was a Process. Novara Media. https:// novaramedia.com/2021/09/04/david-­graebers-­real-­contribution-­to-­occupy-­wall-­ street-­wasnt-­a-­phrase-­it-­was-­a-­process/ Kilkenny, A. (March 17, 2011) Meet U.S.  Uncut. The Nation. Retrieved September 4, 2022, from https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/meet-­ us-­uncut/ Serna, L. (September 13, 2011). OWS Media Working Group. Personal Video and Photo Collection. Sitrin, M. (2006). Horizontalism: Voices of Popular Power in Argentina. AK Press. Stiglitz, J. (March 31, 2011) Of the 1%, By the 1%, For the 1%. Vanity Fair. Retrieved from: https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2011/05/top-­one-­percent-­ 201105. Accessed September 14, 2022. Tartlton, J. (July 22, 2011). Bloombergville Bash. The Indypendent. https://indypendent.org/2011/07/bloombergville-­bash/ Zettler, V., & Maria, C. (September 6, 2011). Testing Wall Street September 1st. Retrieved September 4, 2022, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v= ayUGOgFaCs8

4 Day One

During the planning process of the NYCGA, there was a Tactical Working Group which was empowered by the group to help prepare us all for action. This way of planning actions was carried over by the GJM (Fithian, 2019). Tactical had met throughout the summer and done additional research on areas to gather and occupy. For the report back to the NYCGA on 3 September, Tactical members unfurled a giant paper map of the financial district. Holding a flashlight, they pointed to seven different locations to indicate importance (Shankbone, September 3, 2011). They described the benefits of each. Wall Street itself would likely be barricaded, especially after the ‘test run.’ Battery Park was thought to be large enough to assemble in, but often overrun by rats drawn to waste left by the many tourists there during the day. This would not be comfortable for sleeping in. There were also public park regulations such as getting a permit for protests of 20 or more people. Chase Plaza, at the base of the company headquarters, was considered for its symbolic significance. The assembly decided on this as the first choice after Wall Street. However, the drawback to Chase was that it was fully privately owned and operated. Zuccotti Park was an intriguing possibility due to its status as a privately owned public space and so was kept as the second back-up location (NYCGA, personal communication, September 3, 2011). © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 M. Holmes, Organizing Occupy Wall Street, Alternatives and Futures: Cultures, Practices, Activism and Utopias, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-8947-6_4

51

52 

M. Holmes

Zuccotti Park New York City was a pioneer in the creation of privately owned public spaces. A 1961 Zoning resolution created an incentive system whereby a developer could up build and expand their floor area ratio in exchange for creating and managing a publicly accessible space such as an atrium or through fare, extending from their property line. This would often cut into previously publicly owned spaces such as sidewalks, or even whole city blocks. It was considered ‘as-of-right’ as developers could claim the floor area ratio bonus and “construct the bonus plaza without any meaningful design review or approval by city agencies” (Schmidta et al., 2011). Building owners would come up with their own unique rules for what qualified as unacceptable conduct, such as “skateboarding, playing the radio, drinking, sitting, or sleeping.” Simply existing at all was potentially suspect, and selectively enforced. This created a ‘filtering’ system for use of the space (Akkar & Muge, 2005). By 2011, there were over 530 ‘POPS’ in the city and a high concentration proliferated the financial district. The history of Zuccotti Park mirrored the development of privately owned public spaces in NYC. Construction for One Liberty Plaza was approved in 1968 and was completed in 1973 to house the headquarters of US Steel (Foderaro, October 13, 2011). Taking advantage of the ‘as-of-­ right’ provision of 1961, it was taller than the two buildings combined that it replaced. A small block next door was carved out and made accessible to the public. Brookfield Properties, a major real estate developer, especially in the financial district, acquired the building and adjacent Liberty Plaza Park, in 2001, at which point the park was renamed after then chairman of the board, John Eugene Zuccotti. He had served previously as deputy mayor, a member of the New York Planning Commission, and chairman of the Real Estate Board. The building tenants were a laundry list of real estate and financial firms, and, most importantly, the New York City Economic Development Corporation, a non-profit set up by developers to advise on city planning, which effectively  acted as a lobby for the real estate industry (Busa, 2017). At the entrance stood twisting red arches of the “Joie de Vivre” sculpture that stretched toward the sky. A granite wall lined one side, and a

4  Day One 

53

sloping set of steps were on the other. Benches and tables had been carved into the space, which made it ideal for small group conversations. It was also wired, complete with outlets, to charge phones and laptops. The space had many affordances for gathering, and yet it was rarely used, except by the occasional office worker on a lunch break. It existed in the cracks of NY real estate and was largely unnoticed. Since it was a public plaza (NYC City Planning) the default regulation was that the park was required to be kept open 24 hours a day and be accessible to the public. To do a “nighttime” closing and hours adjustment required permission from City Planning. According to the wording of the provision, hours needed to be posted visibly in the park. There was a plaque that read: ZUCCOTTI PARK NO SKATEBOARDING NO ROLLERBLADING OR BICYCLING ALLOWED IN THE PARK. (Woodward, May 9, 2012)

No hours were indicated. Typically, these spaces tended to close at 10 pm with approval. Without a posting of hours, though, the default would likely be 24 hours. It was ambiguous, and this worked to our advantage.

Wall Street On the morning of 17, September 2011 I woke up early, and loaded my backpack, which I had taken to Tahrir, with a camera rig and camping gear. It was a bit heavy for my small frame, but wrapped around the front, and locked in for support. I walked up to the Franklin Ave subway stop in Brooklyn and rode the 4 train into Manhattan. My stomach was in knots. I hadn’t slept well—maybe I slept three or four hours at most. Next stop: Wall Street. It looked empty on Broadway. On a Saturday morning, there wasn’t much street traffic. The entrance to the stock exchange was barricaded, so I

54 

M. Holmes

ducked back on Pearl Street toward Chase Manhattan Plaza, which was also inaccessible. Police were milling around, awaiting orders. I ran over to the Starbucks at the corner of Wall and Broad to meet up with the OWS Media Working Group. Vlad and Nikky were already there, testing our tactical media PCs named hackintoshes—old computer parts bought on eBay and loaded with pirated software and webcams attached. These would serve as our livestreaming kits. Vlad and Nikky brought a friend of theirs, a young white woman with dark hair from 15M, Monica. I was pretty pessimistic given the police presence and didn’t think we’d be able to stay the night, but she encouraged me with bright hopeful eyes and saying, “This is only the beginning. If you stay here, the next day there will be thousands of people” (Holmes, September 17, 2011). The schedule for the day began with a meetup at Bowling Green Park at noon for the ‘New York Fun Exchange’ planned by Arts and Culture. The flyer for the event read; We are calling for public artists of all varieties to join us. If you can make it or create it a public space, then we want you there. We have many activities including spoken word, drum circles, performance pieces, and participatory art planned so far, but all are welcome.

By noon, a couple hundred people had already started to gather. The Media Working Group, as planned, had two livestreaming teams, and also additional shooters, floating in the crowd. I was floating, since I had other tasks to coordinate, and stayed close to the Bull. Some were singing, others doing yoga. There was a woman dressed in neon pink tights, with a pig head, wielding a pair of oversized cardboard scissors and shouting, “Cut! Cut! Cut! Social safety net!” Then, a conga line got going, circling the bull with people chanting, “Banks got bailed out! We got sold out!” (Holmes, September 17, 2011). On the opposite end of the park, on the steps of the National Museum of the American Indian, an impromptu speak out took shape. A friend of mine who was a professional Director of Photography was there with his camera documenting. A young white man wearing flashy multi-colored yoga pants, a sideways cap, and beads handed the megaphone off to people who came up to speak. A young black guy with a red t-shirt said, “You know who has trillions of dollars? Wall Street. They have more than all of

4  Day One 

55

us put together. The only thing the top 1% want to do is oppress, manipulate everything. We occupy Wall Street peacefully. Peaceful rage!” A young Mexican man stood up with a shaved head and sunglasses, and observed, “What I see here is something that I’ve been dreaming for a long time. I come from Mexico. My story is not of an immigrant who dreamt of the American Dream. I was brought here, because corporations took my country and fucked it up just like they’re doing now in the United States, and it’s happening all over the United States, and this is not only affecting us, the revolutionists. It is affecting immigrants. It is affecting workers. It is affecting everyday Americans.” Then, a white man with rimmed glasses, wearing an anonymous mask, declared, “There are over 9000 of us [anons] here with you. They will call us crazy. They will call us naïve. They may even call us terrorists. But no, if they think that their system can go on any longer, then it is they who are crazy. They will try to stop us and turn us against one another, but no. We must remain united as one and divided by zero. Let me hear it!” He continued with the chant, “United as one. Divided by ‘0’! United as one. Divided by ‘0’! Occupy Wall Street!” A young white woman with short red hair and freckles, was shocked saying, “Usually I’m the one who’s been disheartened by protests. Usually they’ve ended up being small, random groups of people with broken chants, and the cops and army scares them away. This is really inspiring. I hope I see this many people back tomorrow, and all week long, and that it continues to grow, because it’s amazing!” (Van Praag, September 17, 2011).

Our Park I went ahead to Zuccotti Park, knowing it was our back-up location. I waited there, switching up my batteries, so that I’d catch the exact moment that the march entered the park. Next to me, by total coincidence, was a young white man wearing a smash the state shirt, and a bandana wrapped around his head. He had been traveling across the US doing outreach on his own for occupy and planned to offer his skills as a street medic. He introduced himself as ‘Bobby.’ I didn’t know at the time,

56 

M. Holmes

but years later, Bobby would volunteer as a medic in Rojava, and die in battle (Specia, July 12, 2017). Meanwhile, the Tactical Working Group from the NYCGA was moving through the crowd. Those doing communications distributed flyers in the crowd, indicating our back up. A march of several hundred came up Broadway to Zuccotti chanting, “Whose streets? Our streets! Whose park? Our park!” The park was clear of police, who were expecting us on Wall Street. While the police tried to catch up, and called in reinforcements, we spread throughout the park, and began small assemblies. Marina facilitated one, and explained to those attending, “All over the world there will be assemblies happening in Spain, Italy, and Greece. There’s going to be livestreaming going on. Just keep that in mind for our conversation,” (Holmes). One young woman with curly dark hair gave me a long stare and then waved her arms around, blocking the camera. I left out of respect for her privacy, but there were already dozens of other cameras there regardless. There was no hiding from view. Vlad followed with a laptop and webcam set up, ran into Jason, and asked, “Over the next hour where should people go?” Jason paused, thinking, “For the next hour … what’s the name of this park? They turned around and someone yelled out, ‘Zuccotti.’ ‘Zuccotti. Zuccotti Park’” “In front of ground zero,” added Vlad. “Zuccotti Park in front of ground zero. Don’t miss dinner at 6 o’clock!” (Teichberg, 2011). Then Jason disappeared into the crowd, waving a cardboard sign. Vlad, Nikky and Monica, set up with the laptop and cam, close by, so they’d get the best quality possible on the sound. Flux, a white man with long blonde dreads arrived quietly (Perry, October 10, 2009). He was an indymedia stalwart and strapped a go-pro camera to his head for another view. The event was very well covered. I went around with the NYCGA Process Working Group as announcements were made. Jez got up, dressed in a gray vest and bright purple tie and played MC. “This is really exciting! These people here, these faces, we’ve been organizing in the NYCGA in the last few weeks to make this event happen,” ze said. Amin stood nearby in a gray sweater and sharp cap. He was very serious, stone faced, and wanted to emphasize the role of process, saying, “We’re gonna talk about the process that we’ve been

4  Day One 

57

using that works in terms of consensus and decision-making. Right? And we’re all going to create this body that’s called the general assembly. Very important … is that we’ve worked over 6–7 weeks to come up with a process that we’ve seen work in places like Cairo, and Tunisia, and Greece, and Spain, and we’re doing it here, so….” He paused momentarily with hands out and then stressed, “What’s important is that it’s about a process and making sure that you hear each other and, by staying here longer, we develop this consensus as a people. At 7 pm!” (Holmes, 2016). Then, he waved goodbye and continued walking. David stood back watching the scene unfold. He could see both the immediate situation, and the long-term needs of an occupation. Most important, to him, was facilitation. He announced, “We’re gonna be here for a long time. There’s gonna be a lot of this. Everyone should probably learn facilitation skills. There was a request for a facilitation training. We’re gonna try to put that together for later this evening … If we’re here for the long haul, there will be a lot of problems we’ll have to solve” (Holmes). I didn’t know how true this statement was in the moment but would soon find out.

Livestream Capture of New York City General Assembly Day One. Zuccotti Park, New York City. 17 September 2011. OWS Media Working Group

58 

M. Holmes

Mic Check! After making rounds, those of us from the Process Working Group, which had become ‘Trainings’ huddled to discuss what to do next. The crowd had grown and was now upwards of 2000 people. We had not prepared for such a large turnout, so we decided on primary and back-up facilitators along with other roles. My rationale at the time was that the New  York City General Assembly (NYCGA), the organization behind the event, needed to be flexible and evolve with participants who came to the park. If people were there, putting their bodies on the line, and risking arrest, they needed to have a say in what happened. There was no way for the NYCGA even to impose itself on others. We were not there to tell people what to do or overly determine the course of the action. We were there simply to facilitate. On one side of me stood Lisa, who was eyeing the police presence on the perimeter of the park. On the other side stood Marina, who was focused on hearing everyone’s voices in the process. David was just behind me as back up. They had all, again, been part of the GJM and were now supporting us in OWS. I stood up with my dark hair swept back, and spoke to the crowd saying, “Hello! We’ve been meeting in NY and having these assemblies every week for the last six weeks, and it’s been a really amazing process of direct democracy, but we recognize that this is a specific group—the gathering that we have here—and we want to hear from people here to see how we can proceed tonight” (At first, I fumbled a bit with the megaphone, which wasn’t working very well; but Marina managed to help me with stringing two megaphones together). I continued explaining, “Ok. So far, we’ve been using a directly democratic process. Modified consensus has been our mode of choice, but we recognize that this is a specific gathering here, so we want as many people as possible to have input. We want to hear your voices, because that’s what this is about” (Global Revolution, 2011). Those in the assembly raised their hands, and Marina stepped in clarifying, “For the next part we’re going to set up an agenda, but we want to make clear that this is a massive space and massive number of people,

4  Day One 

59

which is fantastic, but we want to make it as democratic as possible. That means that, while we have this big team up here, it’s not a leadership team. We’re facilitating. We’re trying to make the conversation happen. We’ll be keeping stack, which is a list of people who have asked to speak. The stack taker will generally call on people in order.” While the assembly was taking place, there were scouts around the perimeter of the park, looking out for police activity, and assessing how we might stay or move from the space. The process was punctuated by these periodic updates, which informed decisions that were made. Mike, a young white man from the tactical group, who spoke in an even and authoritative tone, got up with the facilitation team, and stated, “Alright. Hi everybody. Can people hear me on both sides? Awesome. I’m here with some logistical information. This square is technically a privately-­ owned square. We have been in contact with the property owner who has told us his intention is not to allow people to sleep in this park tonight. Brookfield Financial is the owner of this property,” This drew many jeers. Brookfield seemed rather baffled and bumbling in their response. Their security hung back around the perimeter, with the NYPD assessing the situation. In the assembly, we debated whether or not to stay. The longer we stayed, the more people we amassed, and the more difficult it was for Brookfield to arrest us. The megaphone situation was only temporarily fixed, and so Marina began using the people’s mic, a tool for crowd communication involving call and response used during the convergence at the World Trade Organization in Seattle in 1999. Each person speaking would shout out short phrases that could be easily repeated. This was mic-checking. Marina shouted, “Do people want to talk?” and the crowd responded with, “DO PEOPLE WANT TO TALK?” Marina continued, “About occupying Wall Street,” and the crowd responded again, “ABOUT OCCUPYING WALL STREET!” Stack was opened, and people in the assembly were able to weigh in on what the action would be. The example of Tahrir Square was very present in the space and was referenced by multiple people in the assembly. One young man, with dark curly hair, stood up and made a statement in short segments with the crowd repeating, “If we occupy this square. Or Wall Street. We can express our solidarity. With the revolutionary fervor. Of the Egyptians.

60 

M. Holmes

Who occupied Liberation Square.” Lisa was on stack and amplified this sentiment mic-checking, “In Tahrir Square. They organized for food. They organized security. They built the world they wanted. Now it is our time!” (Global Revolution). The call had been to occupy Wall Street, and some took this literally to mean the area in front of the stock exchange. Others felt staying in the financial district counted as Wall Street. There were also concerns about the varying risk levels to take into account. I tried to synthesize the suggestions and mic-checked, “There have been three proposals. Number One. Occupy Wall Street. Number Two. Occupy this space. Number Three. Occupy Staten Island Ferry.” I asked people to raise their hands for each option in a ‘straw poll’ which was not a vote, but just a way to assess the feeling in the crowd. The polls were pretty evenly split. Vanessa Zettler, a young Brazilian woman from the NYCGA stood up, wearing a long colorful scarf, and mic-checked, “I don’t want us all to get arrested. So we can be stronger tomorrow. So I propose. That we can be on the sidewalk. Immediately around this square. As the center of our activities. And then in the morning we can occupy Wall Street.” Building on this suggestion, the Tactical team proposed, “The police allowing us to stay here tonight. Is accurate only. Because they’re scared that we’ll go to Wall St. So if we decide to stay here. And not go to Wall Street. Then we may lose here. So I propose. That if we’re moved from this square. We go directly to Wall Street!” This seemed to have a lot of support. Those of us on facilitation had a brief huddle to check in, and I spoke again to the assembly mic-checking, “The facilitation team is sensing. That people want. To stay here. And occupy this square. How do people feel about that?” I twinkled my fingers in the air, and asked people to show agreement. Hundreds of people mimicked the gesture, and upon seeing one another, began shouting spontaneous exclamations of joy. There was a round of the song, “Don’t stop believing,” and chants of “This is What Democracy Looks Like!” One woman screamed, “I love all of you!” Another mic checked, “To alleviate fear. I propose. To turn to a stranger. And give them a hug.” Then people actually turned to each other and gave each other hugs. (Global Revolution). The scene was broadcast out, and the link shared across different OWS related platforms. Flux informed the facilitation team at the time that Global Revolution Livestream was getting 5000 views. Multiple

4  Day One 

61

announcements were made throughout the night from the crowd, about our Twitter status. At one point, a middle-aged white woman with glasses informed us that we were trending at number three on Twitter. The longer we stayed, the greater our reach was, and the more people showed up. Lisa reminded us all to break out into working groups for the occupation. She mic-checked, “Now it is our time. And we need to organize. Not in a mass. But in work groups. To support our actions.” Marina and I agreed and pointed out areas in the park where the working groups would be meeting. Thus far, from the NYCGA there had been working groups for Process, Tactical, Legal, Media, Arts and Culture, Messaging, Student and Labor Outreach, and Food. Chris, who had organized the Food Working Group, made his way up to the facilitators, and gave a report back on the food situation saying, “We still have a whole lot of peanut butter! However. We are very short of bread, and fruit, and water.” He asked for additional help and donations, and also took a moment to remind everyone to clean up after themselves, so as to be respectful of the workers in the park (Global Revolution). New working groups formed, as needed. Perhaps the most important in that moment was the ‘Bedding’ Working Group. Not everyone had come to the space with sleeping bags or other camping gear. It can be really hard on the body to sleep on cold hard concrete, so the newly formed group went searching throughout the Financial District collecting cardboard boxes that were broken down for people to sleep on. These were distributed throughout the park, and those spending the night claimed their areas, curling up next to benches, or under tables. Some chose to be out in the open. A young black man from the Bronx wearing a leather jacket and a big smile, told me earnestly in an interview, “It’s really about sharing, and these guys on Wall Street seem to have a really big problem with that for some reason” (Holmes, 2016). A young white woman with dark hair and a hoodie, who had hitchhiked up from Florida, remarked, “This is really different from other protests I’ve been to. It’s really a collaborative movement. You can participate in what the agenda is, and what the objectives of the action are” (Holmes, 2016). From one corner of the park to the next, threads of conversations continued, as if they were one. It was as if our whole lives we had been silent, and we could suddenly speak.

62 

M. Holmes

References Akkar, Z.  M. (2005). Questioning the ‘Publicness’ of Public Spaces in Postindustrial Cities. Traditional Dwellings and Settlements Review, 16(2), 75–91. Fithian, L. (2019). Shut it Down: Stories From A Fierce Loving Resistance (p. 191). Chelsea Green. Foderaro, L. (October 13, 2011). Privately Owned Park, Open to the Public, May Make Its Own Rules. NY Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/14/ nyregion/zuccotti-­park-­is-­privately-­owned-­but-­open-­to-­the-­public.html Global Revolution. (September 17, 2011). Livestreamed Video. HD.  OWS Media Working Group. Personal Video and Photo Collection. Holmes, M. (September 17, 2011). Personal Video and Photo Collection. Holmes, M. (Director). (2016). All Day All Week: An Occupy Wall Street Story [Video; Vimeo release]. HD NYC Planning. New York City’s Privately Owned Public Spaces. https://www1.nyc.gov/site/planning/plans/pops/pops.page Perry, N. (October 10, 2009). Ninja Monkeys Go To Pittsburgh: Hanging with Indymedia @ the G-20. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DH9N_ DXddo Schmidta, S., Nemethb, J., & Botsford, E. (2011). The Evolution of Privately-­ Owned Public Spaces in New  York City. Urban Design International., 16(4), 270–284. Shankbone, D. (September 3, 2011). Occupy Wall Street General Assembly 2011 Shankbone 4. https://www.flickr.com/photos/shankbone/6115318386/ Specia, M. (July 12, 2017) First a Symbol of Occupy Wall Street, Then He Waded into Syria. New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/12/ world/middleeast/occupy-­protester-­robert-­grodt-­dies-­in-­syria.html Teichberg, V. (September 17, 2011). Livestreamed Video. HD.  OWS Media Working Group. Van Praag, J. (September 17, 2011). Video. HD. OWS Media Working Group. Personal Video and Photo Collection. Woodward, D. (1999). Showdown in Seattle: Five Days That Shook the WTO. Video Series. Deep Dish Television, Independent Media Center, Big Noise Films, Changing America, Free Speech TV, Headwaters Action Video, Paper Tiger TV, Video Active, and Whispered Media. Woodward, D. (May 9, 2012). Rules of Conduct. Urban Omnibus. https:// urbanomnibus.net/2012/05/rules-­of-­conduct/

5 Our Park

In the cold, shadowy walls of the Financial District built on death and destruction, Occupy Wall Street (OWS) practiced a culture of care. Petr Kropotkin wrote extensively on the natural phenomenon of what he called ‘mutual aid.’ He observed all of life as connected and self-organizing from the smallest ants to human beings. He wrote, “The mutual-aid tendency in man has so remote an origin, and is so deeply interwoven with all the past evolution of the human race, that it has been maintained by mankind up to the present time, notwithstanding all vicissitudes of history” (Kropotkin, 1902, p. 111). Most of what occurred day to day in OWS, in the space of the square, was a mutual aid. Whether making shelter, cooking meals, providing medical attention, curating books, or coordinating media for the movement, working groups self-organized to meet immediate needs. Much of this infrastructure was inspired by previous prefigurative organizations and movements. The basic framework was started by those of us from the NYCGA.  However, the practices evolved as new needs arose in the course of the occupation. Passing through the red arches of ‘Joie de Vivre’ was like entering a portal to another world. All that one thought they knew, that had been taken for granted, was useless in this reality. It had its own energy and rhythm, driven by drumbeats, mic checks, and constant conversations. © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 M. Holmes, Organizing Occupy Wall Street, Alternatives and Futures: Cultures, Practices, Activism and Utopias, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-8947-6_5

63

64 

M. Holmes

This could not be reduced to mere slogans or talking points. It could not be explained. To fully understand, you’d have to feel it in your body. Once you were there, you would be compelled to stay indefinitely. The space had been re-ordered, beginning with the name ‘Liberty’ and this set an intention. The dye was cast. By being there, we were already engaging directly and living as if we were already free. In the occupy language, the sculpture was ‘the red thing,’ and across the street there was ‘the red cube.’ The park was divided along coordinates. In the NE corner, near the granite wall, there was the assembly area. Just next to this, a set of tables had been claimed as the site of the OWS media center. The info table grew from there, and then The People’s Library. On the opposite end, the SW side, was the sleeping area, where the Comfort Working Group set up. In the NW, a sprawling, ever evolving gallery of cardboard signs, called The People’s Garden, grew next to the Sacred Tree. And in the center of it all was The People’s Kitchen, serving up sandwiches, fruit, and hot meals to occupiers. Linear time was meaningless in the park. Like the shift in calendar during the French Revolution, we began with the first day of action, 17 September, and counted from then, day one, two, three. This was marked in sharpie scrawled on a piece of cardboard, and duck taped near the entrance. Any attempt to schedule something in advance, failed miserably. Every day felt like years, and minutes felt like days, but somehow it was over all too quickly. It is only in retrospect that I can piece together some timeline of events. In the moment, days and nights were inverted. Sunlight burst through the darkness. And I tried desperately to stay awake. I drifted into a lucid state, unsure whether I was dreaming, and lay down, using my backpack as a pillow, looking up at the stars.

Tents The rules of conduct for the park did not say anything about tents (Urban Omnibus, May 9, 2012). Camping without cover, especially during inclement weather, is not an enjoyable activity. It can even be a health hazard, because people sleeping out tend to become cold and wet and run the risk of hypothermia. The first few days of the occupation were

5  Our Park 

65

relatively mild, in the 70°Fs, and clear—ideal camping weather. But then on the third day it was looking like rain. To protect us, and to shield the generator and media gear, blue tarps were drawn up between trees as canopies. “The Zuccotti Square that is going to be full of blue, like the sky, you, know?” Nikky laughed, “So congratulations New York, you get it. This is not just about ideas, it’s about the creation of a new humanity,” (Holmes, September 19, 2011b). Cooperation came intuitively and practically. The raising of tarps was a group effort. “Ok. Take it, we’re going to connect it to the four corners,” explained one young man who came to help. He insisted we needed to wire it across the park. Someone else thought rope would be sufficient. To help, dozens of us assembled, and raised our arms, holding the tarp, while it was being secured. Camille, a young Muslim woman, wearing a loose hijab, was sleepy eyed but back at the camp, and said, “Apparently, we’re preparing. Nothing like a crisis to get everybody together.” Biola, a young black woman, was holding up a pole, so I asked, “You going to spend the night?” She nodded, “Yeah, yup, I’m gonna tough it out through the rain!” (Holmes, September 19, 2011b). I ventured down to the other end of the park to check in with Victoria Sobel, a young b-racial woman who was an artist in the DIY music scene and a student at Cooper Union. She had short two-tone hair, and a mischievous grin, after having just discovered construction materials to be used. She told me, “We found these buckets,” and raised one up as proof. “I won’t say where we got them from, but we got them to rest those dowels in. And I’ll show you the rest.” She walked down, excitedly, toward the sacred tree where a circle of guys poured sand into buckets for weight. “So this is the last bit of it, but we just filled like seven of these things. We’re going to sink our dowels into that and, hopefully, it will help out tents stay up. I think that’s the last bucket,” she announced (Holmes, 2016). The Media Working Group had decided the tarps also made good screens, and invited anyone who wanted, to type out their thoughts, which would be projected. One entry read, “The storm is necessary to stop and ask ourselves: what is it that is happening right now? To lift our gaze and see each other eye to eye, to become aware that the same ground holds us up.” Ian, a young white man with a shaggy beard wearing a jean jacket with patches watched the screen. He was from the newly formed

66 

M. Holmes

Tech Ops Working Group and told me, “We’ve been here for a few days, but we really just took this square, you know? The transformation that just happened in this space in the last hour … we went from a bunch of people hanging out in the park to an encampment, a serious installation. It’s clear now, that we’re not going anywhere until we’re heard.” I pulled back to the edge of the park, to get a good look at what we had created. Blue domes beamed, illuminated from within with white lights. People gathered together, cooperating, and laughing. It was starting to resemble a village. I noticed a tall, lanky Mexican man, with long hair in a ponytail who was watching it all and starting to cry. He told me, “I came here for the first time today, and I just sat there looking at all those signs, reading. And I’m just… I’m just. This is all a dream I’ve had already many times. Many times. And this shit made me cry, because there’s so many ways this can go, and I’ve seen it go so many ways. And how we take it and move it from here is very important, because this is the beginning of a true change in things. It feels like fucking magic” (Holmes, September 19, 2011b). In the background, the NYPD, had a line of cars, parked in front of the Brookfield building on Liberty, as well as crane-like structure perched at the edge, peering through the sacred tree. They were watching and waiting for the right moment to strike. The next morning, bright and early, Brookfield security made rounds, crossing through the middle of the park, and inspecting our set up. They repeatedly warned us not to erect ‘structures’—a nebulous term—which did not appear in the park rules of conduct. They tore through the tents in a rage, and those who tried to stop them were thrown violently on the ground and arrested. Jason was one of them. A white shirted officer (one of the higher ups) dragged them across the concrete. “This is really tight. I can’t move my hands,” they mumbled. A woman yelled, “He’s bleeding! Officer, he’s bleeding” (Zettler, September 20, 2011). Their hands dripped fresh blood. The brutality may have dissuaded us or others from showing up. But it did the exact opposite. Every time they harmed us, the bonds between us became stronger, and our commitment more resolute.

5  Our Park 

67

The People’s Kitchen The Food Working Group formed out of Food Not Bombs (McHenry, 2012). The local NYC chapter was operating at ABC No Rio, a squat in Lower East Side, and occasionally the Catholic Worker, where there was a kitchen and refrigerator space. They would cook meals together and do ‘serves’ at Tompkins Square Park every Sunday. They had contacts with area stores for donations, and people who were already working together and cooperating. This infrastructure shifted to the space of the square, with Chris coordinating (personal communication, August 29, 2011). The Food Working Group became The People’s Kitchen and was the heart of the occupation. A line of Kitchen members assembled a long banquet over benches and served three meals a day. For breakfast in the morning, there was a steady supply of coffee, bagels, and fruit. Lunch would be sandwiches and salads. Dinner would often be some form of rice and beans and/or pasta. This was supplemented by the seemingly never-ending deliveries of pizza from supporters. A place around the corner, Liberatos, even named a pizza after us, the ‘OccuPie’ (Chen, September 19, 2011). Often, the kitchen was one of the first places that new occupiers and supporters would go to help out. It did not require a lot of specialized skills and the impact was immediately apparent. On day three, a young white woman with a butterfly necklace, Amy, reported back to the assembly mic-checking, “I love you all. I’m glad we’re here. Let’s eat! First thing. We’ve decided that we’re going to have. A subcommittee for health and sanitation. If I could get three dedicated people. Who are going to be here for a while. To be in charge of garbage, recycling, compost. And general health. See me. That would be amazing!” (Holmes, September, 2011c). After that, the Sanitation and Recycling Working Group formed. At first, they were just separating and picking up trash, and doing light sweeping and mopping in the park. Quickly, though, they began implementing composting and gray water systems. Later on, Sustainability formed, and installed bike generators (Holmes, November 2011d). As needs were identified, the systems for meeting them became more complex.

68 

M. Holmes

Photo of People’s Kitchen. Zuccotti Park, New York City. 4 October, 2011. Marisa Holmes

The Medic Station Street medics had been a regular presence in the radical left, and in particular, the anti-authoritarian left, since the 1960s (Valentine, June 2020). During the GJM, there were medic trainings and collectives, and some of these groups and practices had continued. Once the occupation was in full swing, street medics from the NY area and beyond joined and formalized as the OWS Medics Working Group on the second day of the occupation. Lilly, a young white woman announced in an assembly via mic-checking, “If you have any ailment whatsoever. Please find one of us. We have this on our arm.” She pointed to a duct-taped patch with a red cross and added, “If you have any sort of allergy. Please write that on your arm. Or on a piece of paper in your pocket. We’re also going to have. A medic table set up. Here, and a few out on the streets.” Going forward,

5  Our Park 

69

medics ran in teams during marches, and established a station near the Southwest side of the park, at the entrance of the sleeping area. Here, they attended to basic first aid and primary care. If what was needed exceeded their expertise, they would refer patients to area clinics or hospitals. Referral lists were created of sympathetic doctors, nurses, dentists, and even vets, to take care of the pets. A week into the occupation, Lilly identified another need—mental health care. She came back to the NYCGA and mic-checked, “We’re proud to announce. That we’ve formed a new committee today. It’s called. The let’s talk it out committee.” It would be focused on talking one on one with occupiers who were stressed out or feeling very emotional. All conversations would be kept confidential. If there was a need for ‘professional’ help, they could provide referrals for free.

OWS Legal The OWS Legal Working Group was formed by Marina. The National Lawyers Guild, which was a radical law group with roots in The New Left, was already on call, and there were many lawyers circulating through the park looking for clients. Some of them were well meaning and took on our cases. While Marina was a lawyer, she was not proposing another group of lawyers. She saw a need for an activist legal collective in the style of the GJM (Just Us Legal Collective, 2001). During an early NYCGA, Marina stood up  and announced, “Hey everybody! I’m Marina. I’m on Legal.” She asked around for Suzahn Ebrahimian, a young queer Persian writer who had joined the team. The two of them stood at the front as Marina continued to mic-check, “This is the activist legal team. What we do. We’re a working group. That’s part of the occupation. We help facilitate. Discussions with. Many lawyers. And legal groups. Our priority. Is that first. That we have political discussions. And then. Think about. The law” (Holmes, 2011a). In the next week, OWS Legal conducted meetings with occupiers to discuss their cases. They walked through getting a DAT (desk appearance ticket) or a court summons. Out of these conversations formed Jail and

70 

M. Holmes

Court Support. This was the onsite crew tracking occupiers in the system and attending to their needs when they got out. Support sometimes took several hours of waiting around at 100 Centre Street in Chinatown with food, water, and hugs. Moira Meltzer-Cohen, a queer femme law student, and other femme and queer folks, held down this work (Cohen et al., Fall/Winter, 2013). It is hard to fully express how important jail support was. It made people feel they were not alone when they were confronted with repression.

The People’s Library Throughout the 1990s, in the anarchist and autonomist scenes, there had been storefront spaces featuring free libraries called infoshops (Atton, 1999). Some of these continued during the GJM.  These spaces would host local organizing meetings and conduct political education. Books could be checked out for free and without penalty if they were returned late. The People’s Library served a function similar to an infoshop and operated in much the same manner. At first, there was Info, a table at the center of the park, which was essentially a reference desk for whatever questions people had about the occupation. This was primarily staffed by Jez, Richie, and others from the NYCGA. Often materials would be stacked near this table—flyers, pamphlets, and even books. In the first week, Michael Oman-Reagan, a young white man, who was a grad student in Anthropology, found some of these books, and began to organize them. Betsy Fagin, a black woman, who was a poet, coordinated on the task and became the first OWS librarian (People’s Library, October 16, 2011). The result was a shelf of books along the granite wall on the NW side of the park with a cardboard sign that read “The People’s Library” in sharpie. The Library Working Group was formed and they launched their own blog, https://peopleslibrary.wordpress.com to update occupiers and the general public about their latest acquisitions and musings on working the reference desk. One opening post read:

5  Our Park 

71

We write today to invite you to help build the People’s Library. We are working together to build a library for both the people of the city and for those who have joined the occupation. We are a mixed bunch of librarians and library-loving individuals who strongly support the #occupy movement and who also know that information is liberation. We liberate through knowledge. (October 5, 2011)

Hundreds of books on anarchism, communism, environmentalism, feminism, queer theory, critical race theory, social movement history, cooking, sewing, building garden beds, holistic medicine, bike maintenance, and more, lined the shelves. Each book would be catalogued and marked by the label ‘OWS-L.’

Photo of People’s Library. Zuccotti Park, New York City. 10 October, 2011. Marisa Holmes

72 

M. Holmes

The Comfort Station On the first night of the occupation, Lisa, who had been in many occupations before, suggested gathering cardboard from the surrounding area for bedding (Global Revolution, September 17, 2011). An older white woman, Lizzie, with flowers pinned in her hair, slept out that night, and started bottom-lining the Bedding Working Group, which became the more all-encompassing Comfort Working Group. On the third day, Lizzie reported to the NYCGA that she needed help mic-checking, “I have two rotating people. Who cannot be here all the time. I cannot do this alone. I’ve asked for people to meet me. So, please meet me. Please we need bedding. And ideas. And communication. And I love you all. Thank you” (Holmes, September 18, 2011a). She smiled and bowed her head. Lizzie eventually did get support, and The Comfort Station was established on the Southwest side next to The Medic Station. They would stockpile sleeping bags, blankets, pillows, tarps, and tents, which would be distributed to occupiers. Even clothing such as coats and socks were collected. These were almost entirely in-kind donations. Lists of needs were circulated on social media, and supporters would send us supplies, often in much larger quantities than was even needed. Carts would roll in from the local UPS delivery spot, and the Comfort Working Group would unload dozens of boxes from all over the country. These were not all ordered online. Supporters would mail things in themselves and even include handwritten notes with their encouragement. When materials outgrew the Comfort Station and tent, they were moved off-site to Shipping, Inventory, and Storage.

References Atton, C. (1999). The Infoshop: The Alternative Information Centre of the 1990s. New Library World., 100(1146), 24–29. Chen, A. (September 19, 2011). How a Pizza Joint Became the Official Caterer of the Revolution. Gawker. https://www.gawker.com/5841874/how-­a-­pizza-­ joint-­became-­the-­official-­caterer-­of-­the-­revolution

5  Our Park 

73

Cohen, E., Regina Lawrence, R., & Meltzer-Cohen, M. (Fall/Winter, 2013). Reflections on Legal Support and Occupy Wall Street. Women’s Studies Quarterly, 41 (3/4), ENGAGE. Global Revolution. (September 17, 2011). Livestreamed Video. HD.  OWS Media Working Group. Holmes, M. (September 18, 2011a). Personal Video and Photo Collection. Holmes, M. (September 19, 2011b). Personal Video and Photo Collection. Holmes, M. (September, 2011c). Personal Video and Photo Collection. Holmes, M. (November, 2011d). Personal Video and Photo Collection. Holmes, M. (Director). (2016). All Day All Week: An Occupy Wall Street Story [Video; Vimeo Release]. HD. Just Us Legal Collective. (2001). What Is a Legal Collective? http://www.justusnyc.org/resources/JustUs_About.pdf Kropotkin, P. (1902). Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution. Freedom Books. McHenry, K. (2012). Hungry for Peace: How You Can Help End Poverty and War with Food Not Bombs. Sharp Press. People’s Library. (October 5, 2011) Call for Librarians! https://peopleslibrary. wordpress.com/contribute/call-­for-­librarians/ Peoples Library of Occupy Wall Street. (October 16, 2011). People’s Library. A Brief History of the People’s Library. https://peopleslibrary.wordpress. com/history/ Valentine, R. C. (June, 2020). Radicalizing Care: Street Medics and Solidarity. The Activist History Review. https://activisthistory.com/2020/06/01/ radicalizing-­care-­street-­medics-­and-­solidarity/ Woodward, D. (May 9, 2012). Rules of Conduct. Urban Omnibus. https:// urbanomnibus.net/2012/05/rules-­of-­conduct/ Zettler, V.. (September 20, 2011). Video. HD. OWS Media Working Group.

6 This Is What Democracy Looks Like

The NYCGA was the beginning of the structure for OWS. Modified consensus was our process. This was informed by previous experience in the GJM. The Direct Action Network (DAN), for example, had emphasized building a democratic culture using consensus (Polletta, 2004). However, neither the structure nor process were static. Over time, and with more participation, the complexity and scale of organization increased. More working groups formed, as needed, and people who were strangers before the occupation suddenly became close collaborators. The practice of democracy was in flux.

Modified Consensus The NYCGA continued into the park as the decision-making structure. It was the body where coordination between groups happened, new projects were proposed, and actions were promoted. In the NYCGA, we discussed and debated what we were doing together, and what our political visions were. There would be two sessions of the NYCGA every day— one in the afternoon and one in the evening. The agenda for these meetings would start with working group report backs. Occupiers would get © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 M. Holmes, Organizing Occupy Wall Street, Alternatives and Futures: Cultures, Practices, Activism and Utopias, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-8947-6_6

75

76 

M. Holmes

the opportunity to talk about their work, recruit new participants, and receive support. Report backs took at least half of every meeting. Then, we would transition into thematic discussions, or political statements. After the NYCGA formally ended, an ‘open mic’ would commence for anyone else wanting to speak. Sometimes, we would break up the meetings with music or other performances. I would often co-facilitate NYCGAs with my partner at the time, Matt P., a queer white elementary school teacher. They had a rare talent for breaking down big concepts in ways that were easy for people to understand, which was an essential skill for facilitating large groups. We worked well together and collaborated throughout the course of OWS. For the NYCGA on 18 September, we drafted an agenda on butcher paper pinned to the wall. The first major agenda item was establishing the process we would use. During the planning process we had used a modified consensus in which we would drop to a 2/3 majority vote when consensus could not be reached. Chris Longnecker, a thin white man with curly hair and a bandana, who was part of the newly formed Direct Action Working Group (DAWG), ran up to the front with lots of energy, and mic-checked, “I had a comment for an alteration to that system. I think that using a 2/3 majority system. To over-rule a block. Is way way, way too low. And I wanted to open up discussion. To raising that to something like ¾ or 90%. To overrule a block. I think 2/3 majority. Is still tyranny of the majority over the minority. So we should discuss raising that percentage by quite a lot!” I decided to use a “straw poll” which is not a vote, but a way to see how people feel about an option. I asked, “How do people feel about ¾?” This got some up twinkles (signs of agreement). Then I asked, “9/10?” This was clearly more, and there were no blocs so we adopted a modified consensus process of 9/10 for the occupation (Schneider, September 18, 2011).

The Facilitation Working Group David and I formed the Facilitation Working Group on 19 September 2011, when the first meeting was held in the park, renamed Liberty (D. Graeber, personal communication). Subsequently, we had meetings

6  This Is What Democracy Looks Like 

77

every day at 4 pm, along with a direct democracy orientation at 5:30 pm prior to the NYCGA. During the meetings, we would discuss the agenda for the night and sign up for roles, which included a facilitator (sometimes more than one), stack taker, minutes taker, and vibes watcher. I drafted the curriculum for these trainings based on previous movements, and taught occupiers how to facilitate. Hand signals had long been part of a consensus process and were passed down through different movements. The point of process (two hands making a triangle shape), wrap it up (arms making a circle motion), bloc (two arms crossed), and the direct response (two fingers pointing out and going up and down), were familiar to me from the new Students for a Democratic Society (SDS). There was a suggestion from a young white man from Oberlin, to use a raised fist in agreement, but this was decided to be too aggressive. David was adamant that the direct response would be abused, and so we used a point of information (one raised index finger) instead. I started using hand signals for agreement (hands waving up) and disagreement (hands waving down) after talking with Luis and Begonia from the Outreach Working Group, who were connected to 15 M. During the occupation at Puerta del Sol in Madrid they had implemented the hands waving side to side, a gesture of applause in sign language. This was beautiful to see, especially with large assemblies of people. Often when they chanted, “They don’t represent us!” they would raise their arms in the air and make this motion. The ‘twinkles’ sign, which had been used in consensus processes in the U.S. was similar (Global Revolution, September 17, 2011). Many of the early occupiers attended the facilitation trainings and became highly skilled in conducting consensus driven meetings. A young white woman with long curly red hair and round blue glasses, Ketchup (a name she had picked up due to a mispronunciation of “catch up”) caught on very quickly. She had no prior experience with facilitation, but immediately dove in. She was an enthusiastic and excellent facilitator and added some theatrical flair to the process due to her acting background (Colbert Report, October 31, 2011). More than anyone, Ketchup was responsible for the way hand signals were introduced at the beginning of each NYCGA. “This means,” she’d

78 

M. Holmes

say, raising her hands up to form a triangle, “point of process.” The assembly participants would practice along with her, as if choreographed repeating, “point of process.” She would raise her arms up with twinkle fingers like mine and say, “This means. I like that.” Moving her hands out in front and shaking them she’d say, “This means. I’m in the middle.” Lowering the hands and dropping her voice in disappointment she’d state, “This means. I don’t really like that.” Then, there was the most serious hand signal of all- the block. She would make a frown, cross her arms across her chest, and mic-check, “This is a block” (Holmes, September 22, 2011a).

Demands and Declarations In the original Adbusters poster there was the question, “What is our one demand?” Despite being largely irrelevant to those in the park, the question of demands persisted in the mainstream discourse about OWS.  Adbusters was getting frustrated and eventually took it upon themselves to issue their own demands (Swartz, November 20, 2011). From his home in Berkeley, CA, then editor, Micah White, a bi-racial man, wrote to our september17discuss listserv on 22 September, with a proposal titled “Open Letter to America” (2011). This included the long list, “Halt foreclosures for the unemployed, sick, and elderly, Increase funding to public services by taxing the richest 1%, Forgive all student loan debt, Reinstate the Glass-Steagall Act in order to control speculation, Work with the other G20 nations to implement a 1% ‘Robin Hood’ tax on all financial transactions and currency trades, Ban high-frequency ‘flash’ trading, and bring sanity to the markets, Break up the ‘too big to fail’ banks that threaten our future, Arrest the financial fraudsters responsible for the 2008 meltdown and bring them to justice, Ordain a Presidential Commission tasked with ending the influence corporate money has on our elected representatives in Washington.” In 2011, there were uprisings across the globe, and we were speaking in real time to people in North Africa, the Middle East, and Europe. They had been much more affected by the economic crisis than people in the

6  This Is What Democracy Looks Like 

79

U.S. Personally, I felt the address was US centric and nationalistic and would lose all credibility once widely circulated internationally. Micah further proclaimed that we would stay at Zuccotti Park (renamed Liberty) until the demands were met by President Obama and signed it “the people’s assembly.” He didn’t even get the name right. It was the New York City General Assembly (NYCGA). There was a website for it, which AdBusters had linked to, but he couldn’t bother to remember our name. I chose to swallow my pride for the time being, and wrote back simply, “Micah, this is a wonderful draft. However, the general assembly is going through this very process of drafting a statement. It should be ready this afternoon” (Holmes, September 22, 2011a). In response to the request for demands, there was a growing desire to craft some sort of political statement. I helped facilitate plenary sessions in the nightly assemblies, so had a unique vantage point of how this process played out. On Monday, 19 September, the NYCGA broke out into smaller groups, to decide what was most important as a movement. Those groups reported back with their top six or more choices for principles. A consolidation group formed to take in all the feedback from the assembly and draft a statement. Their draft, hammered out throughout late nights in the park, was called the Principles of Solidarity (NYCGA, September 23, 2011a). Two nights later, on Wednesday, 21 September, the group came back to the NYCGA for review. Kelley Brannon, a young white woman with short red hair, had arrived at the occupation on day one, and never left. She was part of the consolidation group, and described the process, micchecking, “We are presenting them. To you tonight. And we propose. That we break into smaller groups again. To talk about what is on here. Because this represents all of us. This is democracy.” Jez chimed in, “This is consensualism!” (Holmes, September 21, 2011a). They both smiled. The principles suggested in previous meetings were paired down and simplified, so as to read for clarity and accessibility. There were break-outs that night and the next, before a more final version was presented on Friday, 23 September. While they retained a commitment to direct and participatory ways of working, and to imagining a collective future, they were not overtly ideological or laden with ‘isms.’ Instead, the principles spoke to core values that we would all hold in common. They included:

80 

M. Holmes

Engaging in direct and transparent participatory democracy; Exercising personal and collective responsibility; Recognizing individuals’ inherent privilege and the influence it has on all interactions; Empowering one another against all forms of oppression; Redefining how labor is valued; The sanctity of individual privacy; The belief that education is a human right; Endeavor to support wide application of the Open Source concept. (Hornbein, September 23, 2011b)

The consolidation group asked that it “be posted online to show the online community and the world at large that steps are being taken to better refine the message of the movement.” They reiterated that it was a ‘living document’ and so was, itself, subject to revisions, and an ongoing process. There was a sense of urgency to get something out to the general public, and blocs were resolved. Drew Hornbein, a young white man, who was a website designer and created nycga.net, our internal website, was the minutes taker that night. He expressed, “The GA then moved again for consensus and everyone was thrilled that consensus had been reached. The document would be posted online in one of the most beautiful examples of a true democracy that I, personally, have ever seen,” (Hornbein, September 23, 2011b). Throughout the following week, another statement, The Declaration of the Occupation of New York City, was written in much the same process, where drafts were co-created by participants in the assembly with hundreds of people. On 29 September, at the nightly NYCGA, the consolidation group came back with a proposed version (Hornbein, September 29, 2011c). Rather than a list of demands, it was a long list of grievances. It condemned all the harmful and exploitative actions by the 1%, who benefited from the oppression and exploitation of the 99%. It was explicitly modeled after the United States Declaration of Independence and asserted our autonomy and withdrawal from an unjust political and economic system. The group read it out loud to the assembly, in its entirety, in mic-check form, before the space was open for discussion. It called on “the people of the world” to replicate the process, and ended with:

6  This Is What Democracy Looks Like 

81

Exercise your right to peaceably assemble; occupy public space; create a process to address the problems we face and generate solutions accessible to everyone. To all communities that take action and form groups in the spirit of direct democracy, we offer support, documentation, and all of the resources at our disposal. Join us and make your voices heard! (NYCGA, September 29, 2011b)

A short break was called, and a sidebar conversation happened with the Open Source Group to discuss their own concern about the method of drafting the document. A line was added that read “These grievances are not all inclusive” to indicate that, of course, it would evolve over time. The NYCGA reconvened. After incorporating all of the amendments, and making revisions, there were no remaining concerns or blocs, and a consensus had been reached. Raising our fingers in the air, we jumped up and down and celebrated cheering, “This is what democracy looks like!” (Hornbein, September 29, 2011d).

Photo of Consensus on the Declaration of the Occupation in the NYCGA. Zuccotti Park, New York City. 29 September 2011. OWS Media Working Group

82 

M. Holmes

References Colbert Report. (October 31, 2011). Stephen Colbert Occupies Wall Street. https://www.cc.com/video/d4hmi3/the-­colbert-­report-­colbert-­super-­pac-­stephen-­ colbert-­occupies-­occupy-­wall-­street-­pt-­1 Global Revolution. (September 17, 2011). Livestreamed Video. HD.  OWS Media Working Group. Holmes, M. (September 22, 2011a). Personal Video and Photo Collection. Holmes, M. (September 21, 2011b). Personal Video and Photo Collection. Hornbein, D. (September 21, 2011a). NYCGA Minutes. nycga.net.https:// web.archive.org/web/20120501050429/http:/www.nycga.net/minutes/. Accessed September 10, 2022. Hornbein, D. (September 23, 2011b). NYCGA Minutes. Retrieved September 10, 2022, from nycga.net.https://web.archive.org/web/20120501050429/ http:/www.nycga.net/minutes/ Hornbein, D. (September 29, 2011c). NYCGA Minutes. nycga.net.https:// web.archive.org/web/20120501050429/http:/www.nycga.net/minutes/ Hornbein, D. (September 29, 2011d). NYCGA Minutes. Retrieved September 10, 2022, from nycga.net.https://web.archive.org/web/20120501050429/ http:/www.nycga.net/minutes/ NYCGA. (September 23, 2011a). Principles of Solidarity. Retrieved September 10, 2022, from https://github.com/OccupyWallStreet/New-­York-­City-­Gene ralAssembly-­Documents NYCGA. (September 29, 2011b). The Declaration of the Occupation. Retrieved September 10, 2022, from https://github.com/OccupyWallStreet/New-­York-­ City Polletta, F. (2004). Freedom is an Endless Meeting (p.  194). University of Chicago Press. Schneider, N. (September 18, 2011). Video. HD. OWS Media Working Group. Swartz, M. (November 20, 2011). Pre-occupied: The Origins and Future of Occupy Wall Street. The New  Yorker. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2011/11/28/pre-­occupied

7 Direct Action

In her essay Direct Action, Voltairine de Cleyre wrote, “Every person who ever had a plan to do anything, and went and did it, or who laid his plan before others, and won their co-operation to do it with him, without going to external authorities to please do the thing for them, was a direct actionist. All co­operative experiments are essentially direct action” (Brigati, 2004, p. 48). There were no permits for Liberty Plaza. No permission was asked from Brookfield or the city. No liaisons coordinated on our behalf or negotiated. During the early days of OWS, there were actions every day. We continued to put up the tarps and tents. It was a constant struggle, with many arrests in the process. There were no rights, other than the ones we held ourselves, and were willing to take action to defend. We had the right to assemble, because we assembled. We had the right to speak, because we spoke. We had the right to be in public, because we asserted it, through direct action (Brigati, 2004).

Non-Violent Direct Action There are many forms of direct action. OWS had a diversity of tactics framework that embraced a range of approaches (Bray, 2013). However, strategic non-violent direct action was most common (Lakey, 1965). © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 M. Holmes, Organizing Occupy Wall Street, Alternatives and Futures: Cultures, Practices, Activism and Utopias, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-8947-6_7

83

84 

M. Holmes

Jason, from the NYCGA, would hold regular direct-action trainings in the park. One day they assembled a dozen or so people under the red thing at the front. They sat on a bench with crossed legs and casually introduced themselves, “I’ve given trainings, and I’ve been trained to give trainings.” They stated, “As far as pronouns go, I really don’t mind. You can use whatever you want.” Going around the circle, it seemed most people were very young, and inexperienced. They were just there to learn. Jason began with an introduction of Gandhian non-violence. “Ahimsa,” they stated, was “the absence of not caring, the absence of apathy.” In contrast, they explained, “Martin Luther King really didn’t like the term non-violence. He said it was really negative and anti-, and he wanted something positive to really exemplify what it stood for. Martin Luther King called it love in action” (Global Revolution, September 28, 2011). They stood up to practice. Walking back and forth, with hands stretched out to emphasize their points, they went over the tone of one’s voice. “Nonviolence is not passive. Non-violence is active. Do not feel you need to whisper or talk softly. You do not need to do this. You have control of your voice. You can speak as I’m speaking. You can be calm and collected, and peaceful. This is how you’re speaking,” they said. Then, they cracked a joke, “If you’re like me you can talk forever about why you’re there. And you can continue to be talking about like the system and the banks etc.…”. They asked for a volunteer to play the cop, and one guy got up and pretended to swing a club as Jason collapsed to the ground and went limp, rolling back and forth like gumby on the ground. Jason got up and practiced getting arrested again saying, “Officer, why are you arresting me? Officer, why are you arresting me? Officer, I haven’t done anything wrong? Please officer! I’m being totally peaceful.” Someone yelled out, “What’s your name?” They responded, “My name’s Jason. Capricorn.” They laughed with a big goofy grin. “See. I didn’t go limp. I just walked along letting people know I was being arrested in a very big voice. A lawyer will tell you to ‘cooperate fully’”. The commitment to training continued into the occupation and was essential in building the skills necessary for new people to take on tasks. There was an intergenerational dialogue and building happening, as well as a commitment to collective learning. This helped to de-mystify how things were organized and removed barriers to entry. As a result, if you came to the park, you’d be plugged in immediately.

7  Direct Action 

85

The Bell Occupiers formed the Direct Action Working Group (DAWG) in parallel to the Tactical Working Group for the purpose of park defense and outreach (Schneider, September 18, 2011). The NYCGA had consented to staying at Liberty Plaza and holding down an occupation. However, there was always the threat of moving to Wall Street. The newly formed DAWG played with this potential. Every morning, at 9 am for the opening bell, DAWG would lead marches out of the park and descend on the stock exchange. This was repeated for the closing at 5 pm. Noisemakers of all kinds were encouraged to drown out the sound of the bell. On Monday, 19 September, DAWG rolled down Broadway with a white banner, which read, “Just because we can’t see it. Doesn’t mean it’s not happening.” spray-painted in red. We all chanted, “Banks got bailed out! We got sold out!”. As we got closer to the stock exchange, we encountered long lines of bankers and traders dressed in suits and ties. They rolled their eyes and crossed their arms in exasperation. Some just laughed at us. One of the police officers in a white shirt screamed from a megaphone, “People have to get to work!” and “Get back on the sidewalk!” A horn played to counter him. Then, a group of drummers followed, and Alex from the NYCGA exclaimed, “dance, dance, dance!” along with the beat. A dance party erupted along the barricades. We continued to cross in front of Chase Plaza shouting, “All Day All Week! Occupy Wall Street!” One cardboard sign asked, “Do you feel it trickle down?” Another stated simply, “America—99% poor, 1% rich.” Hiro, a tall young black man with long hair pulled back, raised his fist, and led the chant, “We are the 99%” (Holmes, September 20, 2011a).

#S24 On Saturday, 24 September (#S24) there was a call for a solidarity march on Wall Street organized by DAWG (Moynihan, September 24, 2011). A couple hundred people gathered at Liberty, prepared to march, and shouted, “All Day All Week, Occupy Wall Street!” Brookfield security

86 

M. Holmes

circled, and distributed paper notices encouraging us to vacate the premises, but no one seemed deterred by them. One occupier climbed on a ledge and tore them to pieces in front of the crowd. DAWG assembled under the red thing for a quick recap of how to move together in the streets and shared the National Lawyers Guild number. It was becoming common practice at that point to shout out your name, and birthday, when being arrested. This helped the National Lawyers Guild and our own Legal Working Group, track people in the system. It was also encouraged to document everything. Someone from DAWG mic-checked, “If you see someone being arrested. Take out your video camera!” (Holmes, 2016). I followed the march, camera in hand, down to Broadway and Wall Street. As we circled around Federal Hall, the march ran into Chase Plaza, which was barricaded off. At that moment, a young black man in a white shirt and glasses, who I later learned was Robert Stephens, kneeled down, pointed at Chase, and shouted, “That’s the bank that took my parents’ home! That’s the bank right there! That’s the bank! I’m not moving. I’m not moving. I’m not gonna be quiet. I’m not gonna be quiet. I’m gonna look at them right there, and say, ‘You took it! And we’re gonna take it back! We’re gonna take it back!’” He was shaking and tearing up as he said it. I stayed there with him filming, when a group of officers surrounded us, and dragged him away in handcuffs. A large white man in a red jacket, who was a detective, came behind me, and said, “Come here, Marisa, you want to get arrested or no? Listen.” He came in with a few others including Officer Anthony Bologna. They grabbed my backpack and pulled me to the ground, twisting my arm around. In the melee, I threw my camera to the crowd, and a friend actually caught it, and kept filming my arrest (OWS Media Working Group, September 24, 2011). Robert and I were packed in the back of a police car and whisked away to the 1st Precinct in Tribeca to be ‘processed’ (the exact opposite of our own process). In NY, when you’re arrested, you’re generally taken first to the local precinct, and then to central booking for the borough. They can hold you legally up to 24 hours before being arraigned on specific charges. This is the police process. On rare occasions, one will get a desk appearance ticket, and be released quickly, but this was not the case for me. They kept me in as long as possible. They confiscated all of my

7  Direct Action 

87

belongings, and copied my ID, before throwing me in a cell. The jail was organized along gender lines, and soon I was joined by others identified by police as women, who were arrested on the march. I learned that after Wall Street, the march had continued north through the village and to Union Square, where a stand-off with police ensued. Orange plastic netting was unraveled to divide and contain the crowd. Anthony Bologna shot pepper spray in the eyes of young women who were defenseless and convulsing on the ground. They had been arrested. By nightfall, we were transferred over to ‘the tombs’ otherwise known as central booking in Manhattan. It was called ‘the tombs’ due to its tall, concrete structure, without windows, resembling an Egyptian burial site. Black mold crept up the sides of the walls, cockroaches ran across the floorboards, and the toilet did not flush, so was filled with excrement. Overhead, there were buzzing fluorescent lights kept on the entire night to prevent us from sleeping. It turns out, when you put people in cages, they tend to become stir crazed. One woman tried to negotiate with the guards to get the lights turned off. When they refused, she banged on the bars, and screamed about her rights. But the guards just laughed at her. Another woman was stretching in the corner, and suggested I think of myself as ‘an egg’ with a protective shell. Her strategy was to focus the mind elsewhere, beyond the bars. Someone else was just passing the time by regaling other prisoners with stories of hitchhiking across the country. Throughout the night we were packed in like sardines, maybe a dozen or so in a 10 ft. by 10 ft. cell. Other women, who were not part of the protest joined us. When asked, they revealed they were in for petty theft. The line between what is criminalized and what is not became viscerally clear. The bankers on Wall Street, who stole billions didn’t face jail time, but someone shoplifting from their local Bodega did. When I was arraigned the next day, I was brought into the chamber handcuffed, and lined up against a wall. Then I was allowed one quick side consultation with Marty Stolar, a seasoned activist lawyer, who had taken up my case. The National Lawyers Guild had been organizing already on our behalf. I was called up before the judge, and read my charges, before being released with a court date. None of my charges amounted to felonies, thankfully, but would need to be fought. Dozens

88 

M. Holmes

of occupiers had been doing court support and waiting outside the room for my release. Cyn [pseudonym], Vanessa, and others were all there to give me hugs and provisions. An artist friend of mine, who was very kind, had left a care package. I felt relieved to be out. My partner, Matt P. was there to meet me, give me a hug. They asked if I wanted to go home and sleep, but all I wanted in the moment was to return to Liberty (Van Praag, September 25, 2011).

The Brooklyn Bridge On Saturday 1 Oct, there was another solidarity march planned by the Direct Action Working Group (DAWG). This time, rather than hundreds, we had thousands. As part of the outreach strategy, the march route would go across the Brooklyn Bridge and connect the boroughs (Moynihan & Baker, October 1, 2011). I ran up to City Hall and looked out at the sea of people. The Rude Mechanical Orchestra kept the beat blasting horns and trombones. Union members wearing their local colors and logos, danced along with them. Students from the local high schools joined in, too. Near the front of the march was the DAWG banner which read in simple black on white, “Occupy Everything” (Holmes, October 1, 2011b). When I reached the pedestrian pathway, I realized the march had split, with hundreds taking the traffic side of the bridge. After a brief stand-off, the police appeared to allow them to continue. Those still on the pedestrian side began climbing down and jumping into the street. In the street we chanted, “Who’s Bridge? Our Bridge!” Soon after getting to the street, the police stopped us mid-way, and started a kettle. It was a trap. They proceeded to arrest over 700 of us, dragging each one into handcuffs, including journalists (Harris, October 1, 2011). I was right in the middle and looked up to see those still above us trying to document but being pushed away by cops. Storm clouds moved in overhead and it started to rain, so I huddled with a few other comrades under umbrellas and began singing  the Italian anti-fascist anthem, “Bella Ciao,” to keep the spirits up. The NYPD eventually ran out of vans, and had commandeered MTA buses, but many of the workers refused, so the few of us who remained were luckily let go.

7  Direct Action 

89

References Bray, M. (2013). Translating Anarchy: The Anarchism of Occupy Wall Street. Zero Books. Brigati, A. J. (2004). The Voltairine de Cleyre Reader. AK Press. Global Revolution (September 28, 2011). Livestreamed Video. HD.  Occupy Wall Street Media Working Group. Harris, P. (October 1, 2011). Occupy Wall Street protesters arrested on Brooklyn Bridge. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/oct/02/ occupy-wall-street-protesters-brooklyn-bridge Holmes, M. (September 20, 2011a). Personal Video and Photo Collection. Holmes, M. (October 1, 2011b). Personal Video and Photo Collection. Holmes, M. (Director). (2016). All Day All Week: An Occupy Wall Street Story [Video; Vimeo Release]. HD. Lakey, G. (1965). A Manual for Direct Action: Strategy and Tactics for Civil Rights and All Other Nonviolent Protest Movements. Quadrangle Books. Moynihan, C. (September 24, 2011). Wall Street Protesters Broadcast Arrests on Social Media. NY Times Cityroom. https://archive.nytimes.com/cityroom. blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/24/wall-­street-­protesters-­broadcast-­arrests-­on-­ social-­media/ Moynihan, C., & Baker, A. (October 1, 2011). Police Arrest More Than 700 Protesters on Brooklyn Bridge. NY Times Cityroom. https://archive.nytimes. com/cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/01/police-­arresting-­protesters-­on-­ brooklyn-­bridge/ OWS Media Working Group. (September 24, 2011). Personal Video and Photo Collection. Schneider, N. (September 18, 2011). Video. HD. OWS Media Working Group. Personal Video and Photo Collection. Van Praag, J. (September 25, 2011). Video. HD. OWS Media Working Group. Personal Video and Photo Collection.

8 Media for the 99%

Independent media centers (IMCs) had been an essential part of the indymedia network (Wolfson, 2014). We took the idea of an IMC and put it in a public square. There was a strong influence of ‘tactical media’ (Garcia & Lovink, 2008). David Garcia and Geert Lovink had explained, “Tactical media are media of crisis, criticism and opposition.” The goal of tactical media is to make a cultural intervention. Tactical media does not report on events but rather shapes the events themselves. Unlike independent or alternative media, tactical media may use corporate platforms. However, this is to distribute independently produced content made collectively and horizontally. The OWS Media Working Group followed this logic. 

The OWS Media Center In the center of the park, there was a small circle of young people, gathered with laptops—fixed to their screens. It was an endless flow of images and comments from other occupations across the globe. We would monitor every move across Facebook, Twitter, and Livestream accounts for OWS, watching intently to see what would emerge. Our role was to facilitate and curate the circulation of this content. The Livestream © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 M. Holmes, Organizing Occupy Wall Street, Alternatives and Futures: Cultures, Practices, Activism and Utopias, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-8947-6_8

91

92 

M. Holmes

account ‘Global Revolution’ was always open and was broadcasting the happenings of the park 24/7 for the greater movement audience. Vlad would sit there watching the feed. On 19 September, 2011, he nervously peered into the webcam, telling the viewers, “This is where a lot of what you see in the channel is being edited. This is the communications outpost for the park.” Flux mentioned that an anonymous comment came through in the chat asking, “Do you know why the park is called Liberty Park?” Vlad responded excitedly, “Ok, the background for that is actually very interesting. I just found out. It used to be called Liberty Park. This actually goes along with the whole narrative of the other squares that have been occupied worldwide. They always had new names imposed by whatever authority in power, and when they took them back, they went back to the old names, and the old names were the names connected to liberation, revolution, and freedom.”

Media Cluster When I went back to the park on 25 September, after getting out of jail, there was a media ‘cluster’ meeting happening across all areas and platforms. They had been pushing out viral video content while we were all in jail and asking for our release. The friend who had caught my camera managed to stay out all day filming, and the OWS Media Working Group ‘intake’ team uploaded my footage to YouTube, where it was getting tens of thousands of views (Holmes, 2016). The ‘pepper spraying incident’ in Union Square was even bigger and was picked up by local and national news. Before then, there had largely been a media black-out in the traditional news media, but we were starting to break through, and reaching a larger audience. The meeting was about how best to distribute the work, and we subdivided into different groups, under a larger media umbrella. There were already people doing the livestream, and ‘daily recap’ you tube videos, which were getting a lot of attention, especially the ones of mass arrests and police brutality. All the areas in which we were working needed to be more clearly defined and in solidarity with one another. The first week had been pretty ad hoc, with shooters filling in however they could. Going forward, there was interest in having a schedule in advance as

8  Media for the 99% 

93

much as possible, with working group and action ‘beats.’ Shooters, editors, and other roles were listed alongside each area to cover, and we would sign up for shifts (Van Praag, September 25, 2011). Andrew Carbone, a young white man with red hair and freckles, who was a production manager by day, put a lot of work into creating collaborative documents for this process (A.  Carbone, personal communication, October 16, 2011). Doing a direct democracy video was always front and center, but there was also talk of profiling the people’s kitchen and medics. Alongside the production schedule, there was a post schedule, which included point people, editors, and assistant editors. As part of this process of formalization, and streamlining, there was also a push in the OWS Media Working Group to define itself politically with a statement. Katie Davison, a young white woman with blonde hair from California, who was a documentary filmmaker, had dropped into the occupation, and never left. She was committed to having what she described as a ‘charter,’ which she later drafted. It read: We believe in the existence of a culture industry, a system created to standardize cultural goods, water down critical thought, manipulate the public at large, and cultivate false needs, needs primarily created and satisfied by consumption. We work to create content outside the “box”: the language, the ideas, the parameters that aim to define and constrict, to package and standardize. We strive to use media and technology to educate, communicate, and evoke meaningful participation in this global movement. We believe in the power of the media to free the mind rather than enslave it. We believe in the 99%. (K. Davison, personal communication, October 11, 2011)

The night shift at the media center was the most important, because few people were up, and eyes were needed on the police. Lorenzo Serna, who had come to our early trainings, was by far the most dedicated live streamer at OWS. When others went back to the comfort of their apartments, and caught some sleep, Zo stayed all night in their hoodie and cap, holding down the media center, and keeping our generator running. On 27 September, ten days into the occupation, they had sat in front of the screen. Speaking to the chat, they said, “I don’t usually go on that march, because I’m up all night. Hate to say it, but everyone’s got to take

94 

M. Holmes

turns. It’s a nice morning … There’s police everywhere, but they’re not moving. The fly or drive thing … It’s hard to drive here. There’s really nowhere to park. Yeah. Sun’s rising!” They looked behind them, and then took another swig of coffee. They responded to Sisterjinks (someone in the chat) saying, “For me, I like to look at it as reclaiming public space to have general dialogue between people. Most of the country has moved away from that. Everything requires permits. You can’t gather anywhere. All those things like that. For me the act of coming together, and discussing, and airing your grievances if you will, I think is really important. That’s what we’re doing here” (Serna, 2011).

Shifting the Narrative Over the course of the first two weeks of the occupation, the OWS Media Working Group became more organized. The media cluster met periodically to bring together different types of media and think through strategy. Flows were streamlined. A tweetdeck was created to amplify content from The Arab Spring, 15 M, and other occupy encampments. Rather than attempt to centralize or control the messaging of the movement, an invitation was extended to all those who wanted to participate. 1 October was a real turning point. After having been released from the kettle on the Brooklyn Bridge, I ran back to the park to gather testimonies. Cyn [pseudonym] told me, “I saw that everyone had just started walking into the bridge, which was completely empty and devoid of police presence. I don’t know what happened up there, but by the time I had gotten all the way to the bridge, people were getting corralled, and orange nets were out, and the police were starting to round up and divide people into easier crowds to manage.” Camille testified, “I saw the nets, and I saw the plans for kettling, and the shutdown of the Brooklyn bound traffic pre-emptively. By the time I got on the bridge, the police had already shut down that side of the actual roadway on the bridge” (Holmes, October 1, 2011). The media center’s generator was confiscated, so I went with Vlad, Nikky, and others to a nearby hideout in the financial district to get a

8  Media for the 99% 

95

decent power source and edit. There were 20–30 people unloading footage, and passing around whiskey, as we did ‘intake’—digitizing and uploading media—and edited all through the night. It was essential that we determine, as much as possible, the narrative ahead of the curve of the television stations. Sunday morning is generally a down-turn in the news cycle, and staff reporters are off. Since we stayed up, and were trending on Twitter, it was impossible to ignore what had happened. The NYPD made a huge strategic blunder. Rather than a story of unruly violent protestors, it was a story of one of the largest arrests of non-violent protestors in US history (Democracy Now! October 3, 2011).

Global Village

Livestream Capture of Global Revolution Launch Video Graphic. 12 September 2011. OWS Media Working Group

One of the cornerstones of the OWS Media Working Group was that we trained people how to make their own media using consumer grade gear, so that the process could be easily replicated. The OWS Media Working Group sent ‘hackintoshes’ to over 80 other occupations and instructed occupiers on how to Livestream and get their message out. Tips were shared on horizontal processes and how to organize the square.

96 

M. Holmes

We helped facilitate the creation of a McLuhan-esque global village, of multiple users communicating in real time and broadcasting their own image (McLuhan, 1962). The collective intelligence of the physical and digital spaces would develop through a constant flow of information, and each account would help amplify the others. As practices were developed and shared, they were instantly mimicked by other occupations. There was ultimately a feedback loop, so that we were talking to people all over the globe and sharing. Nikky and Monica were visibly gitty as they responded to hundreds of messages on 2 October. They spoke over each other, and at times in unison, “Hello Canada! Hello Scotland! Hello Toronto! Hello Mexico! Hello China! Hello Pakistan! Oregon! Switzerland! Germany! Brazil!” The list went on. Nikky commented, “I found out in Slovenia they’re gonna camp as well. I have to ask you all, “Are you gonna camp. Are you gonna take your square?”” Then Monica chimed in, “Yeah. You have to. This is a global revolution, so this is a global movement, and you all have to camp in your main square. You hear that? You have to!” Nikky assured them, “It’s very easy. Any question of how to camp let us know. You can send your emails to us, and your requests, and all your doubts about how to camp and how to livestream, and we will give you all the information.” Monica typed in the names of websites they could go to. TaketheSquare. net was for international coordination, and nycga.net was our local website in NYC. In the chat, there were comments about how they looked alike and spoke Spanish. Nikky confirmed their suspicions, “Yeah. We’re Spanish sisters,” Monica explained. “Yeah, we came to Occupy Wall Street, because we camped in Spain four months ago. And we were there for one month in the main square of Madrid, and that’s how we got our revolution, and that’s what we are doing here now. Helping them out. How to camp, and how to do livestreaming, and everything.” In the chat someone typed, “Long live the indignados!” “Yes!” She smiled. They were not biological sisters but shared a bond of sisterhood in struggle. Off screen in the park, a woman asked, Monica, “How do you feel?” “I feel wonderful!” she said (Global Revolution, October 1, 2011).

8  Media for the 99% 

97

References Democracy Now! (October 3, 2011) 700 Arrested As OWS Enters Its Third Week. https://www.democracynow.org/2011/10/3/700_arrested_on_ brooklyn_bridge_as Garcia, D. Lovink, G. (January 10, 2008). The ABC of Tactical Media. http:// www.tacticalmediafiles.net/articles/3160 Global Revolution. (October 1, 2011). Livestreamed Video. OWS Media Working Group. Personal Video and Photo Collection. Holmes, M. (October 1, 2011). Personal Video and Photo Collection. Holmes, M. (Director). (2016). All Day All Week: An Occupy Wall Street Story [Video; Vimeo Release]. HD. McLuhan, M. (1962). The Gutenberg Galaxy: The Making of Typographic Man (1st ed.). University of Toronto Press. Serna, L. (September 27, 2011). Livestreamed Video. HD.  OWS Media Working Group. Van Praag, J. (September 25, 2011). Video. HD. OWS Media Working Group. Wolfson, T. (2014). Digital Rebellion: The Birth of the Cyber Left. University of Illinois Press.

9 Allies

As the occupation picked up momentum and became a national news story, the more traditional and institutional left began to take notice. They didn’t really understand what was happening, but they wanted in. Unions and non-profits began visiting the park and offering material support. Mayor Michael Bloomberg, a Republican, was coming down hard, which was unpopular. Democrats saw an opportunity to court young voters, so they threw their support behind the occupation. The attempted eviction on 13 October, in particular, presented an opportunity for them. This allowed the occupation some political buffer, but also meant we were suddenly surrounded by a web of actors with different interests. Nathan Schneider writes of these organizations, “They are financed by and dirty their hands with, hierarchical politics, which a horizontal assembly must avoid like the plague” (2013, p. 76).

The Walkthrough The goal was to do a walkthrough on the livestream every day. This would involve two participants in the Media Working Group, moving together in the park. There would be a ‘producer’ lifting up the laptop with a © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 M. Holmes, Organizing Occupy Wall Street, Alternatives and Futures: Cultures, Practices, Activism and Utopias, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-8947-6_9

99

100 

M. Holmes

webcam attached, and an on-camera ‘host’ holding a microphone and giving the delivery. The team would walk that way, attached to one another. It was a busy day on 4 October, with more distractions than usual. While doing the walkthrough, Jason got a phone call on camera. “I’m sorry. Who? Oh, the daily national newspaper,” they confirmed. The reporter began with, “So I’m told you’re the man behind the scenes coordinating a lot of the stuff that’s going on…” Jason paused and answered, “I’m on the Media Relations Team.” The reporter continued, “Good. I’m wondering how the approach came from unions … how did that intersection happen….?” Jason answered evenly, “I think there was a mutual respect going on. Some unions did come to us. Some of us reached out to the unions. I’ve seen the Transportation Workers Union. I’ve seen the  Service Employees International Union. I’ve seen The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) today. It’s really amazing. And we’re having our big march tomorrow, which I’m sure you know about in solidarity with unions and student walkouts.” The reporter kept digging and wondered what this relationship to the unions meant for the movement. He asked, “Do you think that their message is going to square? I’m only asking because I know the movement has multiple messages that are on the agenda, all coming together in a way … You know their situation … they come out with their whole brand, and shirts, and they have a lot of people obviously. Do you think that’s going to square with the overall theme of what you guys are doing?” Jason diplomatically answered, “Well, my hope is that the unions will understand what we’re doing here and will try to respect the horizontal process. And I have a very strong feeling that they will, because I think they really want to support this movement, and they want to say that they, too, are part of the 99%, and they want us all to rise together…” (Global Revolution, October 4, 2011).

The Unions There were already connections to the labor movement carried over from the Beyond May 12th Coalition and Bloombergville organizing against budget cuts. During the summer NYCGA (2011) planning meetings

9 Allies 

101

there was a Student and Labor Outreach Committee to continue building on these relationships (Collado, 2012). Isham Christie and Mary Clinton, both young white organizers, who had been in the new Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) chapter in North Dakota, were then studying labor history at the City University of New York (CUNY). They helped build out outreach, bridging the gaps between students and workers (Schill, 2021). They were joined by Justin Molito, a middle-aged white man and longtime union organizer from the Writers Guild  of America, who aided in strategy (Lawrence, May 30, 2013). Jacqueline DiSalvo, an older white woman, who was a professor at Baruch College CUNY, and a member of the Delegate Assembly, Professional Staff Congress CUNY, American Federation of Teachers (AFT) Local 2334 (Tarleton, November, 2011) was the most consistent and committed voice for labor. Notably, she had been part of the original SDS in the 1960s, as well as the Women’s Liberation Movement, and was still around. At nearly every NYCGA, she came with some update regarding labor actions. She operated inside and outside of union hierarchies. She seemed to know everybody, and was so persistent and persuasive, that she could convince unlikely sympathizers to get on board. During an assembly on 26 September she announced, “I was contacted today. By a colleague. From my union. The faculty and staff union. At the City University. She said. That she gets the sense. That people all over the city. Who have had nothing to do with Occupy Wall Street. Are in support. And joining our movement,” (Holmes, 2016).

5 Oct There was a big show of support from allies with the Community/Labor March to Wall Street on 5 October. The Beyond May 12th Coalition and Strong Economies for All heavily promoted it and turned people out (H.Caruso, personal communication, October 3, 2011). VOCAL-NY, New  York Communities for Change, Community Voices Heard, and Alliance for Quality Education signed on as community partners. Then the whole established labor movement came through with Service Employees International Union, Transit Workers United, Communication Workers of

102 

M. Holmes

America, AFSCME District Council 37, United Federation of Teachers, The Teamsters, and more. One flyer read, “It’s time to stand together, and continue what started in Wisconsin” (Beyond May 12th, 2011). On 5 October, at 4.30 pm, tens of thousands of people flooded into Foley Square in Lower Manhattan. There was a long line up of labor leaders agitating the crowd. Joe Samuelsen, chairman of Transit Workers United  Local 100, bellowed, “Are working people tired of getting dirt kicked in their face? We have two main antagonists—the government and the banks on Wall Street. They have two million dollars right now that they’re sitting on that they could be pumping into American jobs, investing back into America, and they refuse to do it!” He was followed by Hector Figueroa from Service Employees International Union Local 32BJ urging, “We have one enemy right now that is attacking us- corporate America, corporate greed. Brothers and sisters the time is now to unite and fight! Unite and fight!” (Van Praag, October 5, 2011). The method of organizing was much more top-down and controlled then what we were engaged in at Liberty Plaza. Marshalls were assigned at each intersection directing the crowd to ‘stay on the sidewalk,’ ‘keep it moving,’ and ‘fill in the gaps.’ A large wooden stage had been erected with megaphones wired in all directions. The crowd funneled in as an audience. There was no assembly or mic checking for this event. There were no facilitators or ways for rank and file to participate. The rally and march were permitted, peaceful, and moved slowly down Broadway chanting, ‘We are the 99%.’ I had a sinking feeling in my stomach as I watched them pass that the movement that our ‘allies’ imagined was very different than the one we had been building. They could identify with the 99%, but without embracing any of the prefigurative practices of OWS. I couldn’t help but notice that on the stage, the unions and community-­ based organizations were joined by members of the Working Families Party.

The Working Families Party Republican Mayor Bloomberg was toward the end of his third term and could not seek re-election in 2013. Within the Democratic Party, there was an emerging block, The Working Families Party (WFP), which had recently

9 Allies 

103

won multiple smaller offices and was gaining momentum. Their base was a web of community-based organizations, and some parts of the labor movement (Paul, November 15, 2013). WFP saw an opportunity to utilize the momentum of OWS and redirect it into progressive campaigns. A rising star in the WFP was a young Afro-Boricua woman, Nelini Stamp (Netroots Nation, n.d.). She was involved in the occupation and served as an informal liaison between OWS, community leaders, and elected officials. Early on Nelini introduced Councilman Charles Barron, a stately older black man (also  from the WFP) during the NYCGA on 27 September. He said all the right things, and it was tempting to believe he was serious. Always a great orator, he wielded the power of the mic check for call and response. He proclaimed, “Wall Street. Making. 20 billion. In 2011! We need money for the homeless. We need money for the people. We need schools not prisons. We say bailout the people. Send Wall Street to jail. We need money. To reduce poverty. We need money. To stop unemployment. The only way to get all of this. Is that America needs a revolution!” Nelini smiled from ear to ear and jumped in the air twinkling her fingers (Davison, September 27, 2011a). The same day, Councilman Jumaane Williams, a black man and early career politician (from WFP) came through to visit. In an interview, he expressed his support for young people who “always make the revolution” and that really, the older generations needed to “get out of the way.” But then, he followed up with, “What we have to do now is make sure that the energy here that’s fantastic gets harnessed in a way that’s productive and communicable. I think we need to sit down and ask ourselves, what it is that we’re asking for, what are the 5–10 things that we want and work toward that. That way the support will come … A lot of people don’t know what they’re supporting now other than a bunch of young people. It’s time to take it a notch up,” (Davison, September 27, 2011a).

Health and Safety The emerging political battle in the city became clear when Mayor Bloomberg pushed to evict Liberty Plaza. On 11 October, a letter was sent by Brookfield to then Police Commissioner, Ray Kelly, lamenting

104 

M. Holmes

the loss of their space to occupiers. At issue was what they claimed were clear violations of their self-proclaimed rules, which were vague and questionably legal to begin with. They also claimed to have received “hundreds of phone calls and e-mails” from concerned citizens and office workers in the neighborhood about safety and sanitation. It began with: As you know, for over three weeks, Zuccotti Park (the “Park”) has been used by “Occupy Wall Street” and other protestors as their home base. The Park is owned by a Brookfield affiliate and was recently renovated at Brookfield’s considerable expense as an amenity for the general public. It is intended to be a relaxing tree-filled oasis in the midst of the hustle and bustle of Lower Manhattan. We fully support the rights of free speech and assembly, but the manner in which the protestors are occupying the Park, violates the law, violates the rules of the Park, deprives the community of its rights of quiet enjoyment to the Park, and creates health and public safety issues that need to be addressed immediately. (Corporate New York, 2011)

That night Bloomberg paid a surprise visit and inspected the park himself. “Billionaire Bloomberg go to hell!” screamed the crowd. “You are 1%,” they charged. Bloomberg responded by saying, “You have a right to protest, and other people have a right to come through here as well. We’re gonna try to balance. The people who own the property Brookfield they have rights, too, and we’re gonna find the balance. People have the right in New York City, to say what they want to say, and they have a right to not say what they don’t want to say.” A question came from a woman off camera, “What do you think of what they’re saying?” An evasive Bloomberg answered, “Everybody’s got different opinions,” before being whisked away by security. A black guy in the crowd yelled, “Have a nice ride home my brother. Sleep tight. Don’t let the bed bugs bite!” (Monet, October 13, 2011). Shortly after, Deputy Mayor, Cass Holloway, in charge of operations, issued an official statement on the situation which ended with: The cleaning will be done in stages and the protestors will be able to return to the areas that have been cleaned, provided they abide by the rules that Brookfield has established for the park. (WNYC Newsroom, 2011)

9 Allies 

105

Hearing this, occupiers organized a ‘Cleaning Day’ (Signore, October 13, 2011). This was initiated by the  Community Relations Committee, which happened to include organizers  affiliated  with WFP.  They had been in active talks with the community board about our presence in the park. Tents and sleeping bags were folded up. Trash was thrown out. There was a total re-design of the space, so that no remnants could be found of people staying there. The Sanitation and Recycling Working Group headed up this effort, mopping and scrubbing surfaces. Bobby Cooper, a young  white man in black tank top and ball cap remarked, “Everyone has been chipping in. Everyone has been working in solidarity, for this big prep, this cleaning, this organization. It looks great!” (Davison, October 13, 2011b). In the assembly, there was a special session to make emergency plans. The primary item on the agenda was the formation of the “Good Neighbor Policy,” which read: Following respectful and good-faith dialogue with members of the local community which has been rebuilding since the trauma of 9/11, Occupy Wall Street hereby announces the following Good Neighbor Policy: OWS has zero tolerance for drugs or alcohol anywhere in Liberty Plaza; Zero tolerance for violence or verbal abuse towards anyone; Zero tolerance for abuse of personal or public property. OWS will limit drumming on the site to 2  hours per day, between the hours of 11 am and 5 pm only. OWS encourages all participants to respect health and sanitary regulations and will direct all participants to respectfully utilize appropriate off-­site sanitary facilities. OWS will display signage and have community relations and security monitors in Liberty Plaza, in order to ensure awareness of and respect for our guidelines and Good Neighbor Policy. OWS will at all times have a community relations representative on-site, to monitor and respond to community concerns and complaints. Occupy Wall Street, October 13, 2011 Note: In conjunction with local community members and their representatives, OWS is also working to establish off-site sanitary facilities such as port-a-potties.

106 

M. Holmes

While the cleaning was taking place, Bill De Blasio, an older white man then NYC Public Advocate with WFP, made his own visit to the park. It was as if it were a follow-up to Mayor Bloomberg’s. He walked through and was surrounded by reporters asking for his thoughts on the impending eviction. One reporter asked, “What are your concerns? What are your thoughts on Mayor Bloomberg’s actions recently?” He responded with, “First, I wanted to come down and see for myself and hear from people why they’re here, what they’re trying to achieve, what they’re trying to say. Obviously, I’ve been impressed to see how much effort, how much concern for the world is in evidence here, how much unity. I think the big picture is that for weeks now this movement and the people of this city have coexisted. This movement and the police have managed a modus vivendi [way of living] together even it was tense sometimes, even if there were some imperfections. I don’t understand why the city is choosing to change that” (Davison, October 13, 2011b). De Blasio threw his support behind OWS and against the impending eviction.

Move-­on.org Move-­on.org, the organization that pioneered ‘clicktivism’ and ran digital campaigns, got in on the action. Like the WFP, it was interested in building connections with OWS.  On 13 October, organizers issued an “Emergency Call to Action!” to “Prevent the forcible closure of Occupy Wall Street!” It urged everyone to take these actions: 1. Call 311 (or 212-NEW-YORK if you’re out of town) and tell Bloomberg to support our right to assemble and to not interfere with #OWS. 2. Come to #OWS on FRIDAY AT 6  AM to defend the occupation from eviction. (J. Ruben, personal communication, October 13, 2011) The Move-­on.org lists included millions of people, so the message likely reached a large and broad audience. The association with OWS may have brought more numbers, but also gave Move-­on.org a toehold in the movement, which would later be built on for its own purposes.

9 Allies 

107

Park Defense Long into the night, people gathered at Liberty Plaza. The sound of brooms could be heard whooshing by and mixing with Morgan O’Kane on the banjo. At 6  am, when the sanitation trucks were set to arrive, thousands of people packed into the park and up Broadway to City Hall. A giant paper-mache megaphone from the OWS People’s Puppets was rolled in, along with a golden calf from Occupy Faith. There were printed and hand-made signs of all kinds. One read: Occupy Wall Street Cleaning Up U.S. Democracy For the 99%

Chants began rolling, “Show me what democracy looks like! This is what democracy looks like! The people united will never be defeated! All day all week! Occupy Wall Street!” And, the favorite, “We are the 99%! And so are you!” (Holmes, October 13, 2011). Amin got us started with what he called a ‘special assembly’ as 6 am approached. There were so many people that three waves of the people’s mic were needed. In mic check form, he stated, “This session is being called for in preparation. For the notice that we received. Which we know is a pretext. To stop this movement. To silence your voices. To stop us from doing what we have been doing. Which is change the world!” The crowd cheered. He continued with, “We can empower each other. Against the economic and political elites. The 1%. We rise against them today. And we will defend this square. Brothers and sisters in solidarity. Against injustice, oppression, inequality, and racism.” From the crowd multiple women shouted out, “And sexism!” He reluctantly corrected himself saying, “Against all isms” with a strained half-smile. Then, he introduced direct action, first on the agenda. Chris from DAWG stood up and declared, “Before I start. I have one question for you all. Who here is ready to defend our park?” The crowd roared. “We didn’t expect you to be here tonight. Thank you for being here. We have a plan to hold the interior of this park. If you’re a part of this plan, raise your hand.” Hundreds raised their hands immediately.

108 

M. Holmes

Chris laughed, “What I should have said is. If you have been drilled and given a specific role. Raise your hand. For all the rest of you. We can take the perimeter of this park. For those of you that have no role. How many of you are prepared to stand in solidarity?” More hands went up and fingers twinkled. Ray, a queer femme presenting person from DAWG, had a lot to say, but was having difficulty getting words repeated in the mic check. In frustration they screamed, “Mic-check! Mic-check!” Some others from DAWG helped to amplify them. They then proceeded to ensure everyone that they would have a role to play. They mic checked, “For any folks that are un-arrestable. For any reason. We will be going across the streets. To the sidewalks. To support our comrades. So please go across to the sidewalks. If you cannot be arrested.” Suzahn from the Legal Working Group got up wearing a green sweater and backpack, and added, “Good morning 99%!” Waves of mic checks rolled through the crowd. “I’m with legal. I want to talk to you about getting arrested. And keeping each other safe. One of the most beautiful aspects of this movement is solidarity. We need solidarity with each other. So find a buddy now. Have their name, birthday. And relevant medical information. For anybody who plans to stay in the park. And defend our community. You will be at high risk of arrest. If they want to evict us. They have a lot of work to do,” they joked. Before they could finish, though, Amin interrupted them, saying, “We have breaking news.” Beka (a white woman then working with Move-­on. org) cut in with, “We have an announcement from Deputy Mayor Holloway.” She then passed it off to Nelini (WFP) who did the honors of delivering the information (NYC Deputy Mayor Holloway, October 14, 2011) and declared, “Late last night we received notice from the owners of Zuccotti Park, Brookfield Properties, that they are postponing their cleaning!” The park erupted in joy. The mic check broke down, and we jumped up and down, chanting, “The people united will never be defeated!” (Holmes, 2016).

9 Allies 

109

References Beyond May 12th. (October 3, 2011). Community/Labor March to Wall Street. Flyer. Collado, S. (2012). Occupy’s Alliance with Labor. This Is What Democracy Looks Like. https://what-­democracy-­looks-­like.org/occupys-­alliance-­with-­ labor-­2/ Corporate New  York. (October 13, 2011). Zuccotti Park Owner’s Letter to Police Commissioner Raymound Kelly on Occupy Wall Street. Public Intelligence. https://publicintelligence.net/zuccotti-­park-­owners-­letter-­to-­ police-­commissioner-­raymond-­kelly-­on-­occupy-­wall-­street/ Davison, K. (September 27, 2011a). Video. HD. OWS Media Working Group Archive. Personal Video and Photo Collection. Davison, K. (October 13, 2011b). Video. HD. OWS Media Working Group Archive. Personal Video and Photo Collection. Del Signore, J. (October 13, 2011). Protesters Hustle to Clean Park. Gothamist. https://gothamist.com/news/photos-­video-­protesters-­hustle-­to-­clean-­park-­ but-­will-­it-­satisfy-­bloombergs-­white-­glove Global Revolution. (October 4, 2011). Livestreamed Video. OWS Media Working Group. Personal Video and Photo Collection. Holmes, M. (October 13, 2011). Personal Video and Photo Collection. Holmes, M. (Director). (2016). All Day All Week: An Occupy Wall Street Story [Video; Vimeo Release]. HD Lawrence, J. (May 30, 2013). The Spanish Roots of the 99%. Tropics of Meta. https://tropicsofmeta.com/2013/05/30/the-­spanish-­roots-­of-­the-­99/ Monet, J. (October 13, 2011). Bloomberg Visits OWS Demonstration Site. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sF_4qLqOfVk Netroots Nation. n.d. Nelini Stamp. Retrieved August 23, 2022, from https:// www.netrootsnation.org/profile/nelini-­stamp/ NYC Deputy Mayor Holloway. (October 14, 2011). NYC Deputy Mayor Holloway on Brookfield Properties. Retrieved August 25, 2022, from https:// pastebin.com/GkXrYNwr NYCGA. (October 13, 2011). Retrieved from https://web.archive.org/ web/20120524092003/; http://www.nycga.net/2011/10/13/nycga-­transcript-­ 10132011/ Occupy Wall Street (October 12, 2011). Good Neighbor Policy. http://occupywallst.org/article/good-neighborpolicy/

110 

M. Holmes

Paul, A. (November 15, 2013). The Rise and Fall of the Working Families Party. Jacobin Magazine. https://www.jacobinmag.com/2013/11/the-­rise-­and-­fall-­ of-­the-­working-­families-­party Schill, B.J. (October 20, 2021). From North Dakota to Occupy Wall Street: An Unlikely Untold Story of Prairie Radicalism Salon. https://www.salon. com/2021/10/30/from-­north-­dakota-­to-­occupy-­wall-­street-­an-­unlikely-­ untold-­story-­of-­prairie-­radicalism/ Schneider, N. (2013). Thank You, Anarchy: Notes from the Occupy Apocalypse (p. 76). University of California Press. Tarleton, J. (November, 2011). PSC Members Assist Occupy Wall Street. Clarion. https://psc-­cuny.org/clarion/november-­2011/psc-­members-­assist-­ occupy-­wall-­street Van Praag, J. (October 5, 2011). Video. OWS Media Working Group. WNYC Newsroom. (October 12, 2011). https://www.wnyc.org/story/164391-­ blog-­mayor-­bloomberg-­goes-­zuccotti-­park/

10 Race in OWS

In the early days of OWS, there was real effort at building multi-racial coalitions and taking action together in the streets. The response to the execution of Troy Davis is a key example. Unfortunately, though, white folks in OWS, had a lot to learn about race. Being structurally open and inclusive did not necessarily equate to being inclusive of people of color. Often this defaulted to a banal colorblind racism (Taylor, 2016). Keeanga-­ Yamahtta Taylor asserts, “Colorblindness has become the default setting for how Americans understand how race and racism work” (Taylor, 2016, p. 71). Exclusive spaces, like caucuses, were needed to push for a truly inclusive movement. The People of Color Caucus tried to build a space for those experiencing oppression based on their race. Their approach was to work both internally within OWS, and externally to address structures of power.

Troy Davis Troy Davis had been sitting on death row since 1991, when he was convicted of shooting and killing police officer Mark MacPhail, after an altercation in a fast food parking lot in Savannah, Georgia (Pilkington, September 22, 2011). There was no murder weapon recovered, and © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 M. Holmes, Organizing Occupy Wall Street, Alternatives and Futures: Cultures, Practices, Activism and Utopias, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-8947-6_10

111

112 

M. Holmes

evidence was introduced from an unrelated incident, yet the jury, largely white, still sentenced him, a black man, to death. He always maintained his innocence, and in the early 2000s, a network of human rights groups had started campaigning for his release. This culminated in a 2009 Supreme Court decision, which ordered the Georgia court to reopen the case for new evidence. Unfortunately, this strategy did not result in him being exonerated. The decision was upheld, and he was scheduled for execution on 21 September. A last-minute appeal to the Supreme Court was denied (The Innocence Project, September 12, 2011). Throughout the first week of the occupation at Liberty, the Troy Davis case was being watched carefully, as occupiers hoped for a stay on the execution. Multiple announcements were made at general assemblies. On 21 September, Priya (Friedberg & Rowley, 2000) reported to the NYCGA, “I just got a text. Saying that Troy Davis. Is about to get executed. In 20 min. And his last words are. That the struggle for justice. Does not end with me. This struggle is for all the Troy Davises. Who came before me. And all the ones. Who will come after me. That was from Troy Davis.” She bowed her head dramatically, and assembly participants clapped. Ketchup [pseudonym], who was facilitating, suggested that given the news, we have a moment of silence. The hundred or so people in attendance complied, out of respect and mourning. When a minute was up, a young South Asian man was visibly shaking and shouted out, “No justice! No peace!” A young  white man, in an anon mask, proclaimed, “If an innocent man dies tonight. We are now stronger than ever. We must unite. In honor of Troy Davis. And all innocents murdered like him. For peace and solidarity. We must unite in honor of Troy Davis. We are the 99%. And we will be heard!” He asked us all to stand strong with our brothers and sisters in Georgia and take the streets that night. A procession with candles began to gather at the front of the park and march down Broadway. As we approached Wall Street, a guy at the front asked, “Is anybody here uncomfortable with using a line from the new testament?” I was surprised in a largely secular space to have this reminder of religion. People shuck their heads no. “Father forgive them for they don’t know what they do,” he said (Holmes, September 21, 2011a). Troy Davis was declared dead at 11:08 pm that night.

10  Race in OWS 

113

We Are All Troy Davis

Photo of Troy Davis March. 1st Precinct, Manhattan, New York City. 22 September 2011. Marisa Holmes

Within the next 24 hours, news of Troy Davis’ death circulated across social media networks, and person to person. An emergency march came together, for the following night, 22 September, gathering around Liberty Plaza. This was largely organized by the Malcom X Grassroots Movement but was supported by OWS. Hundreds of people flowed into the park, easily doubling our numbers, chanting, “We are all Troy Davis! We are all Troy Davis!” I climbed on top the marble wall along the north side of the park, where I’d typically be facilitating. From there, I could get a good sense of the crowd, and monitor police movements. I noticed signs that read, “Racism Kills” and “Stop the racist death penalty.” A young black guy in a green tank top jumped up next to me, holding out a tattered upside-down American flag, and yelled, “Yo! Fuck America” and flipped off the police. One of the ‘white shirts’ (higher up officers in the command), came forward with a megaphone, announcing,

114 

M. Holmes

“Everybody get back on the sidewalk. Let’s go!” A line of ‘blue-shirts’ (who were the lower rung) moved forward, crushing protestors on top of one another against the wall I stood on. As the clubs came out, we chanted, “The whole world is watching! Shame! Shame!” (Holmes, September 22, 2011b). To avoid being ‘kettled’ (circled with nets) (Gardiner, October 1, 2012) the march kept moving around the perimeter of the park, with the directional chant, “Wall Street! Wall Street!” That’s when the white shirt pointed at me specifically and said, “I’m telling you to get down. We don’t want nobody to get hurt.” I left and followed the march participating in the call and response of “Occupy! Wall Street!” and “We are all Troy Davis!” The marchers jumped over barricades and descended on the New York Stock Exchange. The police followed, and created a circular barricaded perimeter in front, effectively pinning themselves in. The realization of this error appeared to dawn on them as we came from all directions and started pounding the metal with signposts and fists. A crew of drummers arrived providing the beat. A young Afro-Latinx woman with pink hair and a keffiyeh wrapped around her neck, danced in front. A white guy nearby with a hoodie sung along adding the lyrics, “If you have fun, the police get scared!” and others joined in, laughing at the cops. The march filled the streets between The Trump Building and Tiffany & Company. Suddenly, a couple of big guys in suits, who looked like they were there as ‘muscle’, wedged through. The police opened the barricades for them to cross. One of them, an older Italian guy yelled, “Get the fuck out of here!” and started a brawl. A tug of war over barricades ensued in front of the George Washington statue. A friend grabbed me and signaled, “Right there!” Cops were throwing us up against the concrete steps, making seemingly random arrests. A young white guy with a red bandana was being handcuffed and escorted away. At that exact moment, a cop pulled a spray gun under his arm and pointed it directly at me, inches from my nose, while telling me to calm down. He continued moving up the line, threatening others. The chants, “Who do you protect? Who do you serve?” and “Tell me what a police state looks like! This is what a police state looks like!” reverberated up the

10  Race in OWS 

115

walls of the stock exchange, which still displayed the American flag front and center. People would not move, so the white shirt emerged again with a five-­ minute warning telling us, “Sanitation has to come in.” There was no sanitation truck visible, but a police van rounded the corner, and the other officers had zip-ties draped around their waists, ready to be deployed. “Ladies and gentlemen! We need to clean all this up,” said the white shirt. The assumption was that we were the dirty ones, and not the police officers, who had just brutalized our friends and comrades. To clean the area, would mean clearing it of any remnants of us. The Direct Action Working Group (DAWG) made it to the front and tried to redirect. We kept moving. Back to Broadway, and north, we marched, to the first precinct where those just arrested were being held. The chant “We are all Troy Davis!” continued and came to define the night. As we snaked through SoHo, the police blocked the march from taking the street and created wedges, pushing us onto the sidewalk. Suddenly, they grabbed a black guy with a medium build and threw clubs at his stomach. Seeing this, others rushed to support. Another young black man in a black T-shirt turned to my camera and declared, “They say get back! We say fight back!” We continued, edging closer to the first precinct shouting, “We want our brothers free! Let our brothers go!” Hundreds swarmed in front of the entrance, and sat down, refusing to leave until those inside were set free. A young white man who was from SDS got up and said, “Mic check! I just want everybody to know. I know for a fact. If we stay here, they can hear us on the inside. With this news, the crowd got even louder, chanting, ‘Let them go! Let them go!’” A Dominican man with a billowing chest stepped in stating, “I want to say a few words about pigs. They’re not here to create safety for our people. That’s not what they’re for.” His friend backed him up resolutely nodding, “Right.” “From the days of slavery, the days of colonialism, it’s not for us. It’s for capitalism. It’s for the white upper class. Let’s be real about that! Pigs get dirty, get swine, get contagious. That’s what they are! They deserve to die! They ain’t for our people! Capitalism must go! And pigs must go! Smash the state! Smash the state!” He raised his fist. Others joined with fists raised.

116 

M. Holmes

“We are all Sean Bell! NYPD, go to hell! Oscar Grant!” continued the crowd. All the names connected as if they were interchangeable. The Dominican man got up again shouting, “We don’t have to talk about the past. We can talk about last week, when an off-duty police officer killed a Dominican man in Washington Heights!” This got him really amped, and he elevated his voice, “It’s happening right now! We gotta protect our people!” A young black Caribbean man with glasses and a keffiyeh leaned over the railing next to me, and exclaimed, “Cops never go to jail! Every time they kill us, they never go to jail! When they cage us in like animals … what is that? When they put us in cells … When they shoot at us!” Another young black man, with a backpack intervened, frustrated, “We get outraged, and then we calm the fuck down. We don’t do shit. We need to organize. We can’t get riled one day of the year!” This got a lot of supportive head nods and applause. “As long as we’re organized, they can’t fuck with us. If we come out, we can run our mouths all we want, they’re going home to sleep safe tonight. And Troy is dead. What the fuck does that mean for us?” The police were moving in behind them, and I heard, “Cameras out! cameras out!” The white shirt lieutenant (who was on Wall Street earlier that night), warned again, “You are interfering with the movement of pedestrian traffic.” A white man with tattoos, and a patch over his eye, lifted up a picture of Troy Davis, directly in front of the lieutenant’s face. “If you do not move voluntarily you will be arrested and charged with disorderly conduct,” the lieutenant continued. In an attempt to comply with the order, while also maintaining our position, people moved to one side of the sidewalk in a line and linked arms. One Latina woman asked, “We are not blocking the sidewalk now, so now what?” The white shirt was not amused and reiterated, “You’re blocking the sidewalk.” Surrounded by police, a bi-racial woman from OWS stepped in again with a point of process saying, “I propose a straw poll.” Her voice needed support to be heard, so she screamed, “Mic Check!” She continued with the crowd repeating her words, “So, what are our options? Sounds like one option. Is to go back to Wall Street. And regroup by the park. And another option. Stay here.”

10  Race in OWS 

117

The straw poll got a sense of where people were at in that moment and actually not everyone wanted to get arrested yet. Some folks there had issues with immigration status. The black man who spoke before about organizing started mic-checking, “We could go back to Wall Street. And talk with folks down there. And show true solidarity. Also, if we go back to Wall Street. We can consolidate. And come up with next steps. That’s most important right now.” The bi-racial woman concluded, “Let today be a victory!” The crowd moved out chanting, “We’ll be back!” (Holmes, September 22, 2011b).

The People of Color Caucus A co-founder of the People of Color (POC) Caucus, Manissa McCleave Maharawal, was  a young woman with a white mother and an Indian father, and she wrote extensively on her experience. In So Real it Hurts she described her first impressions arriving at OWS in the second week of the occupation on Sunday, 25 September writing, “We made posters and laid them on the ground (our posters read: ‘We are all Troy Davis’, ‘Whose streets? Our streets!’, and ‘Tired of Racism, Tired of Capitalism’).” She went expecting it to be all white college kids and, while there were a lot of those (myself included), the space was more diverse, in every way, with older people, kids, and other folks of color. As she left, there was this feeling of being pulled back. She noted, “It was that it felt like a space of possibility, a space of radical imagination. And it was energizing to feel like such a space existed” (October 4, 2011). After that, she encouraged other South Asian friends of hers to come down. The next night she returned, and found the park buzzing with activity. There was a talent show happening under the red thing, a line of people at the kitchen sharing food, and an anti-patriarchy conversation (which became the Safer Spaces group) over by the wall. She was stuck by how all these things could be happening simultaneously, and also seem inclusive and generative. Rather than one center, there were many, but in connection. There was care for the collective, and the organization of all of life. She posited that it was, “Less of a movement, and more of a space” (October 4, 2011).

118 

M. Holmes

That Thursday night, 29 September, she came back again with her friend Sonny, to find a conversation in the NYCGA about The Declaration of the Occupation. It had been in preparation since the first few days of the occupation and was reaching what would be a final form. But it had some glaring mistakes in terms of language. Manissa recalled, “I had heard ‘The Declaration of the Occupation’ read at the General Assembly the night before but I didn’t realize that it was going to be finalized as THE declaration of the movement right then and there. When I heard it the night before with Sonny we had looked at each other and noted, ‘“being one race, the human race, formerly divided by race, class…’ was a weird line, one that hit me in the stomach with its naivety and the way it made me feel alienated” (October 4, 2011). Manissa was worried that the line would discredit the movement, and not be something that could be taken back to communities of color. She bravely and openly made the case for changing the line, despite some resistance by the drafters, and decided to block (a way to prevent a decision from moving forward on ethical grounds). “I knew it was a serious action to take, we all knew it was a serious action to take, and that is why we did it,” she stated. After, there was a conversation, which was very painful, with the consolidation committee. But, in the end, she said, “They accepted our change and we withdrew our block as long as the document was published with our change” (October 4, 2011). As a result, the document read much more inclusively. The process, to some degree, worked. She actually felt like she would do it again, “as long as she had her people” for support. This is what inspired her to create the People of Color (POC) Caucus.

Challenges for the People of Color Caucus It may be worthwhile to take a minute to explain what a caucus even is. Not everyone in OWS knew what it was, and this lack of education and understanding of movement history created confusion. A caucus is a group of structurally marginalized people, who want to have a space to work out their own experiences and issues, within a larger organization or

10  Race in OWS 

119

movement. A caucus, then, is by definition exclusive for those who share the same experience or identity (Western State Center, 2003). Early on, there were only the assembly and working groups, and so, Manissa and Sonny initially formed a working group. But working groups were intended as totally open to new members. Their meeting times were publicly listed, and, in the best scenario, meetings either posted minutes or were streamed live for a larger audience. The overall culture of OWS was one of openness, which many white people in particular mistook for being inclusive. They are not one and the same. Sometimes, being inclusive of oppressed peoples means having exclusive groups, like caucuses. This nuance took a great deal of explanation, and perhaps there are still some people who do not understand the difference between being open and inclusive. Within the caucus there were tensions. It was formed as a space within the movement to discuss race, among those affected by racism. However, there are many different experiences of racism among people of color. There are different class positions, and genders. There are also different political positions among very similar identities. Within the POC caucus there was still heterogeneity. In her article, Manissa broke down the challenges as follows: The POC Caucus was fighting on three levels: (1) we were taking on various sets of oppressions and racisms within Occupy Wall Street (e.g. through organizing a variety of anti-oppression and structural racism workshops and teach-ins); (2) we were taking on the ways that these oppressions were also manifested within the caucus itself; and (3) we were trying to connect the economic crisis and Occupy Wall Street’s response to the crisis to an analysis of structural racism and an understanding that it has been communities of color that have been disproportionately affected by the economic crisis. (October 4, 2011).

The first challenge was in relation to the movement, the second more inward-facing, and the third, directed outward as an expression of the movement’s goals. Any one of these levels would be challenging, but all three, simultaneously, was a lot to handle. Eventually, the POC Caucus fell apart.

120 

M. Holmes

References Friedberg, J., & Rowley, R. (2000). This Is What Democracy Looks Like. [Video]. Gardiner, S. (October 1, 2012). 2004 RNC Arrests Unconstitutional: Federal Judge Says NYPD Didn’t Have Probable Cause to Make Mass Arrests of Protesters Marching in New York City. The Wall Street Journal. https://www. wsj.com/articles/SB10000872396390444004704578031050540111858 Holmes, M. (September 21, 2011a). Personal Video and Photo Collection. Holmes, M. (September 22, 2011b). Personal Video and Photo Collection. McCleave Maharawal, M. (October 4, 2011). So Real It Hurts. Left Turn Magazine. http://leftturn.org/so-­real-­ithurts-­notes-­occupy-­wall-­street/ Pilkington, E. (September 22, 2011). Troy Davis Execution Timeline. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/sep/19/troy-­davis-­ georgia-­execution Taylor, K.  Y. (2016). From #BlackLivesMatter to Black Liberation (p.  71). Haymarket Books. The Innocence Project. (September 12, 2011). Stop the Execution of Troy Davis. https://innocenceproject.org/stop-­the-­execution-­of-­troy-­davis/ Western States Center. (2003). Dismantling Racism: A Resource Book for Social Change Groups. Western States Center.

11 Gender in OWS

Patriarchy revealed itself in the most everyday situations. It was in the man speaking twice as long as other people on stack. It was him jumping stack in order to speak or becoming irritated at having to wait one’s turn. The eye rolls. The folding of arms. The edging in front of me, pushing me out of the way. It was him telling me not to speak, and to stay in my place. Sometimes this was explicit. Rape and sexual assault against feminized bodies happened. It was real and was pervasive. I don’t even know how many times. I lost count. Years after, there are still whispers of new incidents coming to light. Sara Ahmed wrote, “To persist in chipping at the blocks of heteropatriarchy, we have to become willful” (2017, p. 239). There were many ways that women and queer folks especially, tried to organize in response that was informed by transformative justice frameworks (Chen, May 2011). This work was done primarily by the Safer Spaces Committee (SSC). They made a valiant effort, but the park was a permeable space, and ever evolving with influxes of people. Perpetrators would be asked to leave but would return the next night. Boundaries of any kind were difficult to enforce.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 M. Holmes, Organizing Occupy Wall Street, Alternatives and Futures: Cultures, Practices, Activism and Utopias, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-8947-6_11

121

122 

M. Holmes

Safer Spaces In the first week of the occupation, there were already complaints about sexist behavior, and side conversations started to form among women and queers who wanted to take it on. On Sunday, 26 September, there was a more open forum, in the Northeast section of the park, along the granite wall, which provided some small feeling of protection. The conversation pulled together longtime fixtures in the NYC anarchist and feminist communities. It was initiated by Suzy Exposito, a Latina writer and singer, who was in a feminist punk band, Shady Hawkins, a reference to the Sadie Hawkins dances of the 1950s in which women asked men to dance. One of their signature songs was “Not my comrade!” (unARTigNYC, 2013). Suzy and Thishi Anjali, a young Indian woman who was a labor organizer, were concerned about how women were being harassed while dancing in the OWS drum circle and wanted to support them. The Safer Spaces Committee (SSC) formed out of the first anti-­ patriarchy meeting and prepared their first statement for the NYCGA the following night, 27 September. Amy, a queer white femme, introduced it saying, “I have something that I want to read.” Suzy stood next to her, crossed her arms in determination, and added firmly, “To everyone.” Amy read: I support safe spaces. Because America is already a safe space. For white. Middle class heterosexual. Cisgendered males. And I don’t fit under. All of those categories. Because we may have a black president. But we are not post-racism. Because you may have a gay best friend. But we are not post-­ homophobia. Because everyone may be created equal. But that doesn’t mean. Everyone is treated equally. Because privilege exists. Ignoring that fact. Makes you part of the problem. Not part of the solution.

Suzy added that they had received complaints about sexual harassment and offered some tips on setting healthy boundaries and consent. She stated, “If you would like to touch someone in any way. Even a hug. You should try to ask,” (Holmes, 2016). She insisted that dancing with someone, talking to them, or even taking a picture, required permission.

11  Gender in OWS 

123

The first official meeting of the SSC, set for the following night, was announced at the end of the speech. Going forward, the group conducted trainings, crafted statements, and developed protocols for making the park safer. This went as follows: 1. Practice listening. 2. Be aware of your own privilege and the space you occupy. 3. Understand that your experience is your own; don’t normalize it to the exclusion of others. 4. Validate other people’s experiences of racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, and other forms of oppression and work to counter them. 5. Don’t make assumptions about people’s identities. 6. Do not engage in silencing behavior; make room for everyone to speak. (October 2011) Notice how these are a set of behaviors, which the SSC sought to manifest in the park, in an effort to make more prefigurative relationships. They were positive, and pro-active. If everyone actually abided by these protocols, then, the park would have been much safer. Unfortunately, this was not the case. Holding everyone who came to the park accountable, would have required going beyond outlining these protocols to an agreement consented to by the NYCGA. There was a need for a shared understanding of axes of oppression by the broader OWS community.

Community Agreement In retrospect a community agreement, or something like it, should have been our first agenda point after deciding on a process to use. We should have discussed it in the early planning processes of the NYCGA throughout the summer. It was more important than the principles, the declaration, and all the other documents we spent dozens of hours drafting and discussing. But somehow, we kept conveniently forgetting to address it. There were always more pressing concerns.

124 

M. Holmes

On 13 October, Matt P. wrote an email to the Facilitation Working Group with the title ‘Agenda item tonight from Safer Spaces’: The Safer Spaces Committee (SSC) has expressed a need for establishing a Community Agreement, a set of points to which everyone entering this space would agree. The document would concern how we treat this space and each other while in this space. Instead of the SSC drafting our own version of an Agreement and imposing it on the occupation, we decided upon a more inclusive, transparent, and directly democratic approach—solicit ideas from all participants of the GA to get a sense of what should go in this agreement. Thus, we are asking people in the GA tonight to breakup into small groups and discuss these matters. (Personal communication)

Unfortunately, this proposed conversation, did not end up happening. That night the NYCGA was curtailed by the threat of eviction, and the massive re-structuring of the park. According to the minutes, the facilitator introduced the agenda by saying, “We will have working group reportbacks relative to time-sensitive issues. Then we will have an agenda item in relation to the drumming. The reason this meeting is time-­sensitive is that there is still a lot of cleaning to do. Please wait for sanitation to guide us through this cleaning. We’re going to make this place look GOOD!” There wasn’t time to discuss community agreements, but there was time to discuss the “Good Neighbor Policy” (Hornbein, October 13, 2011a). This is an important point. Before establishing our own agreements about how we would treat each other, and what was appropriate behavior, we discussed and even consented to a document based on the wants and needs of the ‘neighbors’ living in the financial district. Safer Spaces didn’t get a chance to bring up community agreements until a few days later, on 16 October. According to the minutes, someone from the group presented: As you may know. A good neighbor policy was passed on Thursday. What the safer spaces group wants to see is an agreement that will create a safe space for all participants of OWS. In the spirit of horizontalism we are soliciting your ideas as a GA, [for] bringing together into a proposal for a later GA to discuss. We propose that we do this by getting into small breakout groups. Groups of ten to fifteen people. Handouts and pens will be distributed to the

11  Gender in OWS 

125

groups. They have all the details and three questions. One: what does safety mean to you…? Two: what are safety concerns for you and others at this space…? Three: what agreements can we make as a community to ensure safety…? Privilege and oppression, consent, personal contact, mediation … a few ideas to get the conversation going. (Hornbein, 2011b)

The assembly broke out into small groups, which reported back. The conversation continued across multiple other NYCGAs. On 24 October, 2011 a woman from Safer Spaces, announced, “Safer Spaces is working to make OWS an anti-oppressive space for everyone. Especially people who have been traditionally marginalized, including people of color, women, trans gender, disabled. There have been several incidents, oppressive comments made known to Safer Spaces. We are working with security, mental health, mediation. If you’d like to know more, meet by the pink blanket after GA,” (Hornbein, 2011c). The Safety and Security Cluster formed around the need for a community watch. It included Medical, Safer Spaces, Support, Mediators, and Community Alliance (formerly security/ de-escalation). All worked together to address different needs and conflicts arising in the park. Those participating in the community watch would be trained by the cluster. They would meet every night at 10  pm, walk around, engage with people, and help to assess the situation, gather information, and call in support if needed. The cluster had developed the following stages of response: 1. Discovery—person sees what’s going on 2. Neighbors/friends step in, including community, to try to deescalate, resolve situation if it seems easily doable 3. Call out for “support”—Peace council group members approach as team, generally support/mediators/safer spaces goes in first. Security & medical is present to intervene as needed 4. Peace council convenes to figure out next steps: 1–2 reps each: Community Alliance, Safer Spaces, Mediation, Medical, Support, Community (harmed person or people guide actions taken, group makes decision together—assesses for things like danger to self or others and appropriate responses/next steps)

126 

M. Holmes

5. Peace council responds with mediation, beginning of accountability process, or if person refuses to be accountable for their actions, Peace Council (& possible direct action portion of Community) escorts person out, or takes other action as needed by the specifics of the situation 6. Strategies for accountability (including calling it out (i.e., “change” or other word), community direct action, or other actions decided on by the peace council, including options of police involvement and ejection). (Safer Spaces Committee, October 2011)

The Safer Spaces Tent

Photo of Safer Spaces Tent. Zuccotti Park, New York City. 7 November 2011. Marisa Holmes

On Saturday, 29 October, a sudden and premature winter storm blew through NYC. Swirls of snow and wind tore through the park and ripped up tents and belongings. Occupiers tried desperately to stay warm and dry and stave off the threat of hypothermia. I wrote to the september17discuss with the subject line WINTER AT LIBERTY PLAZA, and a list with urgent requests for “Emergency Blankets, Dry Socks, Gloves,

11  Gender in OWS 

127

and Hats, Payless gift certificates for Shoes, Towels, Plastic Bins, and 3 post tents,” before heading back to help myself. When I arrived, the Comfort Working Group was taking in donations and they could barely keep track. The new problem was where to put everything. I spent most of the night just folding socks and fitting them into plastic bins. The same day of the storm, a woman who was participating in the kitchen at OWS, was sexually assaulted. She was accompanied to the hospital by a group of women from occupy, including a social worker who supported her in getting the treatment and resources she needed. The survivor support team honored her wishes to prevent further harm done by the perpetrator, and expelled him from the park, however possible. In a lengthy press release on the incident, the team concluded: We are creating and sharing strategies that educate and transform our community into a culture of consent, safety, and well-being. At OWS, these strategies currently include support circles, counseling, consent trainings, safer sleeping spaces, self-defense trainings, community watch, awareness campaigns, and other evolving community-based processes to address harm. We encourage survivors to connect with support and advocates, and to access medical, legal, and social services, as well as available community-­based options, many of which are listed below. We stand together as a community to work towards the prevention of sexual violence and harassment and to provide unwavering support for anyone who has been assaulted. We commit to creating a culture of visibility, support, and advocacy for survivors, and of accountability for people who have committed harm. With hope and solidarity, Members of the survivor’s support team at Occupy Wall Street. (OWS Public Relations Working Group, October 30, 2011)

Both the storm and ongoing safety and security concerns were the impetus for another re-organization. An ad hoc group formed to ‘winterize’ the park. This included ordering military grade canvas tents, cots, storage containers, and generators. It also meant establishing a physical safe space for women. On Monday, 31 Oct, the winterizing committee discussed having, “at least one, preferably two communal, winterized tents, the first for women only.” (M. Bean, personal communication). On 7 November, at 10.30 am, vans arrived with the communal tents and other supplies, and occupiers who had volunteered to help build

128 

M. Holmes

them unloaded them. The women’s only tent (including transwomen) was established near ‘the red thing.’ Occupiers began raising the frame. The fabric was draped down and secured around the edges and, then, eight cots were unfolded, with sleeping bags. One occupier explained, “What we want to do as occupiers, as people who are here every day, is to build a community. Community building is at the core of what Occupy Wall Street is about. It makes sense spatially to build intentional communities and to build safe spaces, so we have tents that are 16 by 16 and 11 by 11, and the goal for these tents is to have people organize themselves around their needs, their wants, and their affinity groups, working groups, or people who generally like each other. A big priority for us has been building safe spaces for women,” (Holmes, 2016). The tents went up and were one step in the direction of having a safer space.

References Ahmed, S. (2017). Living a Feminist Life. Duke University Press. p. 239 Chen, C.  I. & Dulani, J. & Piepzna-Samarasinha, L.L. (May 2011). The Revolution Starts at Home: Confronting Intimate Violence Within Activist Communities. South End Press. Holmes, M. (Director). (2016). All Day All Week: An Occupy Wall Street Story [Video; Vimeo Release]. HD. Hornbein, D. (October 13, 2011a). NYCGA Minutes. Retrieved July 13, 2022, from nycga.net.https://web.archive.org/web/20120501050429/http:/www. nycga.net/minutes/ Hornbein, D. (October 16, 2011b). NYCGA Minutes. Retrieved July 13, 2022, from nycga.net.https://web.archive.org/web/20120501050429/http:/www. nycga.net/minutes/ Hornbein, D. (October 24, 2011c). NYCGA Minutes. Retrieved July 13, 2022, from nycga.net.https://web.archive.org/web/20120501050429/http:/www. nycga.net/minutes/ OWS Public Relations Working Group. (Personal Communication, October 30, 2011). Press Release on Sexual Assault. Safer Spaces Committee. (October 2011). Training Materials. Personal Collection. unARTigNYC. (July 13, 2013). Shady Hawkins-Not My Comrade (Brooklyn, 2013). Retrieved July 10, 2022, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v= 2u1mvPPcaBQ

12 Structure

The organization of OWS and the larger occupy movement had grown exponentially. By late October we had gone from the planning sessions of the NYCGA of around 50 people and a half dozen working groups to over 4000 active organizers in over 100 working groups (Facilitation Working Group, personal communication, November 2011). There were tens of thousands of supporters, who would come to marches, rallies or stop by the park. Across the world, there were over 1000 occupations, and countless other occupy-related groups and projects. With the success and attention of OWS, many non-profits, unions, and politicians were circling and trying to influence the direction of the movement as allies. They were using the rhetoric of the 99% without respect for the prefigurative practices in the occupation. There was a need to formalize to avoid being co-opted. Caucuses, like the People of Color (POC) Caucus and Safer Spaces Committee (SSC), had formed, and were trying to address race and gender dynamics in the park, but had no formal organizational power. There was a need for a more intentional democratic structure that could address the scale, external co-optation, and caucuses. Drawing on the history of organizing practices in the anti-nuke movement (Epstein, 1991) and GJM (Polletta, 2004) the Operational  Spokes Council was © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 M. Holmes, Organizing Occupy Wall Street, Alternatives and Futures: Cultures, Practices, Activism and Utopias, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-8947-6_12

129

130 

M. Holmes

proposed. There were small groups with ‘spokes’ that acted as rotating delegates, which allowed for confederation. There were ‘movement’ groups to give those allies a place to go, without suffocating OWS. There were caucuses that were given veto power over organizational decisions. The Spokes Council was a good model that addressed many of the needs of OWS. It was a form of what Jo Freeman called ‘democratic organization’ (1971). However, it had difficulty getting off the ground due to constant disruptions, and their impact on group culture.

Democratic Organization Early on in the occupation, David Graeber introduced me to Brooke Lehman, a white woman with short blonde hair who was a well-versed facilitator. Brooke had played a major role in the Direct Action Network (DAN) during the GJM, and, to her credit, she picked up a lot of the training work, educating occupiers on building democratic structures. She conducted regular ‘open forums’ during the occupation. One was held in the northwest corner of the park near the sacred tree in late September. She came in wearing jeans and a black tank top and motioned to bring people together in a circle. Surrounded by a few dozen people, she began humbly, “So the first thing I want to talk about is why you would want to create a directly democratic organization in general. This is all sort of out of my head. There’s all sorts of documentation on this. This is just my thoughts. But to me, if you’re going to be interested in creating a democratic organization, an organization that brings the greatest degree of democracy that you can based on your function … you have to one, believe in a plurality of opinions, believe that a plurality of opinions is actually a good thing, and two, that people are actually capable of making empathetic rational and wise decisions. If you don’t believe that, you probably don’t want this structure. That’s sort of a baseline,” (OWS Media Working Group, 2011). Brooke passed around copies of a set of papers titled, ‘Structuring a Democratic and Prefigurative Organization Cheat Sheet’ (Lehman, September 2011) which included points on equal access to power,

12 Structure 

131

transparency, rights and responsibilities, among other concepts related to building democratic organization. Her primary focus was on structure and she proposed a number of different models including the NYCGA, Spokes Councils, and even clearing houses where decisions were not made (but information was disbursed). She went over different processes, and emphasized, “consensus has to be meaningful.” For it to be meaningful people participating had to feel like their voices mattered, and they were heard. She pointed out, “Step up. Step back. This is a key concept. People are coming into organizations with different levels of positional power. We’re all coming into this world based on our gender, based on our race or skin color, or class.” Stepping back didn’t mean not having power. It was a question of when and how, and what kind of community was being built. “Power with rather than power over,” she said spreading out her arms. “We’re talking about a different type of power, that’s spread horizontally,” (OWS Media Working Group).

Photo of Working Group List. Zuccotti Park, New York City. 8 October, 2011.OWS Media Working Group

132 

M. Holmes

The Spokes Council Brooke and I formed the Structure Working Group and proposed an Operational Spokes Council for working groups and caucuses. DAN had used spokes councils to coordinate large scale mobilizations such as shutting down summit meetings (Graeber, 2009). Rather than individuals participating, small groups would make decisions first, and then communicate them to the larger council via a ‘spoke’ who would rotate. It was a way to scale but maintain a directly democratic and horizontal culture. Liberty was overflowing with people, so by mid-October working groups were holding meetings in other areas in the Financial District. 60 Wall Street, another privately owned public space, that was a lobby for the Deutsche Bank headquarters, was a popular meeting spot. The ceilings were vaulted, and fake palm trees lined the walls. It felt like a place to pass through rather than stay, much like an airport terminal. For several weeks, I sat there conducting ‘teach-ins’ and taking questions. There were concerns that ‘spokes’ were really just representatives in disguise, and that in fact we were instituting a hierarchy. I wanted to pull my hair out, but I sat there calmly talking through why the Spokes Council was actually an anarchist organizing model, and just as democratic if not more so than the NYCGA. One night I made a breakthrough! Ian, who was part of the Tech Ops Working Group, and an open source advocate, came through ready to block. Then, I drew him a picture of the working groups as nodes of a network, all talking to each other, and he exclaimed, “It’s a mesh!” “Yes, exactly,” I confirmed (Holmes, 2011). We went through many drafts of the ‘spokes’ proposal and brought it to four different NYCGAs for feedback. In the original draft, we included ‘clusters’, like those used in the Anti-nuke  Movement (Epstein, 1991) that could be around a type of work or theme. But there were too many questions around exactly which groups would have spokes, and how they’d choose spokes, so we abandoned the idea. Keeping it simple was best. There were working groups and thematic groups, as well as caucuses. We kept the caucuses, of course, but changed the wording of working to ‘operations’ and thematic to ‘movement.’

12 Structure 

133

OWS Operations Groups were defined as: Groups that are contributing to the logistical and financial operations of Occupy Wall Street on a consistent basis. They are open and accessible for people to join and can only exclude people for either repeatedly disrupting the group’s process or behaving in such a way that seriously violates the GA’s Principles of Solidarity. Operations Groups must produce a written description of what they do and how people can get involved. The Occupiers (people living in Liberty Park) are defined as an Operations Group.

In contrast, the OWS Movement Groups would be all those groups not in the park, but that were supportive. They were defined as groups “contributing to the Occupy Wall Street movement’.” They were  ‘autonomous’ with the potential to “partner with Operations Groups on a project basis.” They would not be part of the Operational Spokes Council. Caucuses such as People of Color, Women Occupying Wall Street, Queering OWS, and OWS Disability were considered, and the role of the caucus clarified. In the proposal, we defined a ‘caucus’ as a self-determining group of people that share a common experience of being systemically marginalized in society at large based on (but not limited to) their real or perceived race, gender identity, sexuality, age, or ability.

In the NYCGA there was no formal place for caucuses. They could report back and coordinate like working groups but, while working groups were inclusive, caucuses were exclusive by design and had particular needs. To encourage a more equitable and liberating space necessitated caucuses with more structural power. Thus, we stated: Caucuses may delay until the next Spokes Council any proposal that they think has potentially negative consequences for their caucus, to give them time to discuss the proposal with their caucus as a whole.

An early draft called for moving all financial decisions from the NYCGA to the Spokes Council. This was by far the greatest sticking point. Some who participated in the NYCGA were afraid that they’d be shut out of access to money. There was a real possibility of this. It’s true. If they weren’t

134 

M. Holmes

in an operations group, based on that early draft proposal, they wouldn’t have access to money. The hope was that the Spokes Council would offer a consistent and accountable process, and that groups would want to go there. We also encouraged the formation of new operations groups. But, in the end we caved, and adjusted the language so that both bodies could make financial decisions, and everyone would be included. We also gave the NYCGA the power to dissolve the Spokes Council. The idea was that the NYCGA would be the body where larger political decisions happened, such as the principles and declaration statements. The Spokes Council would simply execute the political positions of the NYCGA.

The Spokes Council Proposal On Friday, 28, October, the Structure Working Group brought a compromised and watered-down version of our proposal to the assembly, but a version we thought could pass  (Montero Torres). Marina and Nelini facilitated that night, and recapped some of the Spokes Council process, and they reiterated that it was the fifth time the proposal had come the NYCGA. Lisa did an opening statement for context saying, “For the last thirty years, I’ve worked for many movements that used the spokes council model. The anti-nuclear movement, which shut down nuclear plants, and none have built since the 70s. This is how ACT UP organized to bring justice to people with AIDS throughout the 1980s, using the spokes council model. 100,000s stopped the US invasion of Nicaragua using the spokes council model” (Hornbein, 2011). She urged us all to seek consensus on the proposal, and also form other spoke councils for action, and coordination going forward. The proposal, like all other proposals, was also, a ‘living document.’ Nothing was set in stone. We were experimenting. The process itself was in process. By then I had gotten into the habit of wearing a long green trench coat, as if I were going into battle. I found this early on in the donation pile at the Storage Inventory and Supplies Working Group and adopted it as a uniform. But my war was always more a matter of words and, after I helped present the proposal, it went up for decision. It was close. We couldn’t reach full consensus and had to drop to a 9/10 majority vote. While the votes were being counted, a fight broke out

12 Structure 

135

at the edge of the assembly, causing the medics to run and address the situation. We barely got through the process without the assembly disintegrating, but Marina and Nelini kept it all together. The proposal passed! We had a Spokes Council! Nelini sang, “Get up! Get down! There’s revolution in this town!” (Hornbein).

False Starts One of the points on the Spokes Council proposal was that each meeting would take place indoors at a well-publicized location. Thus, our immediate task in the Structure Working Group was to find space through the winter that could accommodate us. This was unsurprisingly difficult in Lower Manhattan, where space is at a premium. We hadn’t yet occupied indoor space, and had no approved budget for renting space, so were relying on the good will of those sympathetic to the movement. For the inaugural Spokes Council on 7 November, 2011 we were able to locate a nearby high school cafeteria, which was not in use after hours. It could accommodate several hundred people, was a walkable distance from the park, and accessible. This seemed like the best possible option at the time. But in retrospect, the cafeteria is typically a space where cliques and tables are chosen, microaggressions play out, and food fights erupt. Perhaps this wasn’t the best choice for the Spokes Council. Nicole Carty, a young black woman, who was an exceptional facilitator, and Tim Ambrose Desmond, a white man and another DAN veteran, co-facilitated (OWS Minutes, 2011a). Unlike in the park, where the mic check was the default mode of communication, here, there was amplified sound, and a mic, which the facilitation team wielded, and shared with spokes who were on stack. Rather than individuals speaking, the conversation flowed in groups first, and then was presented to the Spokes Council as a whole. It was definitely easier to hear everyone, and to have more in-depth conversation. The first step was simply establishing the Operational Spokes Council which meant recognizing all the groups. Annie Millar Desmond, a sweet white woman with short hair and glasses, also originally also from DAN, had drafted sign-up sheets, for each group to describe their activities. These descriptions were read out, one by one, and discussed among the

136 

M. Holmes

groups present. If the room felt that the description fell under “operations group” or “caucus” then it would be accepted as part of the council. (A. Millar Desmond, personal communication, November 2011). This was done so that the Structure Working Group would not have the authority to decide who was included or excluded. Rather the council would establish its own legitimacy and boundaries. I imagined that many would just be ‘grandfathered’ in, and it would be more a matter of recognizing what already existed. For the most part this was true. Information, Minutes, Sanitation, Shipping Inventory Storage, Town Planning, Mediation, Comfort … One by one all were easily accepted. Some groups required more conversation than others did, but it was going smoothly, until a young white woman stood up and interrupted with a point of process. She held a sign for ‘direct democracy.’ On the one hand, I felt a certain sympathy for her, because I knew she was very principled, and her heart was in the right place. On the other hand, I understood that this might unravel the whole process, which I had been working hard to establish, so I eyed her carefully. When she started interrupting, Tim asked the room, “How many people want to stop the process to hear her concern?” “Twinkle up!” Nicole said, frustrated, “Only if you want to stop.” There were mixed twinkles – some up, and some down. Tim opted to just give her the chance to speak; so she took the mic and said, “I have a huge problem and a huge concern about this process. The Spokes Council was canceled and not taken into account four times in the general assembly. This is happening without the approval of the general assembly and the population of people there. It’s not true, but it’s actually true.” I stood up, put my hand on my hip, and raised my hand with a point of information. She had prepared a statement to read, but the room burst out with jeers, “No! Go back!” The Direct Action Working Group (DAWG) aggressively down twinkled (waved their hands in a downward motion) behind her. “Ok, I’m not going to read. I’m just going to say that we are working groups supposedly in the process, and the facilitators are marginalizing our voices.” The room shouted again, “No!” She backed out, saying, “Ok. I cannot speak so … If that’s what you want.” Nicole brought the room back together saying, “OK. So … that is her concern, and we heard it. Mic check! Mic check! You don’t have to repeat

12 Structure 

137

me I have the mic now.” People laughed, and she continued, “If there are groups here who feel you would be better served by leaving this process you are free to do so. And those who want to stay. … Can we get a temperature check for continuing the process that we have? Spokes only.” The room was full of raised hands twinkling. She stated, “Ok, so let’s go back to the process at hand,” (Holmes, 2016). At the second meeting of the Spokes Council on 9 November, the groups that still needed approval were up for discussion. This would be the real test. Sully Ross, a white queer masculine presenting person, and Nysheva Starr, a black woman, co-facilitated (OWS Minutes, 2011b). Again, there was race and gender balance. Both were very skilled and had been facilitating the NYCGAs. The meeting began with facilitation valuing everyone’s contributions to the movement. Then, there was a review of proposed operational groups. The People’s Library was up, and ‘spokes’ convened with their groups to make a decision. Before reconvening, though, there was already a disruption from someone shouting, “Mic check! Does anyone think the Facilitation Working Group is another working group with a very specific vested interest leading this entire process? Should they not come from a lottery or be drawn from the larger group?” Sully responded with a point of process hand signal and said, “I ask people to respect the process. We would love for facilitation to spread out. Anyone who wants to facilitate, come to the facilitation meeting at 4pm tomorrow” (OWS Minutes, 2011c). The People’s Library was approved. Then there was Finance, which immediately came under fire. There were questions about how open and transparent it really was. A black woman interrupted the process, and asked a man in the crowd, “Is it correct that you were kicked out of Finance?” He nodded, “Correct.” Then, she turned to Nysheva Starr on facilitation, “Is it true that he got kicked out of finance because he was a black man?” Sully and Nysheva did not have an answer, and just moved on in the process. Trust began to break down, and the room fractured, and turned against facilitation. The POC Caucus was watching the concerns raised by a black woman and conferring in the corner. The spoke said, “We are going to take a step back because we don’t like how the topic of race was addressed earlier by this body. It was raised without enough information and was dismissed

138 

M. Holmes

too fast. When it is raised, it needs to be accepted as a serious question … It’s a question of respect….” (OWS Minutes, November 9, 2011b). Neither Sully nor Nysheva nor the back-up from the Facilitation Working Group could navigate where to go next on the agenda, and the meeting quickly unraveled. At the third Spokes Council, on 11 November, I facilitated with Ethan Buckner, a young white man, who was a folk musician (OWS Minutes, November 11, 2011c). It was nearly two months into the occupation, and there were still no community agreements. The Safer Spaces Committee (SSC) had a draft, but they were waiting, to some degree, on the structure conversation to be resolved. The council was just being implemented, and there was hope at that time that passing a proposal there might be easier than the NYCGA. Thus, SSC approached me about the council that was scheduled for 11 November, since I was facilitating that night. It was on the agenda. The statement included a commitment to consent, anti-oppression, conflict resolution, and accountability, as well as the following rationale: This Community Agreement is intended to make Occupy Wall Street a supportive, nonthreatening, and anti-oppressive environment. We want this space to be welcoming and engaging, and we encourage everyone to be proactive in creating an atmosphere where the safety of others is valued. Everyone entering this space is asked to be aware of their language and behavior, and to listen non-defensively if challenged. By agreeing to the principles outlined below, we intend to promote a culture of mutual respect that establishes an inclusive space, in particular for people who have been traditionally marginalized. Since Occupy Wall Street began, we have consented to organize ourselves horizontally; therefore, we strive to respect autonomy without compromising solidarity. (M.P., personal communication, November 11, 2011)

I had seen this draft document, and even had copies next to me as I facilitated that night. It was not a forgone conclusion that it wouldn’t be read. It was possible. We began smoothly enough, with an introduction from a woman at Trinity, who graciously invited us into the space, conducted a breathing exercise, and encouraged us to just “have fun.” We recapped where we were in the process, which was straight forward, except for the

12 Structure 

139

concept of rotation. In the original language of what was passed in the NYCGA, the spokes of working groups had to rotate every time the Spokes Council was in session. This would ensure that the spokes did not become de facto representatives, and instead reflected the true intentions and feelings of those in their groups. Rotation was key to avoiding concentrations of power. Unfortunately, in the previous Spokes Council, no one had been informed of this rotation rule, and so working groups had shown up with many of the same spokes. There was confusion about how to proceed given that reality. This was further exacerbated by the fact that some of the disruptors had created their own working groups, which were effectively only them with made up signs. They could not rotate, and so would not be able to participate. The disrupters lashed out at us facilitating. They would not leave and charged us again with excluding people from the space. Screaming matches ensued, and the Community Alliance (formerly Security) tried to intervene and de-escalate the situation (OWS Minutes, 2011d). For the fourth Spokes Council, on 14 November (the night of the eviction), we met at 56 Walker, a small arts space in Tribeca (OWS Minutes, 2011d). Lisa came in as a pinch hitter to help guide the process along. To begin, Lisa set some agreements for the space including “I” statements (speak from your own experience), no cross talk (one mic, one voice), step up, step back (if you’re speaking a lot, maybe step back), and respect for the facilitation. She then led the room in a breathing exercise, to help us relax, and get grounded in our own bodies urging us to, “Breathe in. Breathe out” (OWS Minutes, 2011e). It was going to be another tough meeting. The caucus Women Occupying Wall Street was up first for admission. The first question was about merging it and Women Occupying Nations for it seemed they were both women’s caucuses, and two was a bit redundant. When Women Occupying Nations was up for approval, their spoke explained, “This is a caucus, a safe place for women only.” But it was unclear what they meant by ‘women’, and this caused a great deal of confusion. Safer Spaces interjected with a breakdown of what constituted cisgender, queer, and trans ending with, “You don’t need surgery to identify as a trans person, because sex and gender are two different things. A trans man is someone assigned

140 

M. Holmes

female at birth and who decides not to conform to that, and vice versa for a trans woman, and I want us to respect that.” In the ensuing discussion, it was revealed that Women Occupying Nations would not be open to transmen or queer folks. As a result, the council did not approve the admittance of Women Occupying Nations after three blocks (all from disrupters), and a modified consensus process. The spoke for Women Occupying Nations was irate and shouted, “The fact that a lot of white males were voting against this group, some women would see that as violent. … We think women should be able to speak for themselves. If you don’t like me personally, that’s fine, but vote against me personally, not against this caucus. This is a caucus, not a popularity contest.” Then, she started crying. A man leaned over to comfort her saying, “There’s a woman crying here.” A black woman backed her up saying, “You know I love you and I support you baby! Do you think people are giving you hell because you are a strong black woman? … How would you train women to be strong in a world of hateful men…?” (OWS Minutes). The group shouted out at the facilitation team, and Lisa eventually shouted back, breaking an uncomfortable silence in the room, but there was simply no way to return to the agenda because emotions were running high.

Disruption Despite our best efforts, the Spokes Council could never really get off the ground  (Holmes, 2012). This was largely due to our inability to deal with the aftermath of disruptive behavior. Those who disrupted had different profiles, and seemingly different motivations. I have type-cast some exemplars here. The first type of disruptor of OWS was a performer (Graeber, 2013). A performer often enlisted us, willing or not, in their act. Unfortunately, the individual artist, and the collective were often at odds. Typically, such performers became openly antagonistic toward any group structure, and turned against the Spokes Council. The second type of disruptor was a disengaged commentator (Bob, 2018). Their position always shifted though, depending on what could be gained or just what mood they happened to be in. Ultimately, their role was that of a trickster.

12 Structure 

141

The third type of disruptor came from an oppressed group, so others felt compelled to give them space (Browning, 2011). But then they would use that space to overly criticize other people or their positions, and further divisions along the lines of race, gender, class, or ability. They even undermined the work of caucuses. The fourth disruptor type was acting like an agent provocateur or variation on a double agent, seemingly supporting OWS but in fact always raising red herrings and actively distracting and disorganizing groups (Stranahan, 2012). This type often went by different names or identities. All of the above were present in disruption of the Spokes Council. These types were not mutually exclusive. Sometimes, they would overlap. I distinguish these types in order to give the reader a sense of the range of disruption. The targets of disruption were, most often, the facilitators. For disruptors whose goal was to undermine organization, this was strategic. Targeting facilitators called into question the structure and process we were trying to implement and legitimize. Each Spokes Council followed similar patterns of disruption. An individual or small group would raise issues related to race, gender, or perhaps class, and refuse to engage with the structures and processes. Some critiques of consensus have emphasized how blocs are a tyranny of the minority and can be used to derail the process (Cornell, April 12, 2011). However, these critiques do not hold up in the case of OWS. Disruptors would not even bloc most of the time, but simply continue speaking, or screaming  to get attention. Some of them told us explicitly that they wanted to dissolve the Spokes Council. The Facilitation Working Group would meet with disruptors, and spent many hours  working through their concerns. However, they could not be satisfied with any other outcome than bringing an end to any and all structures and processes. There were multiple attempts to put the removal of disruptors from the space on the agenda. These were repeatedly thwarted by disruption. Finally, after months a meeting of the Spokes Council on 20  January, 2012 actually did consent for them to leave (OWS Minutes, 2012b). The exclusion was done in a democratic and empathetic way. A consensus was reached minus the disrupters themselves blocking. They were given a possible road back through a transformative justice process overseen by the Safer Spaces Committee (SSC). However, they did not take it, and, for the most part, they were never heard from again.

142 

M. Holmes

While the disruptors were removed via the process, the damage had already been done. Their actions had contributed to widespread attrition, as few wanted to subject themselves to verbal or physical attacks (OWS Minutes, January 16, 2012a). Ironically, the Spokes Council had been created to structurally empower caucuses. It gave people of color, women, queers, and those who were disabled the power to weigh in on issues of concern, and to veto decisions that were racist, sexist, or ablist. The whole point was to have a more intentional and equitable structure. Facilitation teams were purposefully multi-racial and multi-gender, and used progressive stack, which weighted more traditionally oppressed voices. None of this could be formalized, not because of a lack of desire or procedure, but because of the social and cultural impact of disruption.

References Browning, B. (October 25, 2011). OWS: Ashley Love Strikes Again. Bilerico. Retrieved June 15, 2022, from http://bilerico.lgbtqnation.com/2011/10/ ows_ashley_love_strikes_again.php Cornell, A. (April 12, 2011). Oppose and Propose: Lessons from Movement for a New Society. AK Press. Epstein, B. (1991). Political Protest and Cultural Revolution: Non-violent Direct Action in the 1970s and 1980s (p. 130). University of California Press. Graeber, D. (2009). Direct Action: An Ethnography. AK Press. Graeber, D. (2013). The Democracy Project: A History, A Crisis, A Movement. Random House, p. 36. Holmes, M. (October 2011). Drawing on Paper. Personal Collection. Holmes, M. (2012). The Center Cannot Hold: A Revolution in Process. In K. Khatib, M. Killjoy, & M. McGuire (Eds.). We Are Many: Reflections on Movement Strategy from Occupation to Liberation. AK Press. Holmes, M. (Director). (2016). All Day All Week: An Occupy Wall Street Story [Video; Vimeo Release]. HD. Hornbein, D. (October 28, 2011) NYCGA Minutes. Retrieved July 20, 2022, from https://web.archive.org/web/20120617072037/http://www.nycga.net/ 2011/10/28/nycga-­minutes-­10282011/ Joe Freeman a.k.a Joreen. (1971). The Tyranny of Structurelessness. Notes from the Third Year.

12 Structure 

143

Lehman, B. (September, 2011). Structuring a Democratic and Prefigurative Organization Cheat Sheet. Flyer. Personal Collection. Montero Torres, R. (n.d.). OWS Spokescouncil Proposal. Retrieved August 24, 2022, from https://www.scribd.com/document/460333589/OWSSpokescouncil-­Proposal Normal Bob. (October 18, 2018). Introducing Sage to Tom the Christian. Retrieved July 18, 2022, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hn43k Umqzio OWS Media Working Group. (September, 2011). Personal Photo and Video Collection. OWS Minutes. (November 7, 2011a). Retrieved August 26, 2022, from https:// web.archive.org/web/20120617080006/http://www.nycga.net/2011/11/07/ operational-­spokes-­council-­1172011-­2/#more-­2845 OWS Minutes. (November 9, 2011b). Retrieved August 26, 2022, from https:// web.archive.org/web/20120617080341/http://www.nycga.net/2011/11/09/ operational-­spokes-­council-­1192011/#more-­3037 OWS Minutes. (November 11, 2011c). Spokes Council. Retrieved August 26, 2022, from https://web.archive.org/web/20120617072354/http://www. nycga.net OWS Minutes. (November 14, 2011d). Spokes Council. Retrieved August 26, 2022, from https://web.archive.org/web/20120617072354/http://www. nycga.net/2011/11/14/nyc-­operational-­spokes-­council-­minutes-­11142011/ OWS Minutes. (November 14, 2011e). Spokes Council LiveTweets. Retrieved August 26, 2022, from https://web.archive.org/web/20120617072354/http://www. nycga.net/2011/11/14/nyc-­operational-­spokes-­council-­minutes-­11142011/ OWS Minutes. (January 16, 2012a). Spokes Council. Retrieved August 26, 2022, from https://web.archive.org/web/20120617072354/http://www.nycga.net OWS Minutes. (January 20, 2012b). Spokes Council. Retrieved August 26, 2022, from https://web.archive.org/web/20120617082416/http://www. nycga.net/2012/01/20/nyc-­operational-­spokes-­council-­01-­20-­2012/ Polletta, F. (2004). Freedom is an Endless Meeting. University of Chicago Press. Stranahan, L. (January 21, 2012) EXCLUSIVE: Occupy Wall Street Bans Rape Whistleblower. Breitbart News.. https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2012/ 01/21/exclusive-­occupy-­wall-­street-­bans-­rape-­whistleblower-­from-­spokescouncil/

13 The Eviction

George Caffentzis reflects on the importance of occupying public space, and notes, The truly subversive intent of the occupy site is to transform space into a commons. A public space is ultimately a space owned and opened/closed by the state, it is res-publica, a public thing. A common space, in contrast, is opened by those who occupy it, i.e. those who live on it and share it according to their own rules. (2012)

Transforming a public space into a commons is what so terrified the state, for it undermined the very basis of its existence, and ability to maintain control. By mid-November, the park had become a commons, and a home to many. The People’s Kitchen was storing and cooking offsite and serving thousands of meals a day. They were the largest soup kitchen in NYC and given a coveted write up by the NY Times (Gordinier, October 12, 2011). Gray water systems were being introduced, and bike generators provided power. (Thilman, November 9, 2011). The Comfort Station was distributing sleeping cots and maintaining winterized tents. The Medic Station had expanded into a 24/7 clinic. The People’s Library had accumulated 5000 books (Gibson, November 15, 2011). Liberty Plaza was really a city © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 M. Holmes, Organizing Occupy Wall Street, Alternatives and Futures: Cultures, Practices, Activism and Utopias, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-8947-6_13

145

146 

M. Holmes

within a city that was largely autonomous from the surrounding Financial District. Unfortunately, this was temporary (Bey, 2003).

Whose Park? In the dead of night, without warning, the NYPD came in to clear the occupation on the 15 November. They had learned from the attempt on 13 October that notice provided us a window of opportunity to mobilize a defense. I had just arrived home to get some rest. My chest was burning with a bad case of the Zuccotti cough (Pneumonia), and I could barely speak. I fell into bed, but my phone was buzzing with notifications screaming, “The park is being raided!” I rushed back carrying my backpack, but the subway was closed, so I took a taxi across the Manhattan Bridge. The whole area was in lock down. Within several blocks of the park, there were barricades up, and police lines. I pulled in near the back of Trinity, where a small march was winding around, and jumped out to join them. “Whose park? Our park!” I proclaimed. As we moved onto Broadway, hundreds joined us, chanting, “We are the 99%” (Holmes, November 15, 2011) and made a barricade at Pine Street. I saw a friend in the crowd wearing a hoodie and leather jacket. “There’s another line up by City Hall,” he said. We left, in a small crew, winding our way around the back alleys of the Financial District. But, when we arrived at City Hall, it had already been cleared. Protestors were physically pushed north, even further away. I ran into Lisa on Broadway. She had tried getting in the back of Liberty Plaza by the sacred tree but was turned away. “No one’s getting in,” she said. “Not even press.” I wanted badly to be inside and make one last stand. From livestream footage, I could see occupiers had linked arms, and chained themselves to The People’s Kitchen, chanting, “All Day All Week! Occupy Wall Street.” Dozens of police vans pulled in and threw up bright white flood lights. Sanitation workers, wearing orange reflector vests were rolling in dumpsters. Tents were pulled down, and working group signs for Press and Legal, hung precariously in the balance. The People’s Library was the last to fall. Officers pulled off the blue tarp, leaving only a white pipe

13  The Eviction 

147

skeleton, which they broke into pieces. 5000 books were unceremoniously thrown in a garbage truck. After clearing the park of all ‘structures’ police moved in for people. They wielded megaphones and ordered, “If you do not move now, you’ll be arrested.” (Troop, November 15, 2011). But dozens stayed in lines around the kitchen, armed only with pots and pans. Camille stood up, with a green plastic shield, and mic checked, “It was such a beautiful day. When we came upon Zuccotti Park. And began our fight for freedom!” (OWS Media Working Group, November 15, 2011). Then the police came in with pepper spray, yanked on occupiers’ arms, and kicked them, forcing them up. On the outside looking in, there were chants of “Shame! Shame!” I couldn’t stop coughing, so a friend took me back south to one of the many hideouts that had developed in the park vicinity. I was tweeting and responding to press calls while waiting out the night. At around 6 am, I peered out, and watched the sun rise. It seemed the crowds had dissipated, and so had police. I walked, half dazed, up Broadway. It looked like a ghost town. A few early risers were making their way from the Path train to work. Street vendors were just starting to sell coffee and stale bagels with butter. Then I saw the red arches surrounded by metal NYPD barricades, and I just stood there, stunned. It was empty. There was no info table, or media center, or people’s library, or kitchen serving up sandwiches. All we had built had disappeared without a trace. A police officer in a suit, presumably higher ranking, literally bumped into me while doing a perimeter check. He didn’t say a word. He just gave me a long hard look and moved on. I made my way slowly to Foley Square, where occupiers huddled together. The park had become a temporary home for all the forgotten people—the 99%. Many had lost all their clothes, identification, and money. One woman misplaced her dog, and was crying, as another woman comforted her. Street medics walked through the crowd, attending to any injuries, physical or otherwise. Food was being distributed. Even the drummers were back, providing a steady new rhythm. Then, the sun peaked, behind an angular granite sculpture, aptly titled, Triumph of the Human Spirit (Holmes, November 15, 2011).

148 

M. Holmes

Legal Window While occupiers recovered, the National Lawyers Guild rushed over to the Supreme Court (across the street) and Jen Waller, a white woman who was a paralegal, petitioned for a temporary injunction on first amendment grounds asking for: 1. Enjoining the respondents from evicting lawful protestors from Liberty Park/Zuccotti Park 2. Permitting all protestors to re-enter the park with tents and other gear previously utilized; 3. Returning all property seized from protestors; and 4. Granting such further relief as may seem just and proper (Supreme Court, New York County).

Judge Lucy Billings granted it at 6:30 am, and legally, we could re-enter. It was a small window, only lasting until the next court hearing at 11:30 am. We needed to move fast. At Foley, there was confusion. An impromptu assembly was held to gather everyone and determine next steps. Most did not understand the language of the injunction or didn’t want to take the risk. The group that had pushed north ended up staying at Judson Memorial Church through the rest of the night. Most of the Direct Action Working Group (DAWG) was there and had been hatching their own plans in parallel to the National Lawyers Guild. By that point, they had scouted other spaces to occupy. One was Duarte Square, an empty lot along Canal Street in Chinatown owned by Trinity Church, the third largest landowner in Manhattan. They called for a #reoccupy march at 9 am through the village, toward this new space. We moved out of Foley and went north to meet up with DAWG. Once arriving at Duarte, though, the fences went up, and a stand-off ensued with police. Trinity wasn’t allowing anyone in. Two dozen people were arrested in the process. A breakaway march decided to try to return to Liberty and test the injunction. We went back south, through Tribeca and arrived at the park by 10 am, but by then there were lines of cops around the perimeter. The march moved, like a picket line around the park yelling at officers. Then another friend who I was with, saw an

13  The Eviction 

149

opening, and jumped over a barricade back into the park. He was quickly thrown to the ground, and his arm bent back by cops. His wrist was sprained in the process (Holmes, November 15, 2011). Meanwhile, Mayor Bloomberg held a press conference with police commissioner Ray Kelly responding to the eviction, and stated: No right is absolute and with every right comes responsibilities… The First Amendment gives every New Yorker the right to speak out—but it does not give anyone the right to sleep in a park or otherwise take it over to the exclusion of others—nor does it permit anyone in our society to live outside the law. There is no ambiguity in the law here—the First Amendment protects speech—it does not protect the use of tents and sleeping bags to take over a public space. (Witt, November 15, 2011)

At the park, the NYPD held us at bay until 11.30  am, when another judge, Michael Stallman, heard the injunction motion. Echoing Bloomberg, he made the argument that, since Brookfield was maintaining the property, they had the right to impose “reasonable time, place, and manner” restrictions: The movants have not demonstrated that they have a First Amendment right to remain in Zuccotti Park, along with their tents, structures, generators, and other installations, to the exclusion of the owner’s reasonable rights and duties to maintain Zuccotti Park, or to the rights to public access of others who might wish to use the space safely. Neither have the applicants shown a right to a temporary restraining order that would restrict the City’s enforcement of law so as to promote public health and safety. Therefore, petitioner’s application for a temporary restraining order is denied. (Forer & Kim, November 15, 2011)

This decision determined what was acceptable speech and activity. The park could not be self-managed by the public. The rules were not determined by the public but, rather, by one of the largest real estate firms in the world. Brookfield determined what to do with their little plot of property in Lower Manhattan. It was effectively a private space, with the public as mere guests. Speech was allowed only on terms the owner decided, and they could amend the rules whenever they felt like it. While

150 

M. Holmes

we had lost the occupation, we had shown that in fact there is no public space to dissent. It was an illusion. It always was.

References Bey, H. (2003). TAZ: The Temporary Autonomous Zone, Ontological Anarchy, Poetic Terrorism. Autonomedia. Caffentzis, G. (2012). In the Desert of Cities: Notes on the Occupy Movement in the U.S. In K. Khatib, M. Kiljoy, & M. McGuire (Eds.), We Are Many: Reflections on Movement Strategy from Occupation to Liberation. AK Press. Forer, B., & Kim, S. (2011, November 15). Judge Denies Occupy Wall Street Request to Return to Zuccotti. American Broadcasting Corporation. ABC News. https://abcnews.go.com/US/Economy/judgedenies-occupy-wall-streetsreturn-zuccotti-park/story?id=14955681 Gibson, M. (2011, November 15). Occupy Wall Street Library was Also Evicted. Newsfeed. https://newsfeed.time.com/2011/11/15/occupy-­wall-­streets­library-­was-­also-­evicted/ Gordinier, J. (2011, October 12). Want to Get Fat on Wall Street? Try Protesting. NY Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/12/dining/protesters-­at-­ occupy-­wall-­street-­eat-­well.html Holmes, M. (2011, November 15). Personal Video and Photo Collection. OWS Media Working Group. (2011, November 15). Video. Personal Video and Photo Collection. Supreme Court, New  York County. (2011, November 15). In the Matter of Jennifer Waller et al, Petitioners v. City of New York et al, The Respondents. https://www.nycourts.gov/Reporter/3dseries/2011/2011_21412.htm Thilman, J. (2011, November 9). Occupy Wall Street Plans to Stay Forever with 15 New Bike Powered Generators. https://gothamist.com/news/occupy-­wall-­ street-­plans-­to-­stay-­forever-­with-­15-­new-­bike-­powered-­generators#photo-­1 Troop, D. (2011, November 15). Livestreamed Video. Personal Video and Photo Collection. Witt, E. (2011, November 15). No Return to Zuccotti: Judge Michael Stallman Rules Against Protestors. Observer. https://observer.com/2011/11/no-­return-­ to-­zuccotti-­judge-­michael-­stallman-­rules-­against-­protesters/

14 Occupy Somewhere

Lisa Fithian argues, “We need to take space-physical space, visual space, emotional space, mental space, and so on. Occupation gives us space to build relationships” (2012, p. 387). I agree space is essential for the development of our decision-making structures and infrastructure. It is the foundation for building another world. In the Direct Action Working Group (DAWG), there was a consensus that space was important. However, there wasn’t a consensus on what kind of space or where to go. Unfortunately, rather than try to work together, DAWG members went in multiple directions planning their own actions. One took the direction of #D6, detailed below, and was part of the more institutional and traditional left. The other planned for #D17, again detailed below. While this second group made rhetorical nods to more radical positions, it also operated in a more vertical fashion. Neither of these political blocs was successful in carrying out their actions. In addition to these main blocs, there were other affinity groups working around them, and doing their own occupations of spaces. Some of these organized for #M17, the union square occupation, and the Federal Hall steps sleep-outs. However, even these attempts at holding space fell prey to increasing repression. The NYPD was simply not going to allow OWS to take or hold space. © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 M. Holmes, Organizing Occupy Wall Street, Alternatives and Futures: Cultures, Practices, Activism and Utopias, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-8947-6_14

151

152 

M. Holmes

#D6 In parallel to Occupy Wall Street, there was Occupy Homes. Nick Espinoza, a young white passing guy, had watched his mother struggle to pay her mortgage and wanted to help. Thus, he began organizing talks with homeowners who were victims of the foreclosure crisis. Several months later, he was involved in Occupy Minneappolis. By late November, the energy from the occupy movement had accelerated the development of Occupy Homes into a network with chapters in Chicago, Detroit, Atlanta, and further across the country (Democracy Now, November 11, 2011) The first national day of action for Occupy Homes was 6 December, 2011 (#D6). Within DAWG, one political bloc, more closely tied to non-profits and the Democratic Party, argued that #D6 was the next big strategic step for the movement. Since the larger decision-making structures for OWS were in disarray, and DAWG didn’t do formal endorsements, they formed what they called an ‘affinity group’ and pushed forward with the day of action. East New York, Brooklyn was particularly affected by foreclosures and was comprised largely of poor black and brown residents. The #D6 plan of action was to do a “Real Estate Tour” through the neighborhood and point out vacant buildings to occupy (OccupyWallSt, 2011). Personally, I agreed that a big part of the movement going forward should be occupations of vacant land and housing. The foreclosure crisis had been heart-wrenching. It was such an obvious move to keep people in their homes or provide them with new ones. The problem with #D6 wasn’t the idea. It was the execution. The plan was heavy on the media strategy and lacking in the tactical follow-through. When I arrived at the train station in East New York there were around 500 occupiers, who had come out on a weekday in the rain. At the front was a black and yellow banner that read, “Foreclose on Banks, Not People” made by the activist art project Not An Alternative. The chant began, “Banks got bailed out! We got sold out!” Along the route, occupiers, stretched caution tape across “For Sale” signs and each vacant spot. A tall Afro-Latinx woman, Sandy Nurse, with a scarf and hoop earrings, helped guide the event. She had been very involved in the DAWG and

14  Occupy Somewhere 

153

became adept at coordinating and pacing marches. As we moved along, neighbors peered out of their doorways and windows, and cheered us on. The pain of the foreclosure crisis was viscerally apparent when two people shared their stories of losing homes. One young black man, Quincy, shouted in mic-check form, “I was tricked. Into signing over my deed. And now I’m getting evicted. I have a loan. For 475,000. And I owe it.” He broke down, bowed his head, and began to cry. Others came in to comfort him, as he wiped away the tears. Seeing this, a middle-aged black woman from the Caribbean, spontaneously decided to share her story. She ran up and shouted, “I bought my house in 1997. I put $80,000 down.” She went on to describe how she struggled to make payments, and to take care of her son and put him through Catholic school. Her son signed up for the military, and was sent to Afghanistan and Iraq, where he was killed. Her voice trembled and she cried as she mic-checked, “Washington DC said. The Pentagon said. That they don’t know if it was the enemy who killed him. Or if it was friendly fire.” After struggling to take care of her son, and losing him, she was facing foreclosure from the bank. She mic-checked, “Now, they’re trying to take my home away. I used to pay 1500. They switched me bank to bank. Until they put my house at 3800/month. How can I do it? How many families suffer like me? All of you! Don’t give up!” (Holmes, 2011).

702 Vermont Ave The last stop on the tour was 702 Vermont Ave. Moving trucks rolled up with supplies from the OWS Sanitation Working Group, that was there as the clean-up crew. DAWG folks wore construction hats and gloves ready to renovate, and a white and black banner was hung from the roof of the house that said, “Banks Steal Homes!” Councilman Charles Barron, from East New York, arrived in a long black coat, and went to knock. Alfredo, a young black father, and organizer with VOCAL-NY, opened the door. The two clasped hands and raised them together. Horns trumpeted in their honor, as the rest of the family appeared, and Barron

154 

M. Holmes

raised up Alfredo’s son, who smiled and waved to the crowd. It was a very well-orchestrated piece of political theater. Barron proclaimed, “Mic check! On behalf. Of the people of East New  York. On behalf. Of Occupy Wall Street. On behalf. Of all the clergy. On behalf. Of the people of New York City. By the power invested. In god and our clergy. By the power invested. In my office as official representative. Of East New York. We welcome you!” Then, he swung his arm around in the air. It was an old-fashioned housewarming, with gifts given to welcome the family to the neighborhood. Alfredo responded by saying, “Mic check! I want to thank. First off. This community. I want to thank. All the people. Who live in these houses. That support what we’re doing. I want to thank. All you people who came out today. In the rain. With nasty weather. And who supported us. This occupation. This moment. Is really special.” He cracked up laughing, and just exclaimed, “Wow! I just want to say. I appreciate. Every single one of you. This is just the beginning. There’s still a lot more work that needs to be done. But I hope. That all of you will be here. As that work continues,” (Holmes, 2011). There were many challenges facing 702 Vermont Ave. The house itself needed major renovations, which occupiers were not entirely prepared to take on. There were personal issues with the family that prevented them from staying full-time at the house themselves. However, the most pressing problem was the fact that the house had actually not been foreclosed on. In the press release for #D6, Bank of America was named as the owner. However, the house was actually in the process of foreclosure but had not been foreclosed on yet. The owner was absentee. When the occupation began, the police called him, and he became more interested in fighting for the house. Eventually, the owner moved to evict the occupiers (Giove, February 19, 2012).

#D17 17 December 2011 (#D17) was the three-month anniversary of OWS, and the one-year anniversary of the global revolution, which had begun in Tunisia. A National Call to Re-Occupy was circulating post-evictions

14  Occupy Somewhere 

155

throughout occupy networks, which called for occupations of outdoor public spaces, and proclaimed: The Occupy Movement is more powerful than ever, despite a violent and systematic wave of evictions enacted by mayors who fear the power of open and visible dissent. Public occupation, free speech, and open assembly are the greatest threats to the increasingly repressive and unjust status quo. We call on Occupiers to establish new occupations in parks, plazas, and public spaces around the country to show the world a visible alternative to the economic and social injustice of our current society. The Occupy Movement is this alternative. On December 17, we will take space and celebrate victory in our new occupations. Join us. Re-Occupy Everywhere. (Anonymous, November 25, 2011)

Since mid-October some members of DAWG had pushed for a strategy of expansion. If we were evicted from Liberty Plaza, then we would simply occupy another space. #D17 was an opportunity to build on this idea. Trinity Church was the third largest landowner in Manhattan. Despite this, they had taken a very sympathetic position, at least on the surface, toward OWS. For example, they opened their doors for us to have meetings and use their bathrooms throughout the course of the occupation. They also owned a city lot at Canal and Bleeker but had not yet developed it. It was leased, in the interim, to a local arts organization, but was not actively being used. The morning after the eviction, DAWG had led crowds to Duarte; but when they broke in, police pushed the line back, and made dozens of arrests. Support from Trinity clearly had limits. This infuriated some in DAWG who felt that Trinity had betrayed them. They became obsessed with this dream of building a new occupation at Duarte Square. In contrast to the occupation of individual homes, such as on #D6 in East New York, #D17 was for an open, public space, more along the lines of what Liberty Plaza had been. A public letter was sent to Rev. Dr. James Cooper, Rector at Trinity Wall Street. It was an

156 

M. Holmes

invitation to be part of the movement and revitalize civic space for the 99% and ended with: Outdoor public space has played a crucial function in encouraging this civic process, and encouraging open, transparent ways of organizing in our movement. As we have seen in Liberty Square, outdoor space invites people to listen, speak, share, learn, and act. We believe the building of walls both literally and figuratively separates and isolated us from one another. We hope that additional spaces will provide additional platforms for this bold new dialogue to flourish. We invite you to join us. (Direct Action Working Group, November 26, 2011)

A campaign was waged to pressure the church in the coming weeks. This included a hunger strike on the sidewalk in front of the Trinity Wall Street location. A nativity scene of occupiers was even created, as a nod to there being room at the inn. It was a ‘peace offering’ and an appeal to the Christian morality of Trinity, but it didn’t work (Zaimov, December 15, 2011). Trinity would not cave on the demand for a space. None the less, the plan to occupy continued. Like #D6, #D17 was billed as the next step for OWS. Occupy Faith and NYC faith leaders joined. Even Archbishop Desmond Tutu wrote a letter in support. There were media teams, and press releases- a whole operation emerged behind the move. A program of artists came together with Lou Reed, Craig Nelson, Anne Waldman, Rebel Diaz, Luke Rathborne, Ness A-Alikes, Joseph Arthur, Titus Andronicus, Widest Smiling Faces, and more. A flyer for the event read: ‘Join artists, musicians, and local community members for an all-day performance event in support of Occupy Wall Street’s re-occupation of space in downtown Manhattan’ (OccupyWallSt). In the flurry of it all, some of the planners of #D17 became so tunnel-­ visioned that any discussion of alternatives was immediately shutdown, and dissenters siloed. While I agreed that we needed public space, I disagreed with the choice of target. I felt it was a distraction to get into this battle with Trinity Church, which had already shown it would call the police on us. Brookfield Properties, who owned Zuccotti Park (Liberty Plaza), sat on the board of Trinity. They were not easily moved. On #D17,

14  Occupy Somewhere 

157

a crowd of a few hundred gathered, and Bishop Packard raised a ladder to climb over the fence (McGregor, 2011). The image of defiance hid many of the realities on the ground. Only a few were able to follow him, before being tackled by police, and were slammed with felony charges (Moynihan, March 12, 2012a). Mark Adams, a friendly Pakistani man always ready with a hug and a smile, was sentenced to 45 days at Rikers as a result (Mirzoeff, June 19, 2012).

#M17 17 March 2012 (#M17) was the sixth month anniversary of OWS, and happened to coincide with the Left Forum, the largest convergence of left organizers and academics in NYC.  The event was also serendipitously held at Pace University, in the Financial District, which offered the chance to gather forces and strike back. Those of us doing workshops and panels inside moved out into the street, marching down to Liberty. At that point, legally, we were allowed to use the space for assemblies, but not for camping or sleeping. We had been playing with this distinction constantly, holding meetings and other events in the park. But this particular night would be different. We would #reoccupy. A march of several hundred flowed out of Pace down to Liberty Plaza, where an assembly gathered. I helped facilitate, again, and open up space for an informal open mic about what brought people to the space. On the edges, the police presence steadily grew, and at nightfall, officers moved in to disperse the crowd. Occupiers began sitting down, in waves, linking arms, and refusing to leave. Officers rushed in with batons, beating those in the front bloody. One young white woman, Cecily McMillan, ended up sexually assaulted by one of the officers and thrown down to the ground. She suffered from seizures, and the trauma made her shake uncontrollably. She was later charged, ironically, with assaulting an officer and sentenced to three months at Rikers plus five years of probation (Kilkenny, May 19, 2014). Shawn Carrie, a bi-racial young man, who was a piano player, had his hand broken so badly he could no longer play.

158 

M. Holmes

A medic, trying to aide others that were injured, had his head thrown into a glass window (Kilkenny, March 19, 2012). Those that managed to escape the increasingly violent scene marched to Union Square to start an occupation there (Pinto, March 26, 2012). When I arrived, I saw Morgan O’Kane, the banjo player who had been a regular at Liberty. He was sitting by the Gandhi statue playing “Remember me.” His foot stomped, pounding a tambourine, as he slid his fingers, up and down the strings. He always seemed to be present at key turning points, as if his music was a cue. A new ‘people’s garden’ of cardboard signs had sprung up with messages like ‘Spring is Coming,’ and ‘Occupy Everywhere.’ The whole area was chalked, too, with peace signs, hearts, and  circle ‘A’ marks for anarchism. In all caps was written, ‘Chalk the System.’ Letitia, a petite indigenous woman with black framed glasses, and a pink hat, was there, handing out fruit to those who needed it. She had been a regular at The Peoples Kitchen, and now was at Union Square (Holmes, 2012a). It looked like occupy. It sounded like occupy. But was it occupy? I wanted to believe it was. What had taken root in Union Square was not quite the same as Liberty. For one thing, it was held together by a majority of poor people of color and houseless folks. Moving to the steps, I saw an erstwhile commentator disruptor, who was actually at the center of activity. I didn’t realize until then that he was a Union Square regular. He had been hanging out there for years. He knew the scene, and managed to group everyone together, to have, what else, but an assembly— taking on the role of facilitator and using the mic check himself. There were nightly confrontations. When the park police came in at midnight a stand-off would ensue at the barricades. Occupiers would taunt police with donuts dangling from string, saying, “Here, piggy, piggy,” or sing the Star Wars theme song for Darth Vader (Holmes, 2012b). At one point, there were rap battles challenging officers. The ritual of holding the space, and being pushed out, seemed oddly therapeutic. It was as if it were a form of immersion therapy, in which the same scene was played out, but in a different environment. Yet, that could also be traumatizing. The line between the trauma and therapy was always a bit unclear.

14  Occupy Somewhere 

159

Sidewalk Sleep-Outs Having been pushed out of all other spaces, occupiers took the sidewalks around NYC for refuge. Citing the 2000 precedent, which allowed for sleeping as a form of protest, this seemed like a more protected activity. However, much like the first ‘test run’ on Wall Street back on 1 September, 2012, these new waves of occupiers, found again that police did not follow the law. The law provided, at times, a temporary buffer, but did not prevent occupiers from being arbitrarily arrested, abused, and eventually removed from the premises. After being moved from Union Square, occupiers would sleep out each night in front of nearby banks such as Chase, Bank of America, and HSBC. They may have been homeless and sleeping on the street anyway, which was political in and of itself. However, now, simply sleeping was connected to the movement against the 1%. Those responsible for the financial crisis, and foreclosing on millions of homes, now had to face those who had been affected. When customers came to the branches, they would see occupiers chanting about closing their accounts. Some occupiers still felt that the stock exchange was the primary target. While they had been ‘occupying’ Wall Street for several months, they were actually just staying in the park. We had never claimed or defended the space in front of the Stock Exchange successfully. Thus, in mid-April, there was a move full circle back to the Federal Hall steps. A dozen or so people regularly participated and held the space, and lasted a week or so before being cleared out by police and sanitation (Moynihan, April 13, 2012b).

Occupy Town Square Some occupiers felt that permanent occupations whether outdoors or indoors were just too difficult to maintain and brought a host of problems that we were not equipped to deal with. However, the experience of the social space was still necessary to cultivate. Thus, they proposed instead of occupying, having ‘pop-up’ town squares. The organizing was held down by Nina Mehta, an Indian woman with a background in

160 

M. Holmes

facilitation, Phoebe Berg, a white woman who was a musician, and Max Bean, a young white man who was a teacher (Holmes, 2012c). The first Occupy Town Square (n.d.) was planned for Washington Square Park on 29 January, 2012. The blog announcement read: On January 29th, join us at the first OWS “Town Square” in Washington Square Park. In the coming months, pop-up Town Squares will bring the spirit of Zuccotti Park to parks, community centers, and other spaces around New York City. There will be info tables, teach-ins, trainings, political discussions, speeches, and assemblies. Come share your ideas and stories, learn, argue, debate, coordinate, collaborate! (January 27, 2012)

At the entrance was a light green square banner with a black square logo, and many shadow figures doing different actions. Some were holding signs, while others were shouting in a megaphone. It was held up by white PVC pipes, duck taped together, at the arch. I wandered through the space, and met the Occupy Flaneurs group, which was speedily typing away poems, and giving them away to passersby (Holmes, 2012a). Each pop-up was a bit like the circus coming to town. Roving around from Tompkins Square to Fort Greene Park, and out to Jackson Heights in Queens, the Town Square crew, would roll in, and set up working groups, as if they were back in Liberty. The kitchen would hand out food and the People’s Library would check out books. There would be tabling for more information, and often teach-ins and skill-shares. These town squares would be done in collaboration with local community members or groups, such as local assemblies. At the time there were over 14 neighborhood assemblies working in housing and other issues that were relevant to those involved.

The Magic Mountain There were multiple examples of collective housing that emerged around occupy networks. However, the longest running was ‘The Magic Mountain’ named after the novel by Thomas Mann (1927). After the eviction of

14  Occupy Somewhere 

161

Liberty Plaza, some of the original members of the Arts and Culture Working Group had found a space in the Financial District and moved in. It was a long white room, begging to be tagged, so immediately upon entering, the walls were covered with quotes, illustrations, and circle As. Fabric was hung as dividers for sleeping areas, and there was a regular banquet of food from the surrounding Duane Reade dumpsters. It was a decadent space with salons, nudist dance parties, and jam sessions. I wasn’t living at Magic Mountain but had many friends who were. I have fond memories of moonlit nights on the fire escape, drifting in and out of conversations. Some of the energy that made OWS possible was present there, and whenever I was feeling a bit lost, I would channel it. The space lasted through the spring of 2012, about six months, before being evicted.

References Anonymous. (November 25, 2011). A National Call to Re-Occupy Flyer. Retrieved June 22, 2022, from https://pastebin.com/pX0AKqA7 Democracy Now! (November 11, 2011) Occupy Homes: New Coalition Links Homeowners, Activists in Direct Action to Halt Foreclosures. https://www. democracynow.org/2011/11/11/occupy_homes_new_coalition_links_ homeowners Direct Action Working Group. (November 26, 2011). Letter to Rev. Dr. James Cooper, Rector at Trinity Wall Street. Personal Collection. Fithian, L. (2012). Strategic Directions for the Occupy Movement In K. Khatib, M. Killjoy, & M. McGuire (Eds.), We Are Many: Reflections on Movement Strategy from Occupation to Liberation (p. 387). AK Press. Giove, C. M. (February 19, 2012). How Occupy Went Wrong. The NY Post.. https://nypost.com/2012/02/19/how-­occupy-­went-­wrong/ Holmes, M. (December 6, 2011). Personal Video and Photo Collection. Holmes, M. (March 18, 2012a). Personal Video and Photo Collection. Holmes, M. (January 29, 2012b). Personal Video and Photo Collection. Holmes, M. (March 20, 2012c). Personal Video and Photo Collection. Kilkenny, A. (March 19, 2012). Dozens Arrested at Occupy 6 Month Celebration. In These Times. Retrieved June 20, 2022, from https://inthesetimes.com/article/dozens-­arrested-­at-­occupy-­6-­month-­celebration-­reports-­ of-­police-­brutality.

162 

M. Holmes

Kilkenny, A. (May 19, 2014) Cecily McMillan Didn’t Get Off Easy. Her Case Is a Threat to the Future of Protest. The Guardian. Retrieved June 20, 2022, from https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/19/cecily-­mcmillan-­ three-­months-­jail-­occupy-­future-­protest Mann, T. (1927). The Magic Mountain. S. Fischer Verlag, Alfred A. Knopf. McGregor, E. (December 17, 2011). Bishop Packard, D17. Photo. Personal Collection. Mirzoeff, N. (June 19, 2012). On Church and State. Retrieved June 20, 2022, from https://www.nicholasmirzoeff.com/O2012/2012/06/19/on-­church-­and-­ state-­the-­case-­of-­mark-­adams/ Moynihan, C. (March 12, 2012a). Occupy Wall Street Protestors Complain of Police Monitoring. NY Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/12/nyregion/occupy-­wall-­street-­protesters-­complain-­of-­police-­monitoring.html Moynihan, C. (April 13, 2012b). Evicted from Park Occupy Protestors Take to Sidewalks. The New York Times. Retrieved June 20, 2022, from https://www. nytimes.com/2012/04/13/nyregion/evicted-­from-­park-­occupy-­protesters-­ take-­to-­the-­sidewalks.html Occupy Town Square. n.d.. https://www.washingtonsquareparkblog.com/tag/ occupy-­town-­square/ OccupyWallSt. (December 12, 2011). Occupy 2.0 #D17. Retrieved June 20, 2022, from http://occupywallst.org/article/occupy-­20-­d17/ Pinto, N. (March 26, 2012). Occupy Union Square: The Evolution of a New Protest Camp. Retrieved June 20, 2022, from https://www.villagevoice. com/2012/03/26/occupy-­union-­square-­the-­evolution-­of-­a-­new-­protest-­camp/ Zaimov, S. (December 15, 2011). Occupy Protesters Erect Nativity Scene in front of NYC Trinity Church. Christian Post. Retrieved June 20, 2022, from https://www.christianpost.com/news/occupy-­protesters-­erect-­nativity-­scene-­ in-­front-­of-­nycs-­trinity-­church-­photos.html

15 Money in the Movement

If anyone had asked me in the summer of 2011, during the planning stages for OWS, what our biggest problem would be, I would never have guessed money. In grassroots movements and organizations, money is typically very scarce, and actions operate on thin margins. Rather than making plans and solving problems through money, there’s a reliance on mutual aid. But with the unexpected success and growth of OWS, there was suddenly money around. In parallel to our decision-making bodies, behind closed doors, the people who were actually hoarding resources continued to operate, without any concern for equity at all. There are many ways that this played out. As someone with a fair amount of privilege and access, being a cis passing white woman in America, I was able to see into different worlds of OWS. Both the office and the Movement Resource Group tried to dictate the politics of OWS through their access to resources. The office was run by what they called informally an ‘affinity group’ (Epstein, 1991) that controlled all access to it. The Movement Resource Group explicitly described itself as an ‘affinity group’ and was the vehicle through which major donors related to the movement. I was reminded of the work of INCITE! Women of Color Against Violence. Years earlier, I had attended the launch of their book, The Revolution Will Not Be Funded: Beyond the Non-Profit Industrial Complex © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 M. Holmes, Organizing Occupy Wall Street, Alternatives and Futures: Cultures, Practices, Activism and Utopias, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-8947-6_15

163

164 

M. Holmes

(2007). Many of the contributors had worked as professional organizers, and experienced first-hand how dominant structures of white supremacy, patriarchy, and class played out in non-profit environments. They understood that relying on funders was limiting the work they could do. One of them, Dylan Rodriquez, passionately wrote, “The NPIC’s well-funded litany of ‘social justice’ agendas, platforms, mission statements, and campaigns offers a veritable smorgasbord of political guarantees that feeds on our cynicism and encourages a misled political faith that stridently bypasses the fundamental relations of dominance that structure our everyday existence in the United States” (p. 39).

Finance The origin of money in OWS was in the Food Working Group. In the lead-up to the occupation, Chris had set up a donation link to raise money for supplies and received around $800. This went to buy peanut butter and fruit, which subsidized the in-kind donations from the Food Not Bombs network. (personal communication, November 2014). Within the first week of the occupation, donations rolled in and were reaching the $10,000 mark, and there was a need to establish some organizational account for tax purposes. Perhaps unsurprisingly, most banks wanted nothing to do with OWS, and would not take our money, but the Lower East Side Credit Union gave us an account, and eventually money was transferred over to Amalgamated Bank (a union bank set up in the 1930s) given its proximity to the occupation in the Financial District. Since OWS was not registered as a non-profit, and had no formal organization, a search ensued for a fiscal sponsor. The Alliance for Global Justice, thankfully, said yes. To avoid any undue concentration of power over the money, Chris and Victoria started the Finance Working Group, and empowered the NYCGA to make all financial decisions (V. Sobel, personal communication, July 2014). Whoever was on Finance, and later Accounting would simply execute those decisions. This system became more operational in the second and third week of the occupation. The general fund quickly ballooned to around a million dollars. Working groups, which had

15  Money in the Movement 

165

previously been relying only on in-kind donations, were suddenly given daily allowances, and reimbursed for expenses. They were encouraged to bring budget proposals. Now, this seemed like a good idea at the time. But a bureaucracy was created around the money. An internal survey from Facilitation revealed that two-thirds of proposals were requesting funds (personal communication, December 3, 2011). The NYCGA rotated in membership constantly and was filled with people who were not even in working groups or staying in the park, and so were not stakeholders in the decisions made. The Spokes Council was intended in part to address this problem. To some extent it actually did. Despite all the disruptions and difficulties of running the council, it was actually more consistent and accountable than the NYCGA, and decisions made reflected the needs of the occupiers. The vast majority of the money went to housing, food, and MetroCards (OWS Minutes, January 6, 2012). But there was so much distrust and antagonism around these decisions that eventually people got fed up. In the end, Jason brought a proposal to freeze all spending in both the NYCGA and Spokes Council and to allocate the remaining funds (around $100,000) to the bail fund (OWS Minutes, January 14 & 16, 2012).

The Office While the park was still in full swing, there was already an exodus of some working groups to ‘The Office.’ The United Federation of Teachers had space down the street on Broadway. At first, the building was simply a storage site for our in-kind donations rolling into the occupation. But then a space opened for an actual office. This was run by a group of friends who were part of the institutional left of non-profits and the Democratic Party. They were not an official working group but operated across different groups and claimed to be an informal ‘affinity group.’ They determined which working groups could have the privilege of using it, and there was a check in at the front. It was a closed space. Rules did not actually apply equally to everyone. For some undefined reason, I was allowed into the office on occasions. There were rooms full of new computers and other gear, and largely white professional

166 

M. Holmes

organizers running around on conference calls for Move-on.org and coordinating with Occupy Homes. I had to get out of there. The Office had abandoned the park, even before the eviction, for some abstract notion of a mass movement. But the movement was not a meme, or a program, or thing that could be capitalized on. It was people, and their relationships, first and foremost.

Movement Resource Group The most unaccountable and egregious concentration of power and resources played out with the Movement Resource Group. I first met Shen Tong in mid-October at Charlotte’s Place, a popular meeting spot by Liberty Plaza run by Trinity Church. He came to inquire about work I was doing with the Spokes Council model and wanted to collaborate. He introduced himself as the preeminent student organizer behind Tiananmen Square, and seemed to be reliving his youth. His goal was to streamline all the working groups and make OWS as efficient as possible. Throughout the following weeks, I saw Shen hovering around meetings at 60 Wall trying to recruit legions of followers (Firger, November 11, 2011). He was successful with a few, and first formed the Organization Working Group. The group was later transformed into a fundraising machine called the Occupy Money Group and, then, finally renamed the Movement Resource Group, which Shen described as “an independent non-profit tax-exempt organization which functions as an Occupy affinity group” (S. Tong, personal communication, Feb 20, 2012). In November and December, OWS working groups had to be approved by the NYCGA and could not receive outside funding. Thus, the Movement Resource Group, calling itself an ‘affinity group’ conveniently avoided regulation. Again, the term “affinity group” was rooted in anarchist and feminist organizing practices for the purpose of carrying out direct actions. Shen appropriated the term for fundraising. Tong recruited a number of celebrity philanthropists to give money to the Movement Resource Group, including Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield, the founders of ice

15  Money in the Movement 

167

cream giant Ben and Jerry’s. Ben Cohen’s son was an occupier, and both Ben and Jerry had been to Liberty Plaza to do ‘scoops’ (give out ice cream) (Fish Ruler Records, Nov 1, 2011). I followed the Movement Resource Group from a distance throughout the winter. On Sunday, 26 February, the Movement Resource Group convened an “Informational Meeting for the OWS Community” at West Park Presbyterian Church on Manhattan’s Upper West Side (R. Ahmed, personal communication, Feb 20, 2012). Curious, I decided to attend. The church had been used to house the now houseless occupiers, who were in rooms just outside of the talk. I walked past them, and entered the cathedral. A table had been set up in front of the pulpit; sitting at it were Richard Foos (of Rhino Records), Danny Goldberg (music mogul and producer), Dal Lamagna (founder of Tweezerman), Judy Wicks (a leading sustainable food activist and founder of the White Dog Cafe in Philadelphia), and Ben and Jerry. I took a seat in the pews and listened as, one by one, they regaled us with tales of past movements and activist cred. They explained they didn’t think of themselves as being wealthy though they were in fact wealthy. They thought of themselves as regular people. Then came the presentation: A white screen rolled down over the stained-glass windows, and a projection shot across the room, illuminating the altar. Ben Cohen, accustomed more to boardrooms than parks, introduced a PowerPoint. He explained with excitement that the Movement Resource Group intended to fund the ‘national’ Occupy movement to the greatest extent possible. He gave outlines, projections, and grant deadlines. The Movement Resource Group had incorporated as tax exempt under Section 501c3 and raised $300,000 but was aiming for $1.3 million over the course of the next year. Cohen was clear, concise, and left little room for questions. The Movement Resource Group Board of Directors, including all those on the panel, would select five members from the Movement Resource Group and five ‘occupiers’ (two from NY and three from other occupies) to sit on a committee, which would then evaluate grant proposals as they came in. The next day they were accepting grant applications (NPR, March 3, 2012).

168 

M. Holmes

Money Out of Politics While occupiers were fighting over access to MetroCards, national political operatives and philanthropists were renting buildings, hiring staff, and rolling out centralized communication for the movement. There was no pretense of democratic organization or decision-making or attempt at equitable distribution. They simply created the hierarchies for their own management of resources and excluded those who had put their bodies on the line. What was damaging about the Occupy Office, and the Movement Resource Group was not just that they had resources. OWS had been accepting donations from the beginning, and I’d argue that there is a need for both in kind and monetary resources in order to run anything, and especially to sustain a movement over time. It’s not merely a question of purity, and whether or not to accept money, but the terms do matter. OWS wanted money out of politics. I don’t feel this is a contentious point or would be disputed by anyone remotely familiar with the occupy movement. However, there were some on the periphery of OWS who allowed money to shape their political affiliations and decisions. This created invisible and unaccountable hierarchies and made it more difficult to have conversations around equity and access.

Power, Privilege, and Access to Resources In an effort to be more intentional and equitable, some of us who were part of Facilitation brought some meta conversations to the NYCGA and the Spokes Council throughout the winter and spring. This resulted in a series of eight OWS Community Dialogues on “power, privilege, and access to resources.” I helped steward a lot of this forward with Nicole Carty, a young black woman who had been part of the Structure Working Group, and Tashy Endres, a young white woman from Berlin who was involved in Mediation. The process happened in parallel to The Office and Movement Resource Group. Our first meeting was held on Sunday, 5 February at 60 Wall, the privately owned public space in the financial

15  Money in the Movement 

169

district home to the Deutsche Bank Headquarters, which seemed like an appropriate place given the topic. Our announcement read: Dear OWS family, This is an invitation to caucuses, working groups, affinity groups, and any other member of the OWS community to be a part of a planning brunch for a larger community-wide discussion on core issues we are all grappling with. These issues include but are not limited to: – Accountability – Transparency – Structural and interpersonal dynamics of dynamics of privilege – Hierarchies within OWS We believe our community can grow stronger if we know one another, what resources we each have access to, and how our “groups” are organized. We believe we can be stronger when we have examined issues of power, leadership, and structures together. We hope that any member of the OWS community interested in these matters brings their voice to this planning meeting, so we encourage you to send this to anyone who might want to participate. Sunday we will explore these issues while crafting ideas for an agenda and process for a larger community gathering. We are aware that many of these conversations are happening already. We ourselves have had this conversation with many people within the OWS movement. This is simply an attempt to have that conversation as a larger community. Let’s come together in the spirit of solidarity, openness, and transparency. Bagels and orange juice will be provided, feel free to contribute something festive! Love and Solidarity, Jason Ahmadi Nicole Carty Tashy Endres Lisa Fithian Marisa Holmes George Machado (personal communication, February 3, 2012).

Each session of the community dialogues focused on different ways that power was being concentrated in OWS. We talked about making invisible hierarchies more visible, through transparency around how decisions were

170 

M. Holmes

being made, and what resources existed. It was a chance to reflect on how things were running (J. Bold, personal communication, February 2012). During one session held at the offices of the Organization of Staff Analysts in mid-March, I gave the prompt, “How would you define resources?” In the break-outs, resources were thought of in a very broad way. Education, technology, and connections in the movement and outside of the movement were discussed. Social capital was itself considered a resource. However, money was a central issue that kept coming up. In one group, a biracial man from Facilitation and Legal, Nash, said, “Lack of access to money, and capital… That’s what’s been the problem that prevents people from the ability to get an education and the things that they need to be effective, so that’s one of the key things. Money as a resource to get the things that you need is key to what OWS is all about. Capitalism is the system that makes money the means to get other resources. The system is capitalism.” A young white punk woman, Jess, said, “I resonate strongly with what you’re saying. It functions as a power getter and power distributer. Money in a capitalist system functions as how you control resources.” Nicole introduced the next round of conversation and emphasized the need to talk concretely saying, “We want to bring this conversation home to working groups, right? We’re trying to figure out what resources your working groups have access to. What are you resourced with? What are resources that your working group needs in order to function and to do the work of the working group? We’re going to take the next 15 minutes to assess what are the things we have and what are the things we have as working groups?” Dave, a young white man from the Media Working Group listed off specific accounts and material resources saying, “We have the tweet boat that has 100,000 something followers. Livestream is able to access tons of people instantly from whatever action we’re doing. Cameras, the ability to document actions and police brutality. The ability to reach large audiences in a short amount of time through livestream, YouTube, etc. We have the ability to create narratives and counter narratives to the mainstream media through video or photo or whatever type of journalism you want to do.” Christina, a white woman from Facilitation reflected, “It’s not always tangible what we do, so it’s not always easy to say this is what we offer, but

15  Money in the Movement 

171

we think that what we offer people who are committed to making the processes work is enabling voices to be heard, so that our movement can function better, meeting structure and organization, patience, trainings, direct democracy and facilitation trainings, non-positional implementation of processes, and emotional equilibrium. And we can offer spaces like the one we’re sitting in. Needs. Depending on the day, space when we can’t find one, people to help facilitate meetings. We need cooperation. We need support and compassion from the community. We need internal organization within our group. We need a diversity of trainings that we don’t really have access to right now including mediation, meditation, anti-oppression work, de-escalation.” Ravi, an Indian woman from multiple working groups but there for Accounting, reported back saying, “We had a really good discussion. The things that most of the projects I’m involved in need are more people… One of the resources that we had that we really squandered was our sense of community. Those relationships, that density of relationships we used to have, that sense of how to take care of one another… It’s something that we’ve squandered. That’s the major resource that we lack right now, that social cohesion, and that’s a big challenge.” Nicole, wrapping it up, said, “We all heard what we have access to and what we don’t have access to. I want to flag that a lot of things people need, people have. Let’s just hold onto that in our minds for a second.” Tashy patiently built on this and asked, “What are good ways for you to distribute resources? What ways can you imagine generating, or distributing or redistributing resources?” Through making connections of resources, we were hoping to recreate relationships of solidarity. Those that attended the OWS Community Dialogues seemed to appreciate them, and feel progress was being made. Some suggestions for dealing with resources that were raised included participatory budgeting, regular and transparent reporting, perma-banking, time-banking, and alternative currencies. Rather than paying people salaries, it was suggested, money could go to building long-term collective infrastructure like accessible indoor meeting space (Dworkin, March 18, 2012). Not all these solutions were implemented, but simply hearing one another and making space to have these difficult conversations made it possible for OWS to move forward. We were rebuilding community.

172 

M. Holmes

References Bold, J. (2012, February). OWS Community Dialogues Notes. Digital Photo of Paper. Personal Collection. Dworkin, J. (2012, March 18). Video. Personal Video and Photo Collection. Epstein, B. (1991). Political Protest & Cultural Revolution: Non-violent Direct Action in the 1970s and 1980s. University of California Press. Firger, J. (2011, November 11). Protest Finds Unlikely Father Figure. The Wall Street Journal. https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB1000142405297020435800 4577030701555317344 Fish Ruler Records. (2011, November 1). Ben and Jerry’s Founder Scoops Ice Cream-OWS. Retrieved August 30, 2022, from https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=ZA0J5XnUHus INCITE! Women of Color Against Violence. (2007). The Revolution Will Not Be Funded: Beyond the Non-Profit Industrial Complex. South End Press. (p.39). NPR Weekend Edition. (2012, March 3). Ben and Jerry Raise Dough for Occupy Movement. https://www.npr.org/2012/03/03/147861379/ben-­and-­ jerry-­raise-­dough-­for-­occupy-­movement OWS Minutes. (2012, January 6). https://web.archive.org/web/2012061708 4314/http://www.nycga.net/2012/01/06/nyc-­operational-­spokes-council162012-­2/ OWS Minutes. (2012, January 14 & 16). https://web.archive.org/ web/20120512091008/http://www.nycga.net/2012/01/14/nycga-­1142012-­ minutes-­summary/ and https://web.archive.org/web/20120617084301/ http://www.nycga.net/2012/01/16/nyc-­operational-­spokes-­council-­011620 12-­summary/

16 All Our Grievances Are Connected

May Day, International Workers Day, was born out of the fight for the eight-hour workday in the late nineteenth century. In most places in the world, it is a near sacred holiday in which workers take to the streets, go on strike, and celebrate. May Day is firmly rooted in a history of the radical left. When a call for May Day actions came out, there was an opportunity to mobilize the larger OWS network and build a more intentional coalitional politics. Throughout the spring of 2012, relationships were forged across shops and sectors of rank and file workers. This radicalized the base and provided an outlet for militant actions. The strategy was informed by the Industrial Workers of the World, which encouraged a democratization of the workplace and self-management. This worked very well and expanded capacity for taking action. However, this, perhaps predictably, put OWS in the crosshairs of union leadership. Rose Bookbinder and Michael Belt, both labor organizers during May Day in NYC, wrote, “Occupy and unions share the goal of redistributing power and resources downward to the impacted communities, workers, and individuals that make up the 99%. Where they diverge is in their understanding of power, strategy, and tactics” (2012). © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 M. Holmes, Organizing Occupy Wall Street, Alternatives and Futures: Cultures, Practices, Activism and Utopias, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-8947-6_16

173

174 

M. Holmes

The Dream of a General Strike On 19 December, 2011, the Occupy Los Angeles General Assembly consented to the following statement: Occupy LA supports in principle a General Strike on May 1, 2012, for migrant rights, jobs for all, a moratorium on foreclosures, and peace—and to recognize housing education and health care as human rights and calls for the building of a broad coalition to make that a reality. (Tactical Media Files)

This call circulated widely across other occupy groups and it was a heated topic of discussion in the post-eviction period. In OWS, a “May Day Meeting” was organized on 11 January, 2012, to think through what a general strike might mean as a next step for the movement. According to the minutes, the brainstorm began around the term ‘general strike’ itself. To those present it meant a significant number of ‘central industries’ on strike, with a lot of workers participating in ‘work stoppage.’ It was a show of force of labor power. But this was not all. There was a broader conception of what work and labor meant, and thus what strike meant. The intention was “to reclaim a word but to include things like rent, mortgage, women strike” (personal communication, January 11, 2012). The 2006 Day Without an Immigrant had been the closet action resembling a general strike in the United States in recent memory (Montagne & Ludden, May 1, 2006). Industries and workplaces were shut down, but not only as a way of demonstrating labor power. It was a way to make visible immigrants, and the role they played in society. After much debate, the following call from OWS was drafted: May Day 2012 Occupy Wall Street stands in solidarity with the calls for a day without the 99%, a general strike and more!! On May Day, wherever you are, we are calling for: *No Work *No School *No Housework *No Shopping *No Banking TAKE THE STREETS!!!!! (Schneider, Feb 25, 2012)

16  All Our Grievances Are Connected 

175

The Day Without the 99% was intended to echo the language of A Day Without Immigrants (personal communication, Jan 21, 2012). There was a call for a general strike, but also room for many actions. The next steps included, ‘in-reach’ to OWS working groups, and the rest of the occupy movement. A long list of potential groups and allies was drafted to have a general strike. It would require coalition building. For the next few months, weekly May Day planning meetings were held at churches and union halls around the city. The initial center of activity revolved around Judson Memorial Church. Since the eviction, the church staff, who were part of Occupy Faith, had allowed occupiers to live there. Maybe a dozen to two dozen at a time slept in the basement, also known as the Assembly Hall, and it was informally where DAWG was based. Props and banners for actions were also stored there. Thus, it was the natural spot for action planning to take place (Martin, Nov 30, 2011).

M1 Organizing Structure What had been discussed more broadly in OWS up to that moment in terms of structural changes was actually implemented for May Day planning. A ‘2.0’ version of the May Day organizing structure was comprised of four parts: 1. General Meeting: Logistical and outreach clusters break out to discuss and plug new organizers into the work they’re doing outside of large, full body meetings. After break-out groups meet and report back, there is time for agenda points and announcements. 2. Coordinating Spokes Council: Logistical and outreach clusters meet in a spokes council format for thirty minutes to report back on their efforts towards May Day, asked specifically to describe wants, needs, available resources, and proposals. Afterwards, thirty minutes are allotted to unstructured (non-spokes, loosely facilitated) coordination time and forty-five minutes to an hour are allotted to processing proposals brought forth by spokes.

176 

M. Holmes

3. Action/Affinity Spokes Council: Affinity groups, working groups, organizations, unions, and friends that organize and attend actions together are strongly encouraged to attend this meeting or send a delegate. This spokes council is a space that allows different groups to coordinate actions for the day of May 1st and support each other through mutual aid and solidarity. This is not a decision-making body. In these meetings we abide by the following community agreements: • Our solidarity will be based on respect for a diversity of tactics and the plans of other groups. • We will create adequate space and/or time between separate actions to maximize personal choice, safety, and autonomy. • Any debates or criticisms will stay internal to the movement, avoiding any public or media denunciations of fellow activists or events. We agree not to assist law enforcement actions against activists and others. 4. General Assembly: Every Saturday the May Day Committee will propose a discussion on May Day and explain the current organizing structure. (Z. Akil personal communication, March 13, 2012). There would be a whole day of action, starting with corporate and labor related targets throughout Midtown. The general meetings operated as an onboarding and orientation space for new people to plug in. The spokes councils helped to coordinate internally.

Spring Training In the lead-up to May Day, the DAWG initiated weekly ‘spring trainings’ on Friday afternoons to get us all re-energized, and ready for another wave of action (Moynihan, April 9, 2012). Monica Hunken, a tall white woman, with long blonde hair developed a new choreography for direct action trainings. She was an actor and had been trained in clown techniques, which she adapted for use in crowd movement (Holmes, March 2012a).

16  All Our Grievances Are Connected 

177

A training would often begin with the ‘hop,’ a movement involving literally shouting ‘hop’ while hopping up and down, and shifting from a more dispersed circle, to a condensed center. The person calling for the ‘hop’ would raise their arms and hold still while waiting for people to join them. Next would be the ‘melt,’ involving bending one’s body, and falling as softly as possible to the ground. At times, this would transition into a ‘cuddle puddle’ with everyone’s limbs crisscrossed. Moving through the streets, march pacers would wave their arms to the left, and to the right for direction. But a new hand signal was introduced, which was like an ‘x’ in motion, with arms going past each other. This would indicate it was time to go ‘civilian,’ which meant leaving individually, or in small groups, from the crowd and reassembling at a previously agreed upon meet up point. The stock exchange was a common meetup, especially for the closing bell. Running from different directions, we would sing to the tune of When the Saints Come Marching In, “Oh when the banks! Come crashing down! Oh when the banks come crashing down. Oh, how I long to be in that number, when the banks come crashing down!” Once everyone was assembled in front of the barricades, we’d link arms and someone from DAWG would raise the ‘people’s gong’ against the Wall Street bell, and mic-check, “The closing bell is the symbol. Of the colonization of the 99% by the 1%. The closing bell is the symbol. Of the destruction of the wilderness. The closing bell is the symbol. Of the indifference to the suffering of the people. The closing bell is the validation. Of greed over mutual aid. The closing bell is the validation of fear over trust. The peoples gong. Is a statement of our resolve. The people’s gong. Is a show of solidarity. With the people of the world. The people’s gong. Is an invitation to join the struggle!” Joining hands in a circle, and turning toward one another, we would shout, “Seven, six, five, four, three, two, one!” And then raise our arms up and down cheering, “Ding! Ding! Ding!” And wave our hands before jumping up and down for joy singing, “Ah! Anti! Anticapitalista! Ah! Anti! Anticapitalista!” This continued for several rounds, going low to the ground in a softer voice, almost a whisper, before building, and rising again, with fists raised (Holmes, April 2012b).

178 

M. Holmes

Photo of People’s Gong Performance. Wall Street, New York City, NY. 20 April 2012. Marisa Holmes

Rank and File Outreach The May Day planning meetings were not formal coalitions. Rather than pre-existing groups, there were ‘clusters’ around different areas of work such as internal, students, action, labor outreach, messaging/PR, arts and culture, education/research, and mutual aid. Each meeting would take the shape of an assembly, and then break out around these clusters, where participants could plug in. The meetings were open to individuals who agreed with the politics of OWS, which included rank and file across different labor sectors, as well as community organizers of all kinds. This porous structure allowed for participants to push within their organizations and adopt more militant tactics. Throughout the spring, there were multiple labor escalations, which were supported by occupiers. One early show of force was during the opening of the Whitney Biennial in late February. OWS Arts and Labor, and Occupy Museums coordinated with the art handlers at Sotheby’s to shut down the Biennial in advance of its opening on 1 March. Since the previous summer, art

16  All Our Grievances Are Connected 

179

handlers represented by the Teamsters had been ‘locked out’ of the Sotheby’s warehouse, and replaced by scab non-union labor. Sotheby’s was engaging in union busting and avoiding signing a new contract. The union couldn’t make much head way on its own and needed external pressure (Arts & Labor, December 2011). The OWS Arts and Labor group issued a statement calling for an end to the Whitney Biennial. It began: We are Arts & Labor, a working group founded in conjunction with the New  York General Assembly for #occupywallstreet. We are artists and interns, writers and educators, art handlers and designers, administrators, curators, assistants, and students dedicated to exposing and rectifying economic inequalities and exploitative working conditions in our fields through direct action and educational initiatives. We are writing to call for an end to the Whitney Biennial in 2014. (Kimball, February 27th, 2012).

The Whitney was the embodiment of an elite form of culture. Rather than respond to what people were creating as part of their communities, the Whitney mined communities for cultural artifacts to put on display for wealthy patrons. The Arts and Labor statement explained that, “The Whitney Museum, with its system of wealthy trustees and ties to the real estate industry perpetuates a model in which culture enhances the city and benefits the 1% of our society while driving others into financial distress.” Verizon workers represented by the Communication Workers of America had been in their own battles with management. They even went on strike for two weeks in the fall. Tensions were mounting, so they planned A National Day of Action Against Verizon on 22 March. Their call read: Last August, 45,000 Verizon workers went on strike, and they still don’t have a contract. Verizon continues to promote outsourcing and eliminating jobs while paying top corporate executives hundreds of millions of dollars. Thursday, March 22 is a National Day of Action Against Verizon. We will join Verizon workers in cities across the US to stop Verizon’s corporate greed! Stand with Verizon workers and join us! (Communication Workers of America, March 21, 2012)

In NY, there was a picket in front of the Verizon building at 140 West Street, which was sponsored by the Communication Workers of America and the Labor Council. Occupiers attended and built relationships which

180 

M. Holmes

radicalized workers. In the minutes of one of the May Day planning meetings, there’s the note, “CWA actions recently have tried to have this kind of local assembly structure” (May Day Meeting, Feb 4, 2012). The Transportation Workers United was also facing a contract campaign in 2012, which had been stalled by the city. The rank and file was getting restless. In advance of May Day, some had even taken it upon themselves to do some direct action involving the chaining open of subway gates for riders to enter free of charge (Pinto, March 29, 2012). Rank and file asked for OWS to support them, and go to MTA headquarters, as part of a pressure campaign. We went back to Bowling Green chanting, “May Day is coming! May Day is coming!” and “Wall Street, Wall Street, Take a Hike, Now’s the time for a General Strike! Strike! Strike! Strike!” We raised a sign, “This. Is. Just. Practice. May 1st. General Strike,” (Holmes, March 2012a).

Free CUNY The Professional Staff Congress at The City University of New  York (CUNY) was in the midst of its own contract campaign during a round of austerity. The proposed solution from the administration at CUNY was to increase tuition to cover the difference, which would pit faculty and students against one another. Attempting to avoid this division, students and workers mobilized against the budget cuts. Actions at administration buildings in Midtown and in Albany were supported by occupiers. These actions had ripple effects, and even the union president, Barbara Bowen, made a special mention of OWS in a briefing: As hundreds of CUNY students have recognized, the fight against the hollowing out of CUNY is a pivotal fight for the Occupy movement. How can it be that the richest city in the world cannot afford reasonable class sizes or enough full-time faculty for public university students? Join the CUNY students fighting for more public funding, join the union members who are already in the streets demanding tax reform and a fair contract. Supporting other unions’ struggles or Occupy Wall Street is not charity; it is direct participation in a movement that has the potential to affect our contract in the short term, and a much bigger political shift in the long term. (Bowen, March 2012)

16  All Our Grievances Are Connected 

181

To Strike or Not to Strike While the unions appreciated the extra bodies coming to their contract actions, they weren’t necessarily prepared for a general strike. This was a particularly difficult ask for the public sector unions, which were bound by the Public Employees Fair Employment Act, commonly known as ‘The Taylor Law.’ Established in New York in 1967, the law granted public employees the right to organize, and to  have representation. This paved the way for bargaining and increased wages and benefits. However, it included a provision against any strike action. The Transportation Workers United had gone on strike in 2002, but this resulted in over a million dollars in fines. The leadership went to prison for a week (Greenhouse, December 13, 2002). The potential backlash for violating the law, hung over the heads of labor leaders, and they simply were not willing take the risk. It was a delicate balance. They would allow, to some extent, an affiliation with OWS, but they could not appear to be endorsing a strike. This resulted in some mounting tension, as occupiers felt they were being held back by the conservatism of the union leadership. On 4  April, 2012, a beautiful spring day, in Union Square, a press conference was held for the May Day coalition, which showcased Transit Workers United, the Service Employees International Union, and the newly formed Laundry Workers Center. Diego Ibanez, a young Bolivian guy with long hair and a bandana, was there to speak about OWS. He took the podium, and chanted, “El pueblo unido, jamás será vencido!” (The People United Will Never Be Defeated!) and then mic checked, “I know of a place. A place that we all have the keys to. I know of a place. Where your economic class. Does not determine your social worth. I know of a place. Where there is not charity. But radical mutual aid. I know of a place. Where each conversation. Has revolutionary potential. I know of a place. Where a comprehension of the world. Has not been short circuited. I know of a place. Where we have not been blinded and tricked. Into thinking that the world has to be this way. We’ve all felt this place. On May 1. Let’s go to this place together. Let’s not walk there. Let’s march there. Let’s not sit there. Let’s dance there. Workers, students, mothers, brothers, black, black, brown, white, purple, and yellow, we say May 1st! We say May 1st!” He tore off a layer of clothes to reveal General

182 

M. Holmes

Strike written in red across a white t-shirt, and asserted, “We’re not looking at you. We’re looking past you. Let’s all unite. Take the streets!” He raised his fist draped in beads, and the crowd cheered on (Holmes, April 5, 2012b). After the press conference, the Labor Council became uneasy about working with OWS. They attempted to reign in our efforts by incorporating us into their own structure. Sometimes this took the form of offering broke and tired organizers jobs as union staffers. At one point, they invited us to join what they called ‘4 by 4’ meetings, with representatives from all the member unions. They asked us to send our own representatives, but of course, we didn’t have any. This posed a problem. There were decisions being made separately in the 4 by 4 meetings, especially regarding the stage at Union Square, and the permitted march down Broadway. If we didn’t have a presence in these meetings, then we’d be shut out. Opinions varied widely on how to address this. In the end, the May Day planning assembly decided we would all go. Over a hundred of us packed into a 4 by 4 coalition meeting at the Service Employees International Union offices on 9  April, 2012. (T. Angali, personal communication, April 9, 2012). Security was taken aback and waited to get clearance before letting us up. We flooded the meeting to the surprise of the labor leaders present. Some of them seemed amused and waved their hands in the air as if making the occupy ‘twinkling’ hand signal. But we simply could not all fit around one board room table. Thus, the council proposed that we be given a room next door to conduct an assembly. We could have a ‘spoke’ rather than a representative, and they would convey key discussion points from the board room to the assembly. The assembly used a consensus process and relayed the decisions made. The council used majority vote and Roberts Rules of Order but treated our decision reached by consensus as a yes vote. This took several hours, but bizarrely, kind of, worked. The council and the assembly were able to talk to one another and make collective decisions. The problem wasn’t the structure or process. The problem was really in the execution. Afterwards, it became quite obvious that while the Labor Council tolerated us being in the room, they had no intention of actually turning out the base or engaging in direct actions (Amsterdam News, April 5, 2012).

16  All Our Grievances Are Connected 

183

With less than a month before May Day, we were realizing that we were truly on our own. Outreach to rank and file was put in high gear, and a plan was concocted for what became known as ‘99 Pickets’ (99 Picket Lines, April 2012). This involved workers across sectors doing simultaneous actions against targets in Midtown. The coordination spokes council allowed for the nuts and bolts tasks to get ironed out. The action/affinity spokes council provided a more secure space to work out the direct actions.

Student Strike to the Free University There was a growing militant student movement throughout the city, which was especially strong at The City University of New York (CUNY). Conor Tomás Reed, a gender fluid Puerto Rican/Irish descended organizer, was an excellent speaker who could effortlessly generate poetic turns of phrase. They had been part of the NYCGA planning process, and at Liberty Plaza, but decided to dedicate the most time and energy to organizing at CUNY (Thrasher, November 28, 2011). They were able to weave together different parts of the CUNY system, and bridge the concerns of workers and students. In solidarity with OWS, there was Occupy CUNY, that opposed the privatization of public education, militarization, budget cuts, and tuition increases (CUNY Digital History Archive). In November, there was a ‘Student Week of Actions’ including a speak out, a general assembly at the Graduate Center, and student strike. By March, a group that called themselves Autonomous Students at the CUNY Graduate Center had drafted their “Five Theses on the Student Strike” which read: 1. As students, we strike at the heart of an economy that depends on an education system that exploits us, disciplines us, and profits from us. 2. We strike to reject a system that divides us. 3. We strike against a failing system that robs us of our future. 4. We strike to affirm and create education as we want it. 5. We strike to build our collective power and create something new. (Tomás Reed, May 25, 2012).

184 

M. Holmes

From the work at CUNY grew The Free University of New York City, an experiment in radical education building on the historic tradition of movement freedom schools … born out of the conviction that the current system of higher education is as unequal as it is unsustainable, while vast sources of knowledge across communities are all-too-hidden and undervalued.

The opening of this free university was announced for May Day, at Madison Square Park, and included a program with David Graeber, David Harvey, Francis Fox Piven, and other leftist academics as well as classes ranging from Algebra to Drama. It was a chance to bring the university out into the square (Tomás Reed).

Art on Strike

May Day Promotional Poster. 1 May, 2012. OWS M1 Outreach Cluster

16  All Our Grievances Are Connected 

185

The art created in advance of May Day was overflowing with radical left labor history, and revolutionary visions. The collective Strike Everywhere embraced a Russian constructivist aesthetic from the 1920s avant-garde. One poster in black and red showcased a woman yelling out, “STRIKE,” in the shape of a megaphone. It asked, “Who is profiting off your survival?” and asserted, “We don’t need to prop up banks” and “We won’t work for someone else’s profit.” Another poster read, “STOP WORK” in black with “GENERAL STRIKE” in white. Dozens of hand cut-outs were raised from the bottom, accompanied by the text, “OUR HOUSES. OUR BLOCKS. OUR NEIGHBORHOODS.” The OWS Arts Cluster created a poster with bright pastel colors, with a fist raised in the center, from which radiated out: “NO SCHOOL, NO WORK, NO CHORES, NO BANKING, NO SHOPPING.” The trifold circulated with the May Day schedule was a beautiful black and green, with flowers working through the gears of a machine. In hand-­ written letters it read, “MAY DAY STRIKE!” and “Outgrow the Status Quo.” There were also smaller palm-sized flyers by the thousands, printed and distributed by the May Day street team. “May 1st. Global Strike. The Day the Earth Stood Still” read one, with a robot radiating out a beam of light. Another with an abstracted earth exploding into pieces, simply read, “May 1st. Everything Stops” (Tactical Media Files). Through art, occupiers were telegraphing visions of a future. While there were many immediate demands and campaigns, the horizon was always beyond them. We convinced ourselves and many others that May Day was the beginning of a total transformation. Time would stop. Space would turn upside down. The whole world would change after May Day.

May Day, May Day The morning staging area was Bryant Park. It was an early start at 8 am, and there was a light rain, but hundreds had already started to gather for the 99 Pickets (Holmes, May 1, 2012c). Each affinity group held up cardboard signs with their targets, which included Bank of America, Chase, HSBC, General Electric, and others. Lisa was back in a raincoat, and guided us through the coordination, shouting, “We’re gonna line up,

186 

M. Holmes

and make sure there are enough people in each picket, so gather around the sign, sort of in a line.” The 99 Pickets concept was influenced by Lisa’s manual Kicking Corporate Booty (Fithian,  May 2011) which she had originally created for the May 12th Coalition the previous year. It gave practical tips for running corporate campaigns and mapped out headquarters in Midtown. One of the first pickets was against Bank of America, whose corporate headquarters was just across the street at the corner of 6th Avenue and 42nd Street. They had spent tens of millions of dollars remodeling their building with green LEED certified materials, and a bucolic courtyard. As occupiers approached, they were met with a line of cops already blocking the entrance so one of the organizers mic checked, “We will now. Form a legal picket.” Technically, it was legal to be in front of the offices, as long as the crowd kept moving. Thus, an oval was formed, between two people holding cardboard signs. While circling, the refrain began, “Bank of America, Bad for America” and then, “Hey, hey, BOA, who did you foreclose today!” Over at the Chase headquarters on Park Ave, occupiers stormed through the gates. The police seemed taken by surprise and were scrambling to control them as the doors flung open and people flowed in shouting, “Shut down Chase!” Some were trapped inside, and arrested, as batons came out hitting back the crowd. Another target was the News Corporation, which owned Fox News. Over a hundred easily gathered in front chanting, “You say Fox News! We say Fake News.” The news ticker mounted on the side of the building, read in neon lights, “May Day, May Day, May Day, Police set to deal with Occupy crowd that vows to shutdown city today,” (Holmes, May 1, 2012c). Parallel to the pickets, Bryant Park remained a green zone with the people’s kitchen handing out food and water, teach-ins, and performances, including an occupy mime troop. Hundreds more started gathering around noon for the Immigrant Worker Justice Tour, which was already a fixture in May Day celebrations in previous years but received a boost in participation due to OWS. It was headed up by women labor organizers in the front including Rose Bookbinder from United Auto Workers (Bookbinder & Belt, 2012) and Nastaran Mohit working with the newly formed Laundry Workers Center (2012).

16  All Our Grievances Are Connected 

187

First on the tour was Shade Global, where the owner had physically abused a domestic worker. The second was Praesidian Capital, whose CEO owned Hot & Crusty bakery, a NY chain where workers had organized to fight wage theft, and union-busting. Virgilio Aran, who was also with the Laundry Workers Center, mic checked about their campaign against Mark Samson, the CEO, saying, “Last Friday. He hired. A consulting firm. To escort out. The workers. But he was wrong. The workers. Took out the firm. From the workplace. And we want to say today. That we are the 99%!” (Lears, May 1, 2012). Fists waived in the air. The third stop was Wells Fargo. Donald Anthonyson from Families for Freedom, an immigrant support organization, explained, “Last year alone. Two major companies. That run these centers. Made three billion dollars. For detaining immigrants. Who ought to be. With their families!” Then he called on everyone there to divest from Wells Fargo. The crowd continued down 42nd street raising their voices with, “When immigrant rights are under attack, what do you do? Stand up! Fight back!” Then they arrived at their fourth target, Capital Grille/ Darden Group, where immigrant restaurant workers faced wage theft, discrimination, and retaliation. Chipotle was the last stop. The Coalition of Immokolee Farm Workers pressured the company into joining their Fair Food program. “Chipotle! Shame on you! Farm workers deserve rights, too!” shouted the tour, as they linked arms in front of the door (Lears, May 1, 2012). By 2 pm there were thousands back in Bryant Park, and the sun had come out blazing. There wasn’t a plan to get out and move downtown. This dawned on some of us as we watched Tom Morello from Rage Against the Machine with his ‘guitarmy’ of musicians lead a crowd. They were headed toward 5th Avenue rather than 6th Avenue; this was more difficult, because it went with, rather than against, traffic going south. The police followed, and attempted to split the march, but thousands more came, and took the streets, flooding it with guitars raised, giant puppets, and confetti. Running down 5th Avenue was exhilarating, as we outpaced cops. Crossing the Flatiron building, I looked over at Madison Square Park, where thousands more were gathered for the inaugural Free University. Some joined our impromptu feeder march.

188 

M. Holmes

On the north side of Union Square, the mutual aid cluster had set up with free food and clothing for anyone who needed it. This was a welcome sight, especially after running since 8 am. I rested there for a while, soaking up the sun. Meanwhile, on the south side, the May 1st Coalition, and some union partners, had erected a stage, and lined up a whole program of speakers, as well as musicians—Tom Morello, Dan Deacon, Immortal Technique, Das Racist, and Bobby Sanabria. As 5.30  pm approached, it was time for the transition to the permitted union march down Broadway. This was the route they took every year, but normally it was very small with maybe 1000 people attending. This year there were easily 50,000. There were also multiple parallel unpermitted marches happening at the same time on either side in the West Village, and the East Village/ Lower East Side. The DAWG group had created a block long blue banner, with all the May Day points written across it for bystanders. Going down Broadway every window was open with people leaning out cheering us on. By 9 pm all marches had ended in the financial district, where ‘after party’ plans were under way. One action involved converging at 55 Water Street, where a plaza (and POP) stretched between J.P. Morgan Chase, and Standard and Poor’s (the credit rating agency). The Vietnam Veterans Memorial Wall was illuminated in green in front of amphitheater style seating—ideal for assemblies. As the march pivoted by Bowling Green, it was redirected over to Water Street. I wound up there, in front with the occupy banner, as thousands filed in. The police didn’t seem to notice until we had already managed to get inside, but they were circling, and calling for reinforcements. The park was slated to close at 10 pm, so we had a limited window, and needed to decide whether or not to stay and form another occupation. The NYPD crowded around us, and there were few exits. Consensus could not be reached, and many began defecting out of fear. For a while, I thought there were more supporters behind the wall, but I was mistaken. I soon realized I was alone, holding the space until the end. I barely made it out (Holmes, May 1, 2012c). Multiple ‘wildcat’ marches moved through the financial district in the dark, followed closely by blue and white shirt officers in a cat and mouse

16  All Our Grievances Are Connected 

189

game. Some occupiers went to Liberty while others moved to a different privately-owned public space (POP) by the waterfront, but everywhere they went they were blocked or tackled to the ground. A crew of us regrouped on the steps near Chase Plaza, where the fence was still erected and a line of cops posed around the perimeter, with zip ties wrapped around their waists and hands on their guns. One young black woman mic checked, “J.P.  Morgan Chase. Incidentally. Made a multi-million-­ dollar donation. To this police force. I guess their donation. Is working out for them.” She swung her arm around with a sarcastic grin (Holmes, May 1, 2012c). It was clear there would be no occupation that night.

Debriefing The expectations for May Day were incredibly high. There had really never been a general strike in the US and the closest thing resembling one in recent memory, the Day Without Immigrants in 2006, was years in the making. It was always a long shot to achieve a general strike, of any kind. There wasn’t one, and this left many feeling tired and disillusioned. Despite all of this, though, May Day was still a huge success. First, May Day cemented OWS within the history of the radical left. As David Graeber wrote, “Occupy is shedding its liberal accretions and rapidly turning into something with much deeper roots, creating alliances that promise to transform the very notion of revolutionary politics in America,” (May 7, 2012). Second, May Day challenged the labor movement by mobilizing their members. Chris Longenecker, from DAWG, who helped plan May Day pointed out, “There were many union contingents on the march, but none other than the Transportation Workers Union had more than a few dozen marchers each; even TWU fell well short of the 3000 people they estimated that they could turn out. Occupy mobilized the overwhelming majority of protesters” (May 22, 2012). There was a growing workers movement within and beyond the unions but led by rank and file workers. These relationships continued long after May Day.

190 

M. Holmes

References 99 Picket Lines. (2012, April). Sneak Peek at Pickets on #MayDay! #M1GS #ows. https://99picketlines.tumblr.com/post/22091533640/99pkts-­sneak-­ peek-­at-­pickets-­on-­mayday-­m1gs Amsterdam News. (2012, April 5). Unions and Occupy Wall Street Call General Strike. Retrieved August 26, 2022, from https://amsterdamnews.com/ news/2012/04/05/unions-­and-­occupy-­wall-­street-­call-­general-­strike/ Arts and Labor Working Group. (2011, December). Retrieved August 28, 2022, from http://artsandlabor.org/wp-­content/uploads/2011/12/AL-­Statement.pdf Bookbinder, R., & Belt, M. (2012). We Are Many: Reflections on Movement Strategy (p. 267). AK Press. Bowen, B. (2012, March). Questions and Answers on the Contract. Retrieved August 27, 2022, from https://www.psc-­cuny.org/clarion/march-­2012/ questions-­and-­answers-­contract Communication Workers of America. (2012, March 21). Join Us on National Day of Action, Thursday, March 22nd. Retrieved August 27, 2022, from https://district9.cwa-­u nion.org/news/entry/join_us_on_national_day_ of_action_thursday_march_22-­d9 Fithian, L. (2011, May). Kicking Corporate Booty. Self-published. Personal Collection. Graeber, D. (2012, May 7). Occupy’s Liberation from Liberalism: The Real Meaning of May Day. The Guardian. Retrieved August 27, 2022, from https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/may/07/ occupy-­liberation-­from-­liberalism Greenhouse, S.(2002, December 13). The Transit Showdown, The Courts; City Sues to Bar Transit Walkout and Win Damages. NY Times. Retrieved August 27, 2022, from https://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/13/nyregion/ the-­transit-­showdown-­the-­courts-­city-­sues-­to-­bar-­transit-­walkout-­and-­win-­ damages.html Holmes, M. (2012a, March and April). Personal Video and Photo Collection. Holmes, M. (2012b, April 5). OWS May Day Press Conference with Coalition. Retrieved August 27, 2022, from https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=zYEssgGkShg&feature=emb_imp_woyt Holmes, M. (2012c, May 1). Personal Video and Photo Collection. Kimball, W. (2012, February 27). Arts and Labor Calls for an End to the Whitney Biennial, Pranking Follows. Retrieved August 27, 2022, from http://artfcity.com/2012/02/27/arts-­labor-­calls-­for-­an-­end-­to-­whitney-­ biennial-­pranking-­follows/

16  All Our Grievances Are Connected 

191

Laundry Workers Center. (2012, October 26). https://laundryworkerscenter. org/2012/10/hot-­a nd-­c rusty-­w orkers-­t o-­r eturn-­t o-­w ork-­u nder-­n ew-­ ownership-­after-­55-­day-­picket-­against-­store-­closure-­unions-­demands-­met-­ with-­precedent-­setting-­3-­year-­contract/ Lears, R. (2012, May 1). Video. Personal Video and Photo Collection. Longenecker, C. (2012, May 22). Taking Occupy Wall Street from May Day to Every Day. Waging Non-Violence. https://wagingnonviolence.org/2012/05/ taking-­occupy-­wall-­street-­from-­may-­day-­to-­every-­day/. Martin, S.  K. (2011, November 30). Judson Memorial Church Gives Full Support to Occupy Wall Street Movement. Christian Post. Retrieved August 27, 2022, from https://www.christianpost.com/news/judson-­memorial-­ church-­gives-­full-­support-­to-­occupy-­wall-­street-­movement.html Montagne, R., & Ludden, J. (2006, May 1). America Faces ‘A Day Without Immigrants.’ NPR Morning Edition. https://www.npr.org/2006/05/01/ 5372718/america-­faces-­a-­day-­without-­immigrants Moynihan, C. (2012, April 9). Protestors Hold ‘Spring Training’ at Zuccotti Park. NY Times City Room. Retrieved August 27, 2022, from https://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/09/occupy-­wall-­street-­spring-­training/ New York State Public Employees Fair Employment Act—The Taylor Law. Retrieved August 27, 2022, from https://goer.ny.gov/new-­york-­state-­public-­ employees-­fair-­employment-­act-­taylor-­law Occupy CUNY. CUNY Digital History Archive. https://cdha.cuny.edu/collections/show/222 Occupy May 1st General Strike. http://www.tacticalmediafiles.net/classic/ events/4802/Occupy-­May-­1st-­General-­Strike;jsessionid=2B0E2B2DD64E B14000ABA3484601C25B Pinto, N. (2012, March 29). Occupy Wall Street Affiliates Chain Subway Gates Open for Fare Strike. The Village Voice. Retrieved August 27, 2022, from https://www.villagevoice.com/2012/03/29/occupy-­wall-­street-­affiliates-­ chain-­subway-­gates-­open-­for-­fare-­strike/ Schneider, N. (2012, February 15). Occupy Wall Street Calls for May Day General Strike. Waging Non-Violence. Retrieved August 27, 2022, from https://wagingnonviolence.org/2012/02/occupy-­wall-­street-­calls-­for-­may-­ day-­general-­strike/ Tactical Media Files. Occupy May 1st General Strike. Retrieved August 28, 2022, from http://www.tacticalmediafiles.net/classic/events/4802/Occupy-­ May-­1st-­General-­Strike;jsessionid=2B0E2B2DD64EB14000ABA34846 01C25B

192 

M. Holmes

Thrasher, S. (2011, November 28). Conor Tomás Reed, CUNY Teacher and PhD Student, On Being Arrested for Protesting Tuition Hikes. The Village Voice. Retrieved August 29, 2022, from https://www.villagevoice. com/2011/11/28/conor-­tomas-­reed-­cuny-­teacher-­and-­phd-­student-­on-­ being-­arrested-­for-­protesting-­tuition-­hikes/ Tomas Reed, C. (2012, May 25). The City as University: Occupy and the Future of Education. The Indypendent. Retrieved August 29, 2022, from https:// indypendent.org/2012/05/the-­city-­as-­university-­occupy-­and-­the-­future-­of-­ public-­education/ Tomas Reed, C.  Free University Week—1st Annual May Day Course Descriptions. CUNY Digital History Archive. Retrieved August 29, 2022, from https://cdha.cuny.edu/items/show/6332

17 All Roads Lead to Wall Street

We drew on the organizing structure for May Day during the one-year anniversary. There were general meetings, and then break-outs around mobilizing clusters, which included a ‘services’ cluster for tech/media and ‘disruption’ cluster for action planning, among others. May Day had been a call-in to our networks in NYC, but the one-year anniversary, 17 September, 2012 would be an even larger convergence of all occupies, where the movement began. The slogan was, “All Roads Lead to Wall Street” (Mirzoeff, August 16, 2012). We drew again on organizing practices from the GJM very explicitly. During the GJM, there had been a series of mobilizations against World Trade Organization summit meetings, which were successful in stalling and even breaking negotiations entirely (Graeber, 2007). The most notable one was the 1999 meeting in Seattle. The OWS anniversary planning was approached in a similar way to a summit action. Thousands from out of town were invited to participate in a convergence with trainings. This was followed by a mass day of action to shut down the financial district.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 M. Holmes, Organizing Occupy Wall Street, Alternatives and Futures: Cultures, Practices, Activism and Utopias, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-8947-6_17

193

194 

M. Holmes

Montgomery Mansion By the summer of 2012, occupy had ceased to be a hobby or extra-­ curricular activity, and become my life. I spent every day thinking about where the movement was going next, and what to do. As part of this decision to go full on, 24/7, I moved into a collective house in Crown Heights, Brooklyn. There were cracks in the walls, mold, and regular infestations of mice, and cockroaches. But it was huge, with lots of common space, and could fit occasional occupiers staying over. It was dubbed by one of them, ‘Montgomery Mansion.’ My roommate was Austin Guest, a white man in his early 30s, who had a background as a labor organizer. He had quit his day job to, like me, immerse himself in the occupy way of life (Honan, June 15, 2012). We got to know each other throughout the spring during the Union Square occupation and sleep out at the Federal Hall steps. He seemed to have endless energy and was always cooking up creative actions. We would wake up in the morning and have breakfast together—typically dumpstered bagels, peanut butter, and coffee. Then, over the kitchen table, we would get into these long political discussions and strategize. We kept each other going.

Roads There were two emerging poles of OWS that summer: debt and ecology. Inspired by the student strikes in Quebec, which had moved into an actual general, if not social, strike and had shut down the province, there were solidarity actions throughout Lower Manhattan. Often these would leave from Washington Square Park, and then wind around New York University, The New School, and Cooper Union, where a campaign was under way for free education. The marches were largely organized by All in the Red, a student coordinating group, and, like Montreal, demonstrators would wear red squares pinned to their clothes, throw red confetti, and literally paint the town red. Alongside these actions there were debt assemblies organized by Free University, the Occupy Student Debt

17  All Roads Lead to Wall Street 

195

Campaign, and Occupy Theory (Kanuga, May 22, 2012). Hundreds would gather in these spaces, and give testimony about their student, medical, housing, or credit debt, and how it was affecting them. These could be very emotional, as people broke the wall of shame and silence. Just being recognized and seeing that one wasn’t alone was powerful. This is where Strike Debt was born (Holmes, May 2012a). Meanwhile, many occupiers who had come from the environmental justice movement and were part of the Direct Action Working Group (DAWG) took on Spectra Energy, who was building a natural gas pipeline through the West Village. They began with an Unwelcoming Committee march, chanting, “People wake up! This pipeline’s going to blow up!” and wearing raindrop cardboard signs with the wording, “Spectra, go frack yourself.” The campaign against Spectra would escalate with pipeline blockades throughout NY State, and later with blockading the construction site in the West Village (Occupy the Pipeline, Aug 26, 2012). Much of the one-year anniversary planning was drawing on the above two poles, but the action framework made room for anyone who saw Wall Street as the enemy.

Action Frameworks and Agreements During the planning, we looked over the maps of Seattle divided into pie-slices during the WTO convergence in 1999 (Dixon, 1999). We decided a similar process could be used with the NY financial district, placing Wall Street at the center, so we divided the area into thematic ‘zones.’ This allowed for different wings of the occupy movement to bottom-line their own actions and utilize a diversity of tactics. The education zone in the northeast was organized by the Free University and student movement. The debt zone on the southeast was planned by Strike Debt. The eco zone in the south was taken by Occupy the Pipeline. For anything not already covered and for those coming from out of town, there was the 99% zone gathering on the west side and centered around Liberty Plaza.

Planning Map. 17 September 2012. OWS Anniversary Action Cluster

196  M. Holmes

17  All Roads Lead to Wall Street 

197

While there was general consensus for the zones, disagreements emerged within the ‘disruption’ planning over what constituted a disruptive action. One position argued for ‘mass actions’ and bringing in coalition partners such as community-based organizations and other non-profits. This would be clearly non-violent and focused around civil disobedience in the form of sitting down and linking arms around the stock exchange, forming a ‘people’s wall.’ Another position, which I became an advocate of, was to organize in actual affinity groups with more mobile and creative tactics. This became known as ‘the swirl,’ or later ‘99 revolutions’ and consisted largely of ‘flying squads’, which would swarm in and out of financial targets. The tension between these two positions became very heated throughout July and August. Those arguing for the ‘people’s wall’ were much more comfortable with a hierarchal tactical team making decisions for the masses showing up. A cis white man with a background in the environmental movement, became the primary proponent of this, and argued vehemently that we needed police liaisons that would communicate between protestors and police during the action. The idea of police liaisons had been a discussion early on in the planning for the first #S17, and the assembly consented to not having liaisons because they tended to centralize power through negotiation (Schneider, September 18, 2011). The ‘swirl’ was more de-centralized, with affinity groups coordinating with one another. Those in the ‘swirl’ camp tended to be more anarchist and horizontal in their politics, so a tactical dispute overlapped with political differences. This guy from the environmental movement was also just incredibly sexist. He would constantly talk over me, ignore what I said, and had this condescending attitude. I tend not to like being pushed around, especially by men, so I dug in. Austin, to his credit, stepped in to talk to this guy, and forged a compromise (A. Guest, August 3, 2012). A framework was drafted to satisfy all parties involved. This was consented to on 1 August. On the morning of 17 September we would disrupt Wall Street as follows: 1. ASSEMBLY SPACES: Public parks on the periphery of the district will function as green assembly points shared by all action participants. 2. ACTION SPACES: Within the general boundaries of this periphery, there will be the following clearly delineated action spaces:

198 

M. Holmes



(a) A group will amass at the intersections immediately surrounding the New York Stock Exchange and seek to hold space. (b) A group will distribute itself in mobile units throughout the Financial District and seek to circulate between as many intersections as possible. (c) Other groups or individuals may carry out autonomous or mass actions, which will constitute additional delineated spaces in this list. 3. COMMUNICATION STRUCTURES: We will create shared communications structures including an Action Coordination Meeting, an Affinity Group Spokes Council, a sign-up website, and a tactical comms loop that together will:

(a) allow participants to make informed decisions about which of the above spaces best meets their needs (b) facilitate other groups’ and individuals’ ability to generate and recruit for new spaces not yet foreseen by this proposal and to participate in the Action Coordination Meeting and Affinity Group Spokes Council (c) All groups and individuals participating in this framework will agree to abide by the S17 Action Agreement. Action agreements offered guidelines for acceptable behavior in advance of days of action. These were highly influenced by the notion of diversity of tactics, which came from the GJM and the convergence at the Republic National Convention in 2008 (Bray, 2013). Time and space separation would acknowledge tactical and ideological differences in larger mobilizations and avoid open conflict. The agreements we consented to stated: 1. Groups will respect each other’s autonomy to plan their portion of the action as they see fit. 2. Groups will refrain from planning actions that will interfere with the intention of other groups. 3. Groups will seek to maintain healthy, constructive communications up to and including the day of the action. 4. Groups will seek to resolve any apparent conflicts by initiating direct contact with each other. Trust, respect, and trust in respect.

17  All Roads Lead to Wall Street 

199

5. Groups will refrain from disparaging comments about other groups in the press and open OWS meetings. 6. Groups will refrain from marshalling other groups. 7. Groups will refrain from turning other groups into the police. 8. Groups and individuals who take responsibility for inter-group communication or shared resources will be mindful of power dynamics and to observe standing consensus. 9. Groups will respect the agreed upon framework. (A. Guest, personal communication, Aug 10, 2012). For the following month leading up to the anniversary, there was a push to form actual affinity groups. Some would be long term. Some would simply be for the #S17 convergence itself and organized around thematic clusters which mapped into the ‘zones.’ (Anniversary Trifold). There were weekly Affinity Group Spokes Councils to coordinate between the clusters and reach consensus. My affinity group at the time was the Insurrectionary Care Unit. We even made pins with hearts on them.

The Convergence In 2012, 17 September happened to fall on a Monday, which was ideal for disruption, and meant we’d have a whole long weekend in advance to welcome people from out of town. A multi-day convergence took shape with activities planned for Saturday, Sunday, and Monday. Saturday revolved around a town-square-inspired set up in Washington Square Park. Throughout the day, there were teach-ins related to each thematic zone, so out-of-towners could find each other, learn about problems they cared about, and choose who they wanted to do actions with. To get everyone moving Lisa led a team of occupiers in a direct-action training. Austin began by asking, “Who knows what affinity means? Trust, likeness. Shared political beliefs, tactics you want to do together.” He asked who present was already in an affinity group. Over half the crowd raised their hands. Those who were not in an affinity group could still join the thematic clusters for debt, education, ecology, or the 99% zone. Monica took the eco zone. She playfully explained, “What will come out of your next break out is the name of your affinity group. It could be

200 

M. Holmes

anything, right? It could be the wild kangaroos, or trees on fire. It could be anything.” Then, she urged them to think about how many ‘arrestables’ (those able and willing to risk getting arrested) they had, and what tactics they might use to “take the space.” There were multiple targets. “We’re all going to go to the Stock Exchange, or to a building, or to a wall, whatever that is, and you have to figure out how you’re going to do that,” she said. “Are you going to use a flying squad? Are you going to do a dance? Are you going to move in slow motion? Are you going to be zombies? Whatever it is. How are we going to move through space together, and take that space?” Tactical maps of the financial district with zones were distributed for break-outs. New affinity groups formed such as ‘occupella’ singing their way around the stock exchange, “anti-war,” “rebels,” “occupy faith” breaking down the walls of Jericho, and “best coast” hailing from the West Coast. Lisa ended the training with a simulation of the actions discussed. The crowd stood up, and marched along until Lisa shouted, “Freeze. Look around. Is this what you want? Is this how you want to be?” They were in a loose line, with some linking arms. “How do you know how to move?” Someone answered, “We have a signal ahead of time!” Lisa continued, “Yes. What kind of signal would you want for the 99 cluster?” A young boy, who looked like he couldn’t have been more than eight years old, was attending with his mother, and suggested, “Maybe we could like bang on something” and rammed his fist into his hand. Lisa nodded, and added, “I’ve been liking the idea of a gong like the people’s gong. Gong! Gong!” The boy smiled and swung his arm around playing the part. “There was a march that came already in a wall. Did you all see that? You think that marching group might hit a police line? Those of you who hit that police line, what did you do?” asked Lisa. The kid in the crowd exclaimed, “punched them!” Lisa half smiled, and told him to come up, and asked, “Did you punch a cop?” She brought him under her arm warning, “Even though he’s little, they’re going to take him away.” This served as a lesson on the importance of strategic nonviolence. Her tone shifted and became more serious as she asserted, “For real though, punching a cop can be a felony. We’re trying to not spend our lives in prison.” Flowing from the simulation there was a legal training, initiated by Mark Adams (who had spent some time in prison for occupy already). The Mutant Legal Collective (formed out of the OWS Legal Working

17  All Roads Lead to Wall Street 

201

Group) would be covering support for anyone arrested. Mark laughed, and told the crowd, “Unlike on Law and Order they don’t read you your rights. That’s only on TV.  They will never ever read you your rights,” (Holmes, September 15, 2012b).

Happy Birthday On the morning of #S17, thousands gathered around assembly spaces in each zone. I headed to the debt zone. It was a sea of black and red (anarcho-­ communist colors) with many sporting red squares pinned to their shirts. The cluster began with an attempt at reaching the stock exchange, which was, as anticipated, blockaded by lines of police. We immediately transitioned into ‘the swirl’ and moved fluidly in flying squads around Water Street. This was flexible and effective. We went into the lobbies of Bank of America and Chase, reading out proclamations and throwing confetti. The education cluster joined with us from the north, and we took to the streets dancing. To the south, the eco cluster was gathering at the bull, and brought the “storm” to Wall Street with its own mobile tactics. Meanwhile, the people’s wall took the 99% cluster, and sat down near Broadway and Wall, before ever reaching the stock exchange. Midday I facilitated an affinity group spokes council gathered at Battery Park to celebrate the disruption that had been done so far, have lunch provided by the people’s kitchen, and plan next steps. The sun was out, and energy was high, so each cluster kept rolling through the afternoon, hitting Chase Plaza on the East Side, and Goldman Sachs on the West Side, at times joyously crashing into one another and swelling in numbers. The whole financial district was tied up in knots, and the police were trying to catch up. De-centralized actions generated a productive chaos that was difficult for the police to control. By nightfall, there had been over a hundred arrests, largely from ‘the people’s wall.’ The event was closed out with an assembly at Liberty Plaza. I was asked to help facilitate and opened by leading a round of “Happy Birthday Occupy!” before a giant sheet cake was unveiled, cut up, and distributed in the crowd (Holmes). I wished that occupy would go on, and that what we had experienced thus far was only the beginning.

202 

M. Holmes

Photo of One Year Anniversary Assembly. Zuccotti Park, New York City. 17 September 2012. Giles Clarke

References Anniversary Trifold. Paper. Bray, M. (2013). Translating Anarchy: The Anarchism of Occupy Wall Street (p. 222). Zero Books. Dixon, C. (1999). Organizer’s History. https://www.shutdownwto20.org/ what-­happened Graeber, D. (2007). The Shock of Victory. Published in “Rolling Thunder: An Anarchist Journal of Dangerous Living”, number 5 by the CrimethInc. Ex-Workers’ Collective. https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/david-­graeberthe-­shock-­of-­victory A.  Guest (personal communication, Aug 10, 2012). Revised Action Framework for S17. Holmes, M. (2012a, May). Personal Video and Photo Collection. Holmes, M. (2012b, September 15 and 17). Personal Video and Photo Collection.

17  All Roads Lead to Wall Street 

203

Honan, E. (2012, June 15). Austin Guest, Occupy Activist, Creates Zuccotti-­ Like Existence in His Apartment Occupy Movement Drifts from Tents to Kitchen Tables. Reuters. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/austin-­guest-­ occupy_n_1599214 Kanuga, M. (2012, May 22). We Didn’t Know It Was Possible, So We Did It: The Quebec Student Strike Celebrates Its 100th Day. Jadaliyya. https://www. jadaliyya.com/Details/26018 Mirzoeff, N. (2012, August 16). All Roads Lead to Wall Street. http://www. nicholasmirzoeff.com/O2012/2012/08/16/all-­roads-­lead-­to-­wall-­street/ Occupy the Pipeline Blogspot. (2012, August 26). Spectra Showdown Heats Up. http://occupythepipeline.blogspot.com/search?updated-­max=2012-­09-­ 04T23:20:00-­07:00&max-­results=7&start=48&by-­date=false Schneider, N. (2011, September 18). Personal Video and Photo Collection.

18 Occupy the World Social Forum

In North Africa, the Middle East, and Europe, movements continued throughout 2012 and into 2013. At the beginning, there were some loose connections between these movements, but no formal coordination or structure. As one step toward long-term international coordination, there were convergences of Occupy, 15M, and Revolutionary Youth Movements in Tunisia and Egypt. These happened around Agora 99  in Madrid, Spain, the European Social Forum (ESF) in Florence, Italy, and the World Social Forum (WSF) in Tunis, Tunisia. Marina Sitrin claims of the 2011 movements, “Horizontalidad, horizontality, and horizontalism are words that encapsulate the ideas upon which many of the social relationships and political interactions in the new global movements are grounded” (2012). I agree, and will add some detail on how the connections developed, and what specifically the practices were.

Agora 99 I attended Agora 99, held in Madrid 1–4 November 2012, as an emissary from OWS. The convergence was planned primarily by 15M and German Bloccupy networks, but it drew organizers from Italy, Greece, Portugal, © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 M. Holmes, Organizing Occupy Wall Street, Alternatives and Futures: Cultures, Practices, Activism and Utopias, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-8947-6_18

205

206 

M. Holmes

and the UK. It was designed to be a Europe-wide transnational conversation (Agora99) held in the recently established social centers all over the city. The opening session was at the Espacio Sociocultural Liberado Autogestionado (EKO), a self-managed squat run by the Popular Assembly of Carabanchel. EKO had started in 2011, when organizers with 15M decided to end their occupation at Puerta del Sol, move to the neighborhoods, and build power from below. It was an impressive multi-floor industrial building that housed a café, library, free store, and assembly space. Hundreds of people gathered in the drafty third floor where an Agora flag hung from exposed rafters (Holmes, January 3, 2013a). There was a roundtable at the beginning, with two facilitators—a white man and a white woman from 15M—who helped guide the discussion and provide some grounding for the weekend. First, a young white man from the German Bloccupy network, sporting a black hoodie, described what was meant by crisis. He said, “the crisis is usually labeled as a financial crisis, euro crisis, but to us there are multiple crises.” He spoke of the crisis of capitalism, the ecological crisis, and the crisis of legitimacy of political systems. He saw all these as connected and pointed to ways those in power were responding, attempting to contain revolt with green capitalism and increasing authoritarianism. He asked, “What are the tools to struggle in the current situation?” and admitted, “Of course, there is no final answer that we can present to you, but we think we have to discuss and create structures in which we can consciously, and as a community, decide how to organize the way we are living together.” He pointed to democratization, socialization, and self-administration, and proclaimed, “We have to discuss the democratization of all spheres of life.” A white woman with dark hair from Italy spoke elaborately on the economy. She stated, “We see how today the real economy and the financial economy and the economy of the debt… they are just one thing. They cannot be distinguished anymore.” She gave an historical overview of the Fordist and post-Fordist economy, and the process of financialization. She traced how this contributed to increasing precarity among workers, as well as new enclosures and new forms of production. She pointed out how capitalism still needed some consumers and encouraged taking on large amounts of personal debt. This logic had been extended to the nation state. She said, “We think that debt, as a tool to neutralize

18  Occupy the World Social Forum 

207

democracy, has to be seen not only in terms of formal democracy but even [in terms of ] subjective perception…of having the right to say something about our lives.” She was very optimistic about the new movements in the crisis and saw some common ideas and practices between them. Primarily, she drew from her experience in Italy, “Firstly, this struggle of the students in Italy has been the struggle inside the crisis. The crisis has been the topic of the movement even originally if it was students… and started from education. Secondly, it has been very present from the beginning the awareness of the emptiness of the traditional form of political decision. Thirdly, this movement has brought new social actors on the scene that are the direct result of impoverishment.” She saw in this the beginnings of a new discourse, an articulation of a struggle to reclaim the commons (Holmes, November 2, 2012a). The conference organizers framed the event around debt, democracy, and rights (Agora 99, program). I participated in the debt and democracy axes. The debt axis was largely comprised of groups from the International Citizens Audit Network. They were doing research on debt audits and interested in mobilizing for jubilees, in which debt would be forgiven en masse. The democracy axis reflected the interests of 15M commissions, assemblies, and the occupy groups. Mostly the discussion revolved around building a transnational, if not global, constituent process from below. Rather than through an electoral process, or taking the state, there was an emphasis on developing our own program and ideas collectively, and reimagining what a political subjectivity could mean. Each axis met throughout the course of the weekend and developed statements and roadmaps for action (Holmes, November 3, 2012a). During the closing assembly, notes were drawn up at the front on a chalkboard. The agenda included report backs, axis declarations, proposals for action, a discussion on the upcoming European general strike on 14 November, as well as announcements. Translation to English, Spanish, Italian, German, and French was set up in different sections of the room, which was a bit ad hoc, but worked. A young white man from the Facilitation Commission of 15M motioned to the edges of the assembly and encouraged the creation of pathways for people to walk to the front and take turns speaking. He

208 

M. Holmes

began humbly by taking the mic and saying, “I will try to facilitate the assembly, the meeting. I’ll try to do my best. We will try to copy more or less the methodology we used in the Sol meetings.” By Sol, he meant Puerta del Sol, the square in the center of Madrid where 15M began. Then he proceeded to go over hand signals very similar to those used in OWS, which were what he called the ‘signs.’ He raised his hand and waved it back and forth as if it were twinkling and said, “This is I agree.” Then he moved his hand over his face in a circular motion and said, “This is— maybe it’s not a good idea but I’m not going to block it.” Then he crossed both arms in front of his chest, and explained, “Another one is, I don’t agree at all.” One sign involved both hands moving on top of one another and meant, “If you are speaking too much, please move forward.” He kept going saying, “There’s many more like this one,” as he raised his right hand in a fist, and explained, “this means please take care of gender.” He encouraged the assembly to use these signs whenever was appropriate. He gave some additional background on the process they had developed saying, “In Sol, I was in these really crowded meetings. I was also in the facilitation group, and it was really complicated because there were a lot of people that wanted to speak.” This required being flexible and inclusive. He stressed, “We are climbing the same mountain, but in different ways. Let’s realize the things we have in common. Conflict here is also important, but we are trying to put things in terms we can all understand so we can work together.” Each axis was given time to present their declarations. A tall white woman from Barcelona with long dark hair, Emma Aviles, took the mic. She mentioned that she was part of Plataforma Auditoría Ciudadana de la Deuda (Citizens Debt Audit Platform, PACD) in Barcelona, and reported back from the debt axis. She stated  resolutely, “We have to link the European policies with the global struggles.” She stressed the direct link between the mechanisms of debt, and argued they were similar across countries. “We thought it strategic to start pointing out the power structures that define the policies of banking, corporate power, and international financial organizations. We thought it interesting also to work on a social pedagogy, teaching, and translating complex policies to better

18  Occupy the World Social Forum 

209

understand and gain more awareness of these issues and to produce a unified message at the international level that reflects the different contexts,” she stated. “We think it’s all connected. We can’t talk about debt without talking about how democracy is being emptied, and how these are impacting our rights,” she ended. Communication tools were needed to bring them all together. A young white woman with blonde hair from Germany reported back about the democracy axis stating, “We were talking in the democracy workshop and democracy group about ‘constituent process’, which led to some questions because there was an issue with people misunderstanding the difference between constituent process and constitutions. We just wanted to start by stating that by constituent process we don’t mean constitution, and we don’t need to go back to the state or anything like this.” The anti-state position was very clear. She explained that they had many proposals but had tried to synthesize them a bit. First, there was an emphasis on the process of direct democracy through a virtual tool. She insisted, “We would have to create a tool that would allow us to communicate.” This tool, she said, would be used to create a document like a “charter of the commons”. “We called it different things like a wiki charter or letter… Through this charter we could first point to the common enemies, let’s say, but also things that we share in our different countries and our different movements. And it would be very participative. Everyone could share and input information on that,” she concluded. A white man from Spain with long dark hair and a plaid jacket reported for the rights axis. There were many different workshops in this axis on issues including militarization, fracking, and abortion access, among others. It was difficult to summarize all the proposals, but he wanted to be more precise, and said, “Debate can be useful but it’s always just a first step. We need to build up and generate from below the rights. What we need is a kind of program to build up starting from this point. What we think could be useful in this sense is to open up a collaborative space of struggles which can be in the framework of reclaiming the commons, as the comrade said before. Like the universal basic income could be a point of advance of what we can ask for toward a redistributed wealth in this

210 

M. Holmes

society. And in order to do this we think that networks are really important. They can be used in a strong way to build up this movement. This can be on Twitter, on Facebook etc.” The centrality of digital media and communication tools was very apparent. Every group indicated as a primary step creating mailing lists, twitter accounts, collaborative writing pads, and other ways of communicating. This would enable networking transnationally, and even globally, and lay the groundwork for resistance to the debt system, direct and participatory political participation, and eventually another society. There was a great deal that was shared, across contexts, and came naturally in this closing assembly. It was understood as just the beginning of longer process of change. During the time for announcements, Ludavica Rogers (Vica), a young white woman from Italy who was living in the UK and part of Occupy London, mentioned a meeting in Florence, the European Social Forum, Firenze 10 +10 from  8–11 November 2012 saying, “There are groups from here going there participating as part of the debt, water, and commons discourses so it will be a very interesting moment to have some cross overs between this meeting, that meeting, and global struggles.” She calmly explained, “We would like to bring an assembly to the forum. We consider it an important moment to interact with groups that have been working for a long time on issues that we’re talking about and we would also like to interact with the local community of Florence so a group of us would like to organize an assembly in one of the squares in Florence.” She made the intention to avoid confrontation clear when elaborating, “We don’t want to go there and say like you do things like this and we do things like that. It’s just a moment of sharing how we work and the practices that we use to allow a different type of dialogue that will not be happening in the forum itself,” (Holmes, November 4, 2012a). This would be a step toward planning also for the World Social Forum in Tunisia the following spring. Anyone from Agora 99 was invited to come along and join them for the European Social Forum. The message from Agora 99 sent to the Firenze 10+10 organizing in advance of attending read as follows:

18  Occupy the World Social Forum 

211

• We need to open the process to a broader spectrum of participants, to individuals instead of organizations, not only to activists but to inhabitants of the place and other individuals, to non-professionals. • We need to finish with the vision of experts and leaders informing an audience of listeners, open the debate for participation of the people present in each workshop. • We need an horizontal decision process, to focus on problems and solutions and sharing this knowledge, to promote the reproductivity and viral expansion of actions, and to promote initiatives that don’t need good economic conditions to work finely (self-management, easy to copy and non-dependence on NGOs public funding). • We need to radicalize and strengthen both our positions against the current system (economic, political…) and the democratic character of our methodologies (Global Square, November 2012).

Photo of Monopoly Man Dictator Sticker. Madrid, Spain. 14 November 2012. Marisa Holmes

212 

M. Holmes

Firenze 10+10 After talking with Vica, I decided on a whim, to extend my trip, and head to Florence. The European Social Forum, called Firenze 10+10, was held in a medieval fortress on the edge of the city tucked away in the Tuscan hills (Wainwright, November 30, 2012). There was a large round wall made of stones and the remnants of a moat. One had to cross over by bridge, in order to attend workshops. Long red banners lined the interior for the various thematic areas such as education, ecology, and debt. Non-profits, unions, and various socialist sects had tables assembled with newspapers, buttons, and other merchandise. In the middle, there was a white and green map with the title Firenze 10+10. I signed in and I was given a badge for admittance. A dozen or so Agora 99 participants had made it there was well. Our plan was to work within the European Social Forum as much as possible, push it to adopt the positions and practices of new movements from 2011, and engage beyond it in the streets (Transnational Institute, November 28, 2012). During a plenary, there was a test of how far the forum could stretch beyond its typical ways of operating. The thematic convergences had produced texts that were then synthesized in a committee, but the committee was made up of 90% men, who were over 50. They did not adequately take into account everything that was being said. In short, they utilized their power and position as organizers in the forum, to water down the text, and were not democratic. This left many participants bitter and frustrated, and there was a break-out to discuss our next steps. A middle-aged white woman from Portugal, with dark hair and glasses, spoke about the lack of attention to women. She contended, “It is important to finish this meeting with common documents, and common agenda and so on… About the women’s issues and feminism. This was discussed in working groups. I think it’s not a problem to have clear the correction of the women’s situation, about the importance of a feminist Europe… I think it should be in the documents because it’s a consensus we had [in] the last days.” Then a young black man from Denmark named Yannick, who was part of the Socialist Youth Front, added, “We need to rephrase the way that its written in the sense that we have to include sexism and heterosexism and feminist issues. We have to have a statement on debt. It’s not just some of the debt we want gone. It’s all of the debt. If we go in and say just some of

18  Occupy the World Social Forum 

213

the debt, our negotiation position will be a lot weaker. We’ll end up having just 1% of the debt canceled and the rest we’ll have to pay. We should say no debt. Otherwise, we’ll be in such a weak position.” An older white man in the circle interjected with, “What I think, which has been criticized maybe, is an alternative to this … presenting very concrete demands which concern the jobless, the working people all over Europe, which everyone can understand, but which are an expression of our theoretical viewpoints, of our theoretical frame.” He went on about lists of demands and the need for vanguards in Europe, like the Greek left political party SYRIZA. Emma from PACD was getting increasingly irritated with him and responded, “I’m in the debt audit group. We are auditing the debt because we don’t want to pay the debt that is illegitimate. We’re not demanding that anyone do that for us. We want to do it ourselves, so please stop using the word, demand, demand, demand!” She threw her hands up in the air (Holmes, November 10, 2012b). In response to criticisms, the forum organizers agreed to meet, and re-­ write the documents to read more inclusively. In a tightly packed room with dozens of people reflecting different convergences and movements, there was an attempt to develop some shared understandings of practices. Those of us present from 15M and occupy found ourselves in the position of educating the forum about process. While this forum had been developed during the GJM, and claimed to be horizontal on paper, they were still tied to institutional models like non-profits and trade unions, and more centralized ways of making decisions. They worked more in organizational coalitions than with individuals and networks. The assembly was difficult for them to wrap their minds around but, to their credit, they made some effort. The result better reflected everyone’s positions (Holmes, November 10, 2012b). As the forum came to a close, an announcement was made for our event Occupy Firenze 99 (November 10, 2012). There was a website, social media accounts, and a hashtag. Posters had been made and plastered around the fortress walls. Everyone in the forum was invited, if they were daring enough, to leave the fort and go out into the piazzas. That night Occupy Firenze 99 met in city center, near the forum after party. Occupy London folks went around mic-checking in Italian and English, and we began to assemble in a circle and go around. Participants came

214 

M. Holmes

from the UK, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Greece, Norway, and the Netherlands. It was a true cross-section of different 15M and occupy experiences throughout Europe (Holmes, November 10, 2012b). A white woman dressed all in black, with curly red hair, and from 15M in Barcelona, offered to facilitate. Speaking into the megaphone she said, “Now we are going to introduce the signs for the assembly, and I can’t do it on my own, so this is going to be my assistant.” She pointed to the young man standing next to her and laughed as he stood up. “Raising your hand like that is volunteering,” she joked and then said, “No, it means that I agree.” He waved his hands down, and she said, “I don’t agree.” “Technical point” she added as the assistant made a “T” with his hands. “Technical point is when someone is asking a question about something that can be solved, and someone else has the solution already there.” She went through a few more as well such as the wrap-up and motion to speak louder, and the block. She said, “You know, there’s this social forum here in Firenze. It has been taking place the last three days. We thought we could do something like that more or less in our methodology, our own way to participate. Just encouraging people to participate, to share thoughts, to share experiences. The facilitation group has thought about three questions we should discuss … what kind of future we would like, what should we be doing to build it, and from what experiences can we learn?” Then the assembly broke into smaller groups with whisper translation, where participants wrote out their answers. With all three questions, autogestión (self-­ management) was written at the top. There was also an emphasis on local neighborhood level organizing, and a different relationship to the environment. The future and present were nearly indistinguishable, as people spoke about making the alternative to capitalism in the here and now. Argentina was mentioned as an example to draw from. To close, the facilitators made a large circle again. In 15M at Sol, they would raise their hands up over their heads and wave them around while remaining absolutely quiet for 30 seconds. This would often be followed by the chant, “They don’t represent us!” The facilitators from 15M explained that this was a silent scream against the system of representation, and they asked everyone to raise their hands. Across the circle, people of different nationalities and experiences followed along, and then erupted in cheers.

18  Occupy the World Social Forum 

215

The World Social Forum

Photo of Global Square. Announcement Board. Tunis, Tunisia. 27 March 2013. Marisa Holmes

Inspired by the wave of revolutions and uprisings that began in Tunisia in 2010, the World Social Forum had come to the capital, Tunis from 26–30 March 2013. (Hyatt, December 13, 2012). Notably, it was the first convergence of the World Social Forum to be held in an Arab country. For months, there were preparatory meetings in which the logistics and programming were discussed. The last point in the program guidelines stated that the World Social Forum was working, “for a collective reflection on social movements, on the meaning of new struggles and on the World Social Forum process itself, the perspectives and strategies for the future, so as to guarantee the effective fulfillment of another possible and urgent world for everyone”(Holmes, April 22, 2013c). Those of us who had been part of these ‘new struggles’ had met at Agora 99 and Firenze 10+10 and decided to organize a response. We called ourselves Global Square. In the lead-up to the World Social Forum (WSF), we connected via e-mail, pads,

216 

M. Holmes

and series of mumble meetings (Global Square). Our stated purpose was to work “toward, around, and beyond the WSF” (Global Square). Both the European Social Forum and The World Social Forum were born from the GJM. In 2000, at the height of the GJM movement, activists attempted to shut down the World Economic Forum at Davos but were derailed by the Swiss government. In light of this defeat, a coalition of Brazilian organizations with ties to the Workers Party and activists from ATTAC-France stepped away from direct confrontations and opted for a counter-summit in the global south in which NGOs, trade unions, and social movements would come together. The first World Social Forum was held in Porto Allegre, Brazil, in 2001—inspired, in part, by the Zapatistas’ encuentro (encounter) meetings. Thousands of people came, twice as many as expected, and they self-organized with an open-space methodology. After that, a charter was written outlining the World Social Forum’s purpose, which included being an open, de-centralized, non-party, and non-governmental space for cross-cultural exchange of experiences. There was a desire to extend the planning process to other groups. According to sociologist Immanuel Wallerstein, “What the first WSF demonstrated was that the forum model of horizontal discussion among movements worked and had positive political consequences” (2012). In subsequent years, the World Social Forum became more institutionalized and less horizontal. A coordinating body called the International Council was formed with representatives from over 100 NGOs and trade unions. This became the de facto steering committee of the World Social Forum. The forum continued to meet regularly and grew in attendance, but it faced many challenges. Hosting tens of thousands of people from across the globe required mobility, coordination, cooperation of local governments, and financial resources. As a result, organizations with ties to governments and access to large sums of corporate money were able to play a major role in the forum. This also meant that social movements— especially those that had radical critiques or came from impoverished communities—were left with less leverage in the process. At the 2007 World Social Forum in Nairobi, Kenya, for instance, there were protests against its inaccessibility (Mbatia & Indusa, 2012). The venue was located far outside the city, and the gates were guarded with

18  Occupy the World Social Forum 

217

military force. The radio transistors meant for translation did not work. Worst of all, the cost for entry was too high for most Kenyans to afford, and the fees for vendors precluded local businesses while favoring corporate contractors, including Coca-Cola. Over the years, some progress has been made with regard to entry fees and translation, but the forum remained a contested space. Members of the International Council also had criticisms of how it operated. Chico Whitaker, for instance, one of the founders of the forum, had become one of the most prominent critics. He wrote a series of proposals for the International Council (IC) to review in preparation for Tunis, and argued, “As a body that does not “direct” the Organizing Committees of each Forum, but exists above them, the IC carries with it an ambiguity that creates a permanent tension on the non-directivity of the process.” Then he stated, “What I would like to propose is radical: in our next meeting, on the occasion of the WSF in Tunis in March 2013, decide to dissolve the IC.” He then went even further and asked for the new movement of movements to step up. He stated, “The New Movement could even incorporate them (the IC) into its own strategy” (Whitaker, February 12, 2013).

Tunis The World Social Forum was held at the University El Manar just outside the city limits. A sprawling archipelago of buildings cordoned off with an imposing green gate, the campus resembled more a military compound than a site of learning. Tunisian workers with WSF badges stood guard asking for passes. To ensure everyone admission, we pooled together what resources we could and shared. Once inside, we attempted to check in with some of the conference organizers. Global Square made contact with the commissions established by the International Council before the forum began. We were promised space for our events, tents, translation assistance, and a free sound system. But none of this materialized. Without even a place to meet, we decided to occupy. In the Climate Space there were socially responsible and eco-friendly workshops sponsored by Petrobras, the Brazilian oil giant. The workshop

218 

M. Holmes

led by Mova Brasil, a literacy project for young people and adults, for instance, was developed in direct partnership with Petrobras. The contradictions were incredible, and it seemed a logical place to set up camp. We noticed tents that had been provided to the forum by the Saudi Royal Kingdom and UNHCR, the UN refugee agency, were just laying out in plain view ready to be liberated. We began assembling poles, hammering stakes, and lifting up canvas. Some Tunisian students came over and asked us what we were doing and offered to help. They inquired, “Where is the base of it? The base is the other side?” A Turkish activist insisted, “No, no. This has to go on the outside.” Dozens of people joined in under the tent laughing and cooperating. Vica joked, “We don’t need translation here!” (Holmes, March 27, 2013b). Then, the pole in the middle went up, the tent was raised, and everyone cheered with great excitement. An outreach operation came together, and we marched through the forum, up to the gates, encouraging people to join, and shouting, “We are having a general assembly at 4 pm over there! A global square!” in English, Spanish, Italian, and Arabic. The assembly took shape with a circle of white chairs, and Rami Brahem, a Tunisian writer and organizer with dark hair, was in the middle facilitating. He explained, “We are global square. We are having an assembly here. What is an open assembly? It is an open space where everyone has the right to speak and give his view, and we can decide all together what we want.” A white woman from Occupy London elaborated saying, “We’ll have someone facilitating and another person taking notes of who wants to speak. This way we will have some sort of order so everyone gets to say what they want to say. Rami is facilitating and I will be looking at everybody to see who wants to speak next. Do you understand?” She raised her hands, and everyone waved their hands along with her nodding. A middle-aged, larger man with glasses took the mic, and said, “I am here because this international event is in Tunis, in Tunisia, and I’m Tunisian. I can’t travel to America. I can’t travel to Britain. I can’t travel to Europe, because of capitalist policies, because there is a rich world and a poor world.” A younger man said, “I was part of the revolution in Tunisia, and I got tortured twice. I’m here to just find people like me who want to change the world. We must just find a way to take our ideas to other people, and that’s it.” A young Tunisian woman said, “We have to share

18  Occupy the World Social Forum 

219

information, share power. There is no hierarchy. There is a question of how to make an alternative system to make it easy to make decisions. We have to follow methods like we have here.” Our occupied square, while a bit haphazard was a truly open space for cross-cultural dialogue. We could handle translation ourselves because we were an international group; every day we held open assemblies with translation on an as-needed basis and that seemed to work. We held workshops on facilitation, tactical media and open assemblies in which anyone could speak regardless of organizational affiliation. Rami explained to me, “During this time at the World Social Forum you are invited to conferences, where a man, rarely a woman, over 60  years, moves and speaks for three hours while you’re supposed to sit there, listening to them talk about things that you generally already know. There is one exception in this forum,” he added, “and that is a small open space hosted by a group called Global Square, composed of people who share a common ideal they call ‘horizontality.’” The idea and the practice were indistinguishable. After the World Social Forum, the International Council began a series of meetings to plan the future. The meetings were held at the Hotel Majestic on Avenue de Paris in downtown Tunis. After experiencing the forum, I wanted to see its organizers in person. I made my way there on foot, dodging pushcarts, and train cars. An example of art nouveau architecture, the Hotel Majestic had curved corners and sweeping terraces. A banner was draped elegantly over the entrance that read “Forever Majestic.” After entering, I was led by a security guard to the conference room. The room was arranged so that all International Council members were in the center around a boardroom table draped in white fabric and lit by chandeliers. It was made clear that only members could speak; the rest of us could merely observe. At this meeting there were hours of speeches by representatives of various trade unions and Non-Governmental Organizations who all expressed their disappointment with not getting what they wanted out of the forum. Then Chico Whitaker spoke, and delivered his proposal—his self-­ described “bomb”—to dissolve the International Council and incorporate some lessons from the new movements of 2011. The facilitator cut him off, announced a lunch break and explained that the International

220 

M. Holmes

Council members would eat first, followed by the rest of us. After the break, council members said that they would, in fact, allow people other than themselves to take turns speaking, but there was limited time. Some participants in Global Square got on stack, and they were placed at the very end and given three minutes each to speak. Saif, a 15-year-old Tunisian man who had been coming to Global Square, said, “I just have one question: Why do the capitalists have an anti-capitalist forum?” The International Council did not respond. They made vague statements concerning the critiques and then they went on with business as usual. They formed committees in which there was much discussion, but the only decision made was to meet again in six months at a location yet to be determined (Holmes, April 22, 2013c).

References Global Square. (2012, November). Occupy Firenze 99. Retrieved July 30, 2022, from https://www.global-­square.net/reports/occupyfirenze99-­a-­self-­ managed-­assembly-­during-­firenze-­1010/ Holmes, M. (2012a, November 2, 3, 4). Personal Video and Photo Collection. Holmes, M. (2012b, November 10). Personal Video and Photo Collection. Holmes, M. (2013a, January 3). Debt v. Democracy: A Battle for the Future. Truthout.org. Retrieved July 30, 2022, from https://truthout.org/articles/ debt-­versus-­democracy-­a-­battle-­for-­the-­future/ Holmes, M. (2013b, March 27). Personal Video and Photo Collection. Holmes, M. (2013c, April 22). Why We Occupied the World Social Forum. Waging Non-violence. Retrieved September 8, 2022, from https://wagingnonviolence.org/2013/04/why-­we-­occupied-­the-­world-­social-­forum Hyatt, J. (2012, December 13). Tunisia Gears Up to Host the World Social Forum. https://www.commondreams.org/news/2012/12/13/tunisia-­gears-­ host-­world-­social-­forum Mbatia, W., & Indusa, H. on behalf of the People’s Parliament. (2012). The World Social Forum 2007: A Kenyan Perspective. World Social Forum: Critical Explorations. OpenWord. ISBN: 978-81-904808-2-6. Sitrin, M. (2012). Everyday Revolutions: Horizontalism and Autonomy in Argentina. Zed Press.

18  Occupy the World Social Forum 

221

Transnational Institute. (2012, November 28). Voices from Firenze 10+10. Transnational Institute. Retrieved July 30, 2022, from https://www.youtube. com/watch?v=Qbd_rgcWZQA Wainwright, H. (2012, November 30). Firenze 10+10 and the Changing Character of Power. Transnational Institute. Retrieved July 30, 2022, from https://www.tni.org/en/article/firenze-­10-­10-­and-­the-­changing-­character-­ of-­power Wallerstein, I. (2012). The World Social Forum: Great Successes, Shaky Future, Passe? World Social Forum: Critical Explorations. OpenWord. ISBN: 978-81-904808-2-6. Whitaker, C. (2013, February 12). World Social Forum: Space or Movement? Thinking about the WSF International Council Future in New Perspectives. Comissão Brasileira Justiça e Paz (CBJP). Retrieved August 25, 2022, from http://chicowhitaker.net/artigo_eng.php?artigo=44. Retrieved August 25, 2022 from https://intercoll.net/World-­Social-­Forum-­space-­or-­movement-­ Thinking-­about-­the-­WSF-­International

19 Informal Elites

The process of institutionalization in OWS began with what Jo Freeman (Joreen) called informal elites (1971). She characterized these not as individuals but groups of like-minded or connected people. They could be known and include some movement stars and have visibility. However, Freeman notes, “The most insidious elites are usually run by people not known to the larger public at all” (1971, p. 1). There were multiple offshoots from OWS, but rather than continuities, they drifted away from original politics and practices. OWS was associated with horizontal and participatory politics, but there was a shift toward vertical and exclusionary ways of operating. Both in Strike Debt and Occupy Sandy there was a clear and intentional separation from OWS, and this happened through informal elites. In Strike Debt there were competing informal elites operating against democratic organization. The first informal elite was the group referred to as ‘the coordinators.’ While coordination was needed, there could have been clear roles, and rotation. Instead, there were power struggles, which led to burnout and mass defection of members. This paved the way for another informal elite to take control and form the non-profit, The Debt Collective. © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 M. Holmes, Organizing Occupy Wall Street, Alternatives and Futures: Cultures, Practices, Activism and Utopias, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-8947-6_19

223

224 

M. Holmes

Occupy Sandy did not have any collective decision-making at all, and those with access to the online and financial resources operated as informal elites making decisions themselves that affected everyone else. Resources were given to those personally connected to the informal elites. As it became clear that there was no collective path forward, people left and the project crumbled.

Strike Debt Assembling Debtors Before OWS even began, in the summer of 2011, there were conversations about creating a movement around debt. David Graeber had written the book Debt: The First Five Thousand Years (Graeber, May 2011) and was actively looking for ways to take action around it. Whether in public forums or one-on-one, there were discussions around the connections between debt and Wall Street. In parallel, Micah White from Adbusters had been throwing around an idea about buying debt on the secondary or tertiary debt market and forgiving it as a media stunt (the inspiration for what later became The Rolling Jubilee) (M. White, personal communication, August 25, 2011). Debt was relevant to multiple wings of the 99% during that time. There was a generation of young people graduating college with mountains of student debt, and no way to pay it back (I was one of them). Banks were foreclosing on millions of homes as a result of predatory lending practices targeting poor black and brown homeowners. The cost of healthcare, and other basic living expenses was increasing, so there was mounting medical and personal debt. It seemed that debt could be a way to address the intersection of different struggles. When the student strikes happened in Quebec, in the spring of 2012, there was an even greater impetus to organize around debt. As mentioned in a previous chapter, throughout the summer of 2012, there were debt assemblies held in public parks and squares throughout NYC,

19  Informal Elites 

225

organized by different occupy-related groups (Strike Debt Discussion Listserv, June 12, 2012). I helped facilitate many of them. The convergence produced an electric and creative space where many ideas were thrown out as possibilities such as mutual aid for debtors, debtors unions, and mass refusals to pay in the form of a strike. It was out of these informal assemblies that the name Strike Debt was chosen, and an organization formed (McKee, July 23, 2012). Building on imagery from the Quebec student strike, Leina Bocar, a young Filipina woman, who was an artist and activist, created a banner with the red square and the text ‘strike debt’ added. Early on, all the ways we organized in OWS were carried over into Strike Debt. Many of the early participants in Strike Debt were from OWS and participated in the one-year anniversary. The launch of the Debt Resistors Operations Manual (Anonymous, September, 2012) coincided with the anniversary celebrations and was distributed through occupy networks (Anniversary trifold). There were assemblies with working groups on different topics and projects. The idea of debt burnings came first from Jerry Goralnick, an older white man who was an anti-war organizer from the War Resistors League, and actor with The Living Theater. He suggested burning loan documents like draft cards. This caught on in the group. As a result, Strike Debt hosted a public gathering of bill burning, where participants would share stories, burn their bills, and send ashes out into the water of the East River (Davis, September 10, 2012). The Rolling Jubilee concept that came originally from Micah White was expanded on by a Strike Debt member, Thomas Gokey, a young white man, who had gone to grad school with White. After much discussion in the assemblies, a working group within Strike Debt formed to plan a telethon for raising funds and was successful in forgiving medical debt. This was later called The Rolling Jubilee, which launched via a celebrity telethon fundraising against debt (Gabbatt, November 15, 2012).

226 

M. Holmes

Photo of Debtors Assembly in Solidarity with the Student Strike. 25 May, 2012. Marisa Holmes

The Coordinators On the surface, Strike Debt was a success, and gained praise from others in OWS and occupy networks, as well as in the press. But the wave Strike Debt was riding was about to crash hard. In early November 2012, some of the more influential members of the group decided, while I was out of town connecting international debt movements (Holmes, January 3, 2013), to implement a coordinator’s meeting in place of the assembly. This was justified through an appeal to a protestant work ethic and meritocracy. When I arrived back home, I observed the transition. The first coordinators’ meeting was on 25 November, 2012 (Strike Debt Discussion Listserv). Everyone in Strike Debt was invited, as long as they were doing the work. Around fifty people showed up, because they had come to assemblies, and been in working groups, and made art for actions and so on. They felt they were part of it, and they were. At times, they were putting in more work than ‘the coordinators,’ and even the

19  Informal Elites 

227

most grueling time-consuming work such as facilitating meetings and making banners. But for the next several hours, we went around in a circle explaining just what it was we did for the group, and whether we were truly committed. One woman there even expressed that some people were losing sleep over the work, and if you were not losing sleep, then you were not doing enough. This caused another person to question their involvement. They were trembling with anxiety as they tried to come to terms with whether they deserved to be a coordinator. This gut-wrenching exercise led people to leave voluntarily out of self-­ doubt. It made me sick. Wasn’t the whole point of organizing to embrace other people? Rather than recruiting and retaining people who wanted to be part of the movement around debt, the coordinators were repelling them. A coordinators-only listserv was even created afterward (Winter [pseudonym], December 14, 2012). In this context, I initiated a conversation in Strike Debt to discuss what we were all about and doing together. Much had been taken for granted up till that point. Thus, the Strike Debt Principles were drafted and received feedback from the group. They read: Strike Debt was formed to build a movement of debt resistance and liberation. Each of its projects StrikeStrike Debt is a strike against the predatory debt system, a major cause of injustice in our society and others. As an alternative to that system, Strike Debt is an advocate of just and sustainable economies, based on mutual aid, common goods, and public affluence. Strike Debt is an offshoot of the Occupy movement. It respects many of the principles that were adopted by Occupy participants from the global justice and other non-hierarchical movements. These include commitment to anti-oppressive language and conduct, creative and political autonomy, direct democracy, direct action, openness to experimentation, and a culture of solidarity. Strike Debt recognizes that debt is not only an instrument of wealth extraction and accumulation but also a tool of oppression. The imposition of debt is used to discipline populations, deepen existing inequalities, and reinforce racial, gendered, and other social hierarchies. Every Strike Debt project and action is designed to weaken the institutions that seek to divide us and benefit from our division.

228 

M. Holmes

Strike Debt engages in public education about the debt system to counteract the self-serving myth that finance is too complicated for laypersons to understand. In particular, it urges direct action as a way of combating the injustices spawned by the creditor class and their enablers among elected government officials. Direct action empowers those who participate in challenging this power structure. Strike Debt holds that we are all debtors, whether or not we have personal loan agreements. Through manipulation of sovereign and municipal debt, the costs of speculator-driven crises are passed on to all of us. Though different kinds of debt can affect the same household, they are interconnected, and so all debtors have a common interest in resisting. Strike Debt operates on the principle that we owe the financial institutions nothing, and that it is to our friends, families and communities that we owe everything. Strike Debt seeks to translate that principle into a long-­ term strategy for national and international organizing (SD-Coordinators Listserv, December 21, 2012).

The language of offshoot was hotly contested. Rather than have an open debate about where we all stood ideologically, there was a war of words over whether or not Strike Debt was an offshoot and what that really meant. It seemed to be understood that if Strike Debt were part of OWS, then it would maintain a horizontal and democratic ethos. If it were not, then it would not be held to the same intentions and could more easily be molded into another form.

The Coordinators and Consensus In the coming months, tensions began to boil over with regard to our principles, structure, and decision-making processes. These culminated in another coordinator’s meeting held at 20 Cooper Square on 27 January, 2012 (SD-Coordinators, February 3, 2013). The first half of the meeting was relatively routine with report-backs and a mapping exercise of all the different Strike Debt projects at the time. The second half of the meeting, though, took a markedly different tone. The ‘coordinators,’ some of whom were people of color, proceeded to condemn the use of the

19  Informal Elites 

229

consensus process, which they termed as racist. The room went silent, as no one, especially white people, wanted to contradict them. I had known these coordinators since the beginning of OWS. They had long been strong proponents of consensus themselves. One had even explained on day one of OWS, #S17, “It is about a process. By staying here longer, we develop this consensus as a people,” (Holmes, 2016). One of his favorite phrases, repeated at every assembly he facilitated was, “We amplify each-others’ voices.” Now, he just stood there, matter-of-factly stating that the process he once championed was racist, and that anyone who used it was racist, too. Since I was still advocating for consensus, it was implied I was racist. I was asked to choose between using consensus and being in the organization. I sat there, a bit shocked, and absorbed the criticism. The coordinators showed little emotion, but the man sitting next to me, broke down crying. After seven hours of self-criticism, the meeting ended. I drifted through the East Village, walking off the anxiety I’d been holding in my chest, and tried to breathe. I am not perfect. I am white, so have a fair amount of racial privilege. I’m willing to admit I could have done harm and not even been aware of it. The first instinct for white people, when called out about racism, is often to be defensive and dismiss critiques. I didn’t want to do this. I wanted to take the critiques seriously. Thus, I spent a great deal of time reflecting on them and reading more about the history and practice of consensus. I also organized conversations on white supremacy and racism for Strike Debt members. Meanwhile the context around us was shifting.

K  imani Gray Over the winter and spring of 2013, ‘the coordinators’ continued to claim consensus was the problem. They asserted that they spoke for people of color on this point but soon faced opposition from other people of color in the group who did not appreciate being falsely represented and sidelined. These political tensions became even more pronounced in the after math of the killing of the black teenager, Kimani Gray, in East Flatbush, Brooklyn.

230 

M. Holmes

On 10 March, 2013 two plainclothes officers in an unmarked car, trailed Grey, before shooting 11 rounds, seven of which hit and killed him. Kimani’s friends, and family were outraged, and nightly protests ensued in the neighborhood (CBS, March 13, 2013). Some became more confrontational, throwing up barricades, and fighting police. There was a generational divide between the youth who wanted to avenge the death of their friend and the community elders, who tended to be churchgoers and connected with local politicians (Fire Next Time, March 2013). Many in Strike Debt had gone, on their own and not officially representing the organization, and supported the protests. The divide in the community spilled over into Strike Debt with some taking the path of reconciliation urged by faith and political leaders, and other people of color favoring a more confrontational approach (SD-Coordinators Listserv, April 2013a). Many in Strike Debt supported the youth who were in the streets and wanted escalation. The ‘coordinators’ in Strike Debt had been in talks with local leadership, and one of these talks was made known to the rest of us only due to the conflict that ensued. To summarize to the best of my ability, based on observing multiple accounts over listservs and meetings, the following occurred: Two women of color from Decolonize NYC (not to be confused with Decolonize This Place, which formed later with different people) found out about a Strike Debt meeting with faith leaders and crashed it. One of them, a black woman who was a single mother, slapped a larger man of color, who was a coordinator, across the face, scolded him for interfering in the neighborhood, and claimed he was an outsider. As the meeting moved from the church meeting space to the parking lot, the other woman was thrown to the ground by another man there and was injured as a result (SD-Coordinators Listserv, April 2013b). At a general meeting for Strike Debt on 21 April, the incident was discussed in great detail. There was very little trust in the ‘coordinators’ even among other people of color in the group as they were seen as imposters in the East Flatbush community, and involved in either inflicting or approving of violence against women of color. Many of the strongest supporters of the ‘coordinators’ turned against them and asked them to be held accountable (SD-Coordinators Listserv, April 21, 2013c). One coordinator had already left Strike Debt in advance of the meeting, but three more all defected shortly thereafter rather than be accountable for their actions. In response, those remaining in Strike Debt released the following public statement:

19  Informal Elites 

231

In recent months, Strike Debt in New York has been beset by conflicts among many of its members. Factors relating to race, gender, group accountability, power differentials, and political strategy all played a role in the conflicts. There are several quite different accounts of the causes and dynamics of the disagreements. As a result, several members have felt they needed to dissociate themselves from Strike Debt, and some have done so in a public way. This has been an unfortunate outcome, on all sides, especially at a time when the anti-debt movement needs all the activists it can muster. We are heartened to hear that many of those who have left Strike Debt will continue to direct their formidable talents towards debt activism. Issues of race, gender, ableism and class are challenges for any organization working for social and economic justice. We want to acknowledge that in the wake of these recent events, we’re more aware of those challenges than ever and are committed to face them honestly, actively, and with reflection and humility. The principles of Strike Debt remain strong and timely. Among other things, they promote direct democracy, autonomy, accountability, and anti-oppression, and those who act in its name should strive to uphold these principles. Despite the challenges, Strike Debt in New York is learning and growing again. We are committed to its established initiatives while also launching new ones that reflect our avowed principles. We will continue to work, both in alliance with other groups and with Strike Debt chapters in other cities and communities. (May 15, 2013)

There was a real effort to place a critical and intersectional analysis at the center of the organization. We had an anti-racist reading group and anti-­ oppression workshops. We redirected our work around debt clinics and research on pay day lending facilities that took advantage of poor black customers. It seemed Strike Debt was rebounding a bit. But after a year or so, the organization faced another bid for control which, unlike the one made by the previous coordinators, unfortunately, was successful.

The Debt Collective In the Strike Debt assemblies, one idea had emerged around forming a debtor’s union. Originally, this was discussed as a way of struggling across different forms of debt such as medical, housing, credit, and student debt. It was about confronting the debt system, refusing to pay debts, and supporting members through mutual aid. Like the labor unions doing

232 

M. Holmes

work stoppages or general strikes, debtor’s unions would engage in debt strikes. There had long been a working group in Strike Debt actively pursuing models on this, and it was growing (Strike Debt Discussion Listserv, October 16, 2013). However, this effort was cut short. Some well-known white women in Strike Debt were still unsatisfied with the direction Strike Debt had been going in and wanted to form a non-profit. They could have just started another organization, with another name, and distanced themselves from Strike Debt. That would have been much more ethical, but that is not what happened. These women had access to all the social media accounts and press lists and were beginning to court tech industry funders. They simply consolidated power around tech, media, and financial resources. They took the infrastructure of Strike Debt and rebranded themselves, strangely, The Debt Collective. There was nothing collective about The Debt Collective. It was a hierarchical model with staff, and emphasis on building tech infrastructure. Rather than organize in person, through building relationships, The Debt Collective matched people, across geographies and communities, who had the same kinds of debt. The Debt Collective took the concept of the debtor’s union and ran it through a mediated online platform. The debtor’s union, which was multi-issue with a systemic analysis, was reduced to single issue campaigns with legal strategies (The Debt Collective). In the process of forming The Debt Collective, the organization of Strike Debt ceased to exist. The Debt Collective consumed Strike Debt by usurping its social media accounts (The Debt Collective). Those of us who had actually been attending meetings every week, and building together, were sidelined. I was one of these people. I had over $70,000 in student debt that I could not possibly pay while working precarious part-­time jobs. I went into default with all the other six million defaulters in an act of debt resistance. The Debt Resistor’s Operations Manual had ended with “To the financial establishment of the world we have only one thing to say: we owe you nothing,” (September 17, 2012). I took this sentiment to heart.

19  Informal Elites 

233

Occupy Sandy Mutual Aid Not Charity During the first round of planning for #S17, Hurricane Irene was moving up the Eastern Seaboard and threatening to crash into NYC. We joked at the time in the New York City General Assembly (NYCGA) about the possibility of it hitting the Stock Exchange. When it arrived though, it had been downgraded to a tropical storm, and damage was minimal (National Weather Service, August 26–27, 2011). This should have been a warning to OWS. The next season, in 2012, was much worse. On Sunday, 28 October, 2012 Hurricane Sandy, did hit the stock exchange, as well as most of Lower Manhattan, Staten Island, and the coastal areas of Brooklyn (Barron, October 29, 2012). Red Hook, Coney Island, and The Rockaways. Hundreds of thousands of New Yorkers were without power, homes were badly torn by the floods and winds, and public infrastructures such as roads and subways, were damaged. The government and non-­profit sector proved totally ill equipped to respond, especially early on. They left people to fend for themselves, which resulted in deaths of elderly, poor, black, and brown residents (Rohde, October 31, 2012). In this moment of disaster, networks of occupiers mobilized to help those in need. Overnight, makeshift ‘hubs’ were created at affected sites whether on street corners or in churches. Thousands of occupiers, and supporters, sorted through boxes of canned goods, baby wipes, and cleaning supplies. Some made soup, and handed it to people huddled in the cold, displaced from ravaged homes. The Cargo Bike Collective and Time’s Up (two occupy-affiliated bike groups) helped get to areas where cars could not reach (Shepard, November 13, 2012). Early on, it was truly a decentralized, grassroots effort to help those on the frontlines of environmental disaster. In place of the state, Occupy Sandy offered direct and community-driven support. The slogan was “Mutual Aid Not Charity” (Milstein, November 9, 2012).

234 

M. Holmes

In a few weeks, Occupy Sandy was being hailed as the next big step for OWS. But everyone was so busy in their hubs, working in ‘triage’ mode, that they hadn’t taken the time to build any structure or process for decision-­making. There was some online coordination via occupy.net listservs, interoccupy.net, and recovers.org. Immense amounts of data were being collected, but this didn’t necessarily translate into in-person coordination. Mostly this part was totally ad hoc, which worked to some degree for a while, but concentrations of power around resources started again. To address the growth and lack of coordination, a series of meetings were held at St Jacobi, a Lutheran Church in Sunset Park, Brooklyn. The first “All Project” meeting was on 20 November, 2012.

Hubs I arrived early and waited in the front to observe. Multiple vans rolled up. Unique localized cultures and bonds had quickly formed in the wake of crisis, so there were crews and affinity groups connected to each hub. Hundreds packed into the pews of the church, and butcher paper was posted along all the columns, where participants could list out their needs and offerings. Brett Goldberg, a young pragmatic white man with glasses, who had been part of the facilitation team in OWS, was facilitating again. According to the minutes, he said, “Ok, so as we get started here, one thing to keep in mind—Sandy hit New York on Sunday, October 28th. On Tuesday, the 30th, folks in Red Hook started to form Occupy Sandy. We’re now doing this community meeting on Tuesday the 20th, so we’ve been at this for 22 days. That is an incredible amount of things that have happened in 22 days, but it’s only been 22 days, so questions of where are we going, what’s next, what exactly is Occupy Sandy, are conversations and questions that have happened in small circles, it’s happened in email threads, the community at large, the press. Everyone is asking these questions,” (Cohen, November 20, 2012). A history of the distribution hubs was described starting with Red Hook, and then quickly moving to Jacobi. Since the summer, Occupy Sunset Park had been very active and organizing out of St Jacobi, where they had a community kitchen, housing organizing (including rent strike

19  Informal Elites 

235

support), and cultural activities. The pastor there, Juan Carlos Ruiz, a Mexican immigrant, opened his doors to occupiers to organize relief efforts. The same night, on Halloween, occupiers were dispatched out to the Rockaways to see what was possible there. Diego explained, “The day after the Red Hook Initiative was established, a group of us went out to Rockaway to scout … we were promised just storage for just a couple of bags—just, like, a couple of bags … and then it turned into, like, a shitshow which is very well organized.” At that point there were anywhere from 7–9 different hubs at different sites in the Rockaways, with much of the activity centered around a newly formed social center, Yana. As all the local sites became overwhelmed, there was a need for a more central hub. Sam, a young white woman and action trainer explained smoothly, “It became clear pretty quickly we’d outgrow this spot, so some other folks from Occupy Faith reached out to our networks and the folks at St Luke and St Matthew at 520 Clinton offered their space. We moved in I think on Saturday—yeah, Saturday—and it grew extremely quickly to have a kitchen, a distribution center, and a really large volunteer intake and training. From there we were able to send folks out to the other hubs and I think we’ve also started sending canvassers straight out from there.” Goldie, a white man who was a musician with the Guitarmy, reported for both the Lower East Side and Staten Island. The Lower East Side had been organized largely through recovers.org and in coordination with GOLES (Good Old Lower East Side) and CAAAV (Organizing Asian Communities). Staten Island was run out of St Margaret Mary Church in Midland Beach. Goldie said, casually, “Staten Island… is kind of a different territory. It’s not as densely populated; the people there are really… they love their homes and they stand by their homes. So what we did originally when we first got out there was identify a few key hubs, and supplied them with volunteers and supplies.” Then George Machado, a young Dominican man with a beanie hat, who was a music producer, added, “We’re building a tool library to start on reconstruction. We’re contacting some carpenters, electricians, plumbers in the area that have been coming to volunteer, to see if they can go out and assess homes, and also give trainings to our volunteers in the region, on demolition and very simple reconstruction work.”

236 

M. Holmes

From Coney Island, there was a report from another young cis white man, Dan. “Right now, we know that we’re working out of six NYCHA public housing developments where we have distribution centers—storage centers where we keep things down there; sort of like mini-hubs so that we can do canvassing and outreach to homebound populations,” he explained. They were working with local tenants’ associations and residents, as well as City Harvest to collect food donations, and another group of volunteers from The People’s Relief. Coney Island Tabernacle, 2828 Neptune, and other faith spaces were also opening up in the area as district sites. Additional sites were opening up nearby in Sheepshead Bay, Gerritsen Beach, and Canarsie. The network in South Brooklyn kept expanding. Beyond NYC there were grassroots relief efforts in Long Island and New Jersey, all connecting through the Occupy Sandy network (Cohen, November 20, 2012). I just stood back in Jacobi, watching it all unfold. I couldn’t believe it. On one hand, it was incredible. The sheer scope of what had been accomplished, and the needs met, was impressive. On the other hand, though, a new culture was being built in the midst of ‘triage.’ Meeting immediate needs became paramount.

We Got This Occupy Sandy had no agreed upon principles or politics other than being a relief organization. Even the language had changed. Instead of ‘occupiers’ or ‘participants,’ all the sudden we were ‘coordinators’ and ‘volunteers.’ Even though many of those who participated were from OWS, and had been influenced by anarchism, Occupy Sandy was not OWS, and did not inherently carry with it the confrontational attitude toward the state or even corporations. The ethos of Occupy Sandy was very pragmatic, and non-ideological on the surface, which often defaulted to a banal liberalism. There was active coordination happening around relief efforts at an institutional level. During this meeting at Jacobi, Sam explained, “It seemed like for a while the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the Red Cross, but particularly FEMA and the National

19  Informal Elites 

237

Guard were taking orders through the Mayor’s Office of Emergency Management—a representative was going around to a number of sites, came to 520, and was introduced to a number of other sites … and I think … there were different relationships depending on the different sites.” Tammy, another young white woman, with non-profit experience, emphasized, “I think the most useful thing, from my perspective, on an institutional level, was they do have these conference calls, these Voluntary Organizations Active in Disaster (VOAD) conference calls, with everyone doing aid work.” Apparently, some of the Occupy Sandy ‘coordinators’ were on these VOAD calls actively sharing information on their organizing efforts (Cohen, November 20, 2012). This was a room full of people, who, a mere few months earlier, were going head to head with the Mayor (then billionaire Mike Bloomberg) and the NYPD, who turned around to coordinate relief efforts with sworn enemies via conference calls. My head was spinning. What? Does anyone else see the problem here? There was no sense of there being contradictions. They were simply meeting people’s needs. This was just the first “All Projects” meeting of many, and I could already see how OWS was becoming a faint memory. The “All Projects” meetings did not coalesce into any decision-making structure. They were explicitly not designed for that but merely for coordination and sharing work. Overtime, the local efforts at hubs took so much attention that fewer and fewer people even attended the “All Projects” meetings. There were many arms of the Occupy Sandy network, and relationships evolved organically, but without any clear political direction. This was not horizontal at all, but rather hierarchical, for informal concentrations of power emerged, yet again, around power, privilege, and access to resources.

Red Hook The first hub was in Red Hook, Brooklyn. Zoltan Gluck, a grad student in Anthropology at CUNY, was heavily involved there. In his article ‘Race, class, and disaster gentrification’ for Tidal magazine, he describes the initial euphoria and sense of possibility in the early days of Occupy

238 

M. Holmes

Sandy in which he would proudly use the phrase “community-powered recovery” and, later, his disappointment with the community support. Rather than help working-class black and brown residents, he argues, the relief and recovery accelerated gentrification. This was possible through the “casual racism of charity work” and reproduction of “existing structures of oppression,” (Gluck, April 4, 2013). Much of the coordination in Red Hook revolved around Kirby Desmarais, a young white woman, record label owner, and mother, who had launched the Facebook group Parents for Occupy Wall Street when the occupation was in full swing. She had organized a sleepover with parents and their children in mid-October, to show that the park was safe. The same logic of a need for safety played out in Occupy Sandy. Gluck details how Kirby held court in her trendy loft apartment with largely white and well-connected partners. One meeting Gluck attended included, “Occupy Sandy, the NYPD, the National Guard, a representative from Mayor Bloomberg’s office, and a sizeable group of small business owners in Red Hook: over 30 people in total.” Kirby was a local small business owner herself and part of the coalition for small businesses, ReStore Red Hook. Gluck shows how ReStore Red Hook cornered recovery funds for itself to the exclusion of longtime residents who were predominately working-­ class immigrants and people of color: “Through personal connections with Carlos Menchaca, Christine Quinn’s official liaison in Red Hook, a coalition of five organizations in Red Hook (including NGOs, residents and small businesses) were able to secure a large grant from the Brooklyn Community Foundation. Without any community oversight over how such funds ought to be disbursed, 80% of the funds were ultimately allocated to ReStore Red Hook” (Gluck, 2013).

Emergency Money In keeping with the larger culture of Occupy Sandy, the work of accounting and budgeting was ad hoc, unfortunately. A WePay link had been set up through recovers.org (a for profit disaster response organization) and

19  Informal Elites 

239

was shared across occupy-related social media accounts and websites (Neuhauser, February 11, 2013). Much like OWS, Occupy Sandy received a large influx of donations very quickly, which totaled over $1.5 million (OS Income and Expenditures Public: Summary). The Alliance for Global Justice, the same fiscal sponsor for OWS, took on Occupy Sandy, with Bre Lembitz, a young white woman, as the de facto Chief Financial Officer (NYS Charities Bureau). I do not envy the task she had. However, the Finance group was resistant to any democratic decision-making for the funds, so there was a lack of accountability and transparency. Some broke and tired occupiers, predictably, started lobbying to get paid. Some received weekly or monthly stipends, although it was never disclosed who was getting what, which caused tension in the network. If one person is getting paid, and another person is volunteering their time, then the person volunteering is bound to feel a bit used. It was not possible to pay everyone. While the donations were substantial, they did not amount to wages or salaries for thousands of participants in the Occupy Sandy network. Thus, an invisible hierarchy was created between those getting paid and those not. Finance had no public protocol for determining who was getting paid. This process was done internally in Finance (J. DiSalvo, personal communication, December 3, 2012). As the relief efforts shifted toward recovery, Finance transformed into the Incubation Team, which acted like an internal Occupy Sandy foundation (OS Listserv, Monday, June 24th at 7pm). Again, they were the ones making the decisions, and they determined that the funds would go to Occupy Sandy offshoots like Respond & Rebuild, YANA, and the Wildfire Project (OS Income and Expenditures Public: Summary). These were newly formed organizations with few ties to the communities most affected by Hurricane Sandy. Some longtime residents and organizers perceived Occupy Sandy organizers as outsiders steamrolling local efforts (West, June 18, 2013). Occupy Sandy was never able to address this effectively.

240 

M. Holmes

References Anonymous collective of resistors, defaulters and allies from Strike Debt and Occupy Wall Street. (September 17, 2012). The Debt Resistors Operations Manual. Self-published under Creative Commons. Retrieved September 8, 2022, from https://strikedebt.org/The-­Debt-­Resistors-­Operations-­Manual.pdf Barron, J. (2012, October 29). Storm Barrels Through Region Leaving Destruction in Its Path. NY Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/30/ us/hurricane-­sandy-­churns-­up-­east-­coast.html CBS. (2013, March 13). Third Night of Protests in Wake of Brooklyn Shooting Result in Handful of Arrests. CBS Local. https://newyork.cbslocal. com/2013/03/13/protesters-­return-­t o-­s treets-­i n-­b rooklyn-­over-­d eadly-­ police-­shooting/ Cohen, T. Minutes from first “All Projects Meeting.” Personal Collection. Davis, R. (2012, September 10). Strike Debt Burns Bills. New York Daily News. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YSCw2anPCTY Fire Next Time. (2013, March). The Flatbush Rebellion. Self-published. Freeman, J. a.k.a Joreen. (1971). The Tyranny of Structurelessness. Notes from the Third Year. Gabbatt, A. (2012, November 15). Occupy Wall Street Launches Debt Forgiveness Programme. The Guardian. Retrieved July 30, 2022, from https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/nov/15/occupy-­rolling-­jubilee-­debt-­ forgiveness Gluck, Z. (Originally published in Tidal Magazine March 13, 2013, republished in Discard Studies, April 4, 2013). Race, Class, and Disaster Gentrification. https://discardstudies.com/2013/04/17/ race-­class-­and-­disaster-­gentrification/ Graeber, D. (2011, May). Debt: The First 5,000 Years. Random House. Holmes, M. (2013, January 3). Debt versus Democracy: The Battle for the Future. Truthout. https://truthout.org/articles/debt-­versus-­democracy-­a-­battle-­ for-­the-­future/ Holmes, M. (Dir.). (2016). All Day All Week: An Occupy Wall Street Story [Video; Vimeo release]. HD. Hurricane Irene. (2011, August 26–27). National Weather Service. Retrieved September 8, 2022, from https://www.weather.gov/mhx/Aug272011Event Review McKee, Y. (2012, July 23). A Student Debt Strike Force Takes Off! Truthout. https://truthout.org/articles/a-­student-­debt-­strike-­force-­takes-­off

19  Informal Elites 

241

Milstein, C. (2012, November 9). Dispatches from Hurricaned NY: Mutual Aid Is a Social Relationship. Retrieved June 15, 2022, from https://libcom.org/ article/dispatches-­hurricaned-­ny-­mutual-­aid-­social-­relationship Neuhauser, A. (2013, February 11). Occupy Sandy Lost Track of Where Donors Intended Cash to Go, Critics Say. https://www.dnainfo.com/new-­ york/20130211/red-­h ook/confusion-­s urrounds-­o ccupy-­s andys-­8 80k-­ hurricane-­relief-­money/ NYS Charities Hurricane Sandy Responses. Retrieved June 15, 2022, from https://www.charitiesnys.com/pdfs/Hurricane_Sandy_Responses/113_2.pdf Occupy Sandy. (2012, November 20). All Projects Meeting Promotional Flyer. Personal Collection. OS Income and Expenditures Public: Summary. Retrieved June 15, 2022, from https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/u/0/d/1deBIKIJsuYCmtyONL0nHm G6PKiuAG4qSZeLFR4UASNY/pub?single=true&gid=14&output=html& widget=true&urp=gmail_link&gxids=7628 OS Listserv. (Monday, June 24, 7pm). Project Spokescouncil/Stipend Proposal. Personal Collection. Rohde, D. (2012, October 31). The Hideous Inequality Exposed by Hurricane Sandy. The Atlantic. Retrieved September 8, 2022, from https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/10/the-­hideous-­inequality-­exposed-­by-­ hurricane-­sandy/264337/ SD-Coordinators Listserv. (2013a, February). January 27 Coordinators Meeting Minutes. Personal Collection. SD-Coordinators Listserv. (2013b, April). Personal Collection. SD-Coordinators Listserv. (2013c, April 21). Personal Collection. Shepard, B. (2012, November 13). Of Tropical Storms and Tempests: Fossil Fuel Disaster Relief Rides as a City Melts into Air. Play and Ideas. Retrieved July 30, 2022, from http://benjaminheimshepard.blogspot.com/2012/11/of-­ tropical-­storms-­and-­tempests-­fossil.html Strike Debt Active Listserv. (2013, May 15). Statement. Personal Collection. Strike Debt Discussion Listserv. (2013, October 16). Personal Collection. The Debt Collective. Retrieved August 25, 2022, from https://debtcollective. org/about-­us/ The Debt Collective. Retrieved August 27, 2022, from https://debtcollective. org/about-­us/our-­financials/ The Debt Collective. Retrieved August 25, 2022, from https://twitter.com/ StrikeDebt West, J. (2013, June 18). What Happened to the Money that Occupy Sandy Raised? Mother Jones. Retrieved September 8, 2022, from https://www.motherjones. com/environment/2013/06/occupy-­sandy-­once-­welcomed-­now-­questioned/

20 The Founders

In the absence of street actions, the social media presence of OWS became a battleground for determining the direction and legacy of the movement. Those in control of accounts presented themselves as ‘founders’ who deserved to have sole control over the movement and benefit financially. They treated OWS as merely a brand to be capitalized on and were another example of informal elites.

 he Storg versus The OWS Media T Working Group When Adbusters launched the call to #OccupyWallStreet they registered multiple Twitter handles including @OccupyWallSt and @Occupy WallStNYC. The first of these they gave over to an ‘affinity group’ around the website occupywallst.org, or what was commonly known as ‘the storg.’ It was run in part by the self-described ‘champagne transarchist’ Justine Tunney, who had registered the domain and by Priscilla Grim, a Puerto Rican woman and single mother (Strochilic, February 15, 2014). Parallel to the collective planning process of #S17 they maintained the website and the @OccupyWallSt Twitter handle. The second account, © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 M. Holmes, Organizing Occupy Wall Street, Alternatives and Futures: Cultures, Practices, Activism and Utopias, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-8947-6_20

243

244 

M. Holmes

@OccupyWallStNYC, was given to me. Just before #S17, Micah White, then editor at Adbusters, handed over the log-in information (M. White, personal communication, September 15, 2011). This was shared with the rest of the OWS Media Working Group, including Vlad and Nikky (V. Teichberg, personal communication, September 15, 2011). From the beginning, there was a political tension between the ‘storg’ and the OWS Media and Tech Ops Working Groups that reflected different attitudes toward media use. On the one hand, there was a closed-off and market-driven @OccupyWallSt account and ‘storg’ website. On the other hand, there was an indymedia-influenced OWS Media Working Group, Global Revolution Livestream and @OccupyWallStNYC as well as  Tech Ops running nycga.net and later occupywallstreet.net. These poles were fundamentally at odds and clashed consistently during and after the occupation. The ‘storg’ crew spoke on behalf of the #OWS movement and was largely offsite, whereas the Media Working Group spoke with OWS and it was physically stationed in the park 24 hours/day for live updates. The ‘storg’ operated on analytic models, and marketing techniques, whereas the Tech Ops run nycga.net and occupywallstreet.net were based on open source principles. The ‘storg’ issued one-directional communiques whereas the nycga.net posted NYCGA meeting minutes and prioritized space for working group forums. Some key conflicts included the ‘storg’ centralizing press calls and placing a donation button for OWS on their website directed at a personal bank account (Rothberg, October 3, 2011). Conversations about accountability for these actions were difficult, because there was no way to enforce agreed-upon politics or expectations. Justine was public about her hated the NYCGA and saw no reason to be accountable to it (Russell, April 17, 2014). This sentiment seemed to be shared by others in the collective.  In addition to conflicts with the ‘storg’ there was  growing internal conflict over the Media Working Group handle @OccupyWallStNYC. Justin Wedes, a white cisman, joined the group and took up the @OccupyWallStNYC handle as his personal project. He recruited others to join the #TweetBoat, a twitter storm crew, coordinating on messaging. This was inspired in part by the lulzsec, the black hat computer hacking group developed in the backrooms of 4chan (Hammond, January 2019). The @OccupyWallStNYC trended toward Justin’s direction, but he could

20  The Founders 

245

never control it entirely. An agreement was reached between the Tweetboat and the rest of the OWS Media Working Group that the Tweetboat could tweet as long as it didn’t infringe on other group members using the account (V.  Teichberg, personal communication, April 23, 2013). While not ideal, @OccupyWallStNYC was more accountable than @OccupyWallSt.

The Founders Collaborate After the eviction, in a moment of disorientation and fragmentation in December 2011, the Occupy Solidarity Network formed (Bizapedia, Retrieved December 5, 2018). But it was neither an embodiment of the occupy movement nor was it practicing solidarity. It was also not a network. Rather, it was a non-profit set up to manage OWS media and other projects run by Micah White (Adbusters), Justine Tunney and Priscilla Grim (occupywallst.org), and Justin Wedes (the Tweetboat), who had placed themselves on the board, and later publicly declared themselves founders of OWS (OccupyWallStreet.org, November, 29, 2013). While all such ‘founders’ had different experiences and profiles they shared some common characteristics. First, they had a disdain for democratic processes. Second, they all operated largely online and not in person. Third, they described themselves as highly skilled and professional. Fourth, they acted as if the movement was a collection of individuals rather than a collective.

Stop Using Consensus In 2013, Justine penned an article for the ‘storg’ titled ‘Occupiers! Stop Using Consensus!’ in which consensus and democracy were pitted against one another, as if they had no overlap whatsoever. She wrote, “Consensus process is in many ways an attempt to formalize the act of resistance, which I suspect is what makes it so popular in activist communities. Let’s compare this to democracy, a system which was invented to formalize dissent,” (Tunney, February 13, 2013, 6:16pm). It was unclear how resistance differed from dissent, and what that had to do with specific choices of

246 

M. Holmes

process. This seemed to show very little historical knowledge about consensus processes or the principles behind them. Also, the unaccountable, undemocratic platform ‘storg’ was used to promote an end to consensus. This thread started a war with over 200 comments, and additional follow up pieces, including one from David Graeber, Some Remarks on Consensus, in which he reflected, “A lot of this debate has centered around the role of consensus. This is healthy too, because there seem to be a lot of misconceptions floating around about what consensus is and is supposed to be about.” He went on to explain that we in OWS used modified consensus—we would attempt to reach consensus and then drop to a majority vote if necessary. The principle of non-coercion was what was important, not the exact formalities. He ended: Our power is in our principles. The power of Occupy has always been that it is an experiment in human freedom. That’s what inspired so many to join us. That’s what terrified the banks and politicians, who scrambled to do everything in their power—infiltration, disruption, propaganda, terror, violence—to be able to tell the word we’d failed, that they had proved a genuinely free society is impossible, that it would necessarily collapse into chaos, squalor, antagonism, violence, and dysfunction. We cannot allow them such a victory. The only way to fight back is to renew our absolute commitment to those principles. We will never compromise on equality and freedom. We will always base our relations to each other on those principles. We will not fall back on top-down structures and forms of decision making premised on the power of coercion. But as long as we do that, and if we really believe in those principles, that necessarily means being as open and flexible as we can about pretty much everything else.” (Graeber, February 26, 2013, 3:37pm)

Give the Gift of Occupy Justine and the rest of the founders were attempting to trademark OWS and sell the brand back to the people who had participated in creating it. They issued an end of the year fundraising drive to “Give the Gift of Occupy” which read:

20  The Founders 

247

This year, we are commemorating the Occupy generation by offering, for a limited-time only, posters and canvas prints of the iconic ballerina and bull poster that sparked our global movement. The proceeds of your donation will go into an activist fund managed by the Occupy Solidarity Network, the mutual aid non-profit established by Occupy movement founders Priscilla Grim, Justine Tunney, and former Adbusters editor Micah White. Your contribution will spark and sustain tomorrow’s social uprising of the 99%. (OccupyWallStreet.org, November 29, 2013)

This infuriated many in the occupy networks, most notably Adbusters who tweeted—“Shocked to receive a sales pitch from @occupysolidaritynetwork to buy the Adbusters OWS poster. These folks are selling out the movement” and “@OccupyWallSt is selling the Adbusters OWS poster. We have never sold the poster and never will. OWS supporters, kindly ask them to stop,” (Weber, December 15, 2013). Many did ask them to stop. A post entitled, Occupy Irony, for occupywallstreet.net, critiqued the Occupy Solidarity Network move for leveraging the movement for their own personal gain, and ended with: Where once we were called to action, today we are called upon to give money. This encourages a movement seething with passionate innovation, to kick back and retreat into armchair “consumer activism”….and to entrust the self-proclaimed “experts” to take care of that movement-­ building stuff. Are we to believe that more funds and perhaps a few board members are all that’s required to bring about movements for change? We know that’s not enough. For decades the world was soaked in nonprofit money mostly doled out by those who reap the benefits of this deeply unequal and unjust economic system, and no movement for economic justice managed to get off the ground. Occupy Wall Street is not merely a brand that attracts attention and guarantees faster fundraising. It was, and remains, a call to direct action, a call for person-to-person connection, a call for taking back our Commons from the Web to the streets. We who made this Occupy uprising happen still have the power to turn our moment into a real movement—whether it’s called Occupy Wall Street, or something else. (OccupyWallStreet.net)

248 

M. Holmes

Rather than take any of these concerns into consideration, the founders doubled down. Pricilla publicly defended their decision and said that funds would go to support living expenses for occupy activists like herself. Micah went one step further, hacking the Adbusters account, and tweeting, “This account is now under the control of former Adbusters editor Micah White at @LeaderlesRevolt in a protest against @Adbusters.— MW.” He continued a string of tweets which culminated in, “I believe that #Occupy was a “social movement IPO [Initial Public Offering]”— early adopters who stayed true to the path should be given stipends” (Weber, December 15, 2013). This was supposedly written as a ‘playful insurrection’ but, if taken seriously, meant incentivizing participation in a movement against Wall Street, an irony too much to handle. In the background, Micah had a falling out with Kalle Lasn, the founder of AdBusters, and had been fired. This coincided with his growing support for the Italian Five Star Movement. Micah had become obsessed with promoting this digital populist and proto-fascist political party led by comedian Beppe Grillo (Loucaides, February 14, 2019). He even traveled to Italy, gave a speech for one of their anti-immigrant rallies, and declared that Occupy Wall Street supported them (Grillo, December 4, 2013). For the record, OWS never made any such decision or claim.

#IFoundedOccupyWallSt The founders couldn’t keep it together for long and started turning on each other. Both of the main Twitter accounts were hijacked in the process. On 6  February, 2014, Justine Tunney took over @OccupyWallSt and locked out the rest of the collective, including Priscilla. Justine tweeted, “The twitter handle is now back under the management of its owner @JustineTunney. Let’s start a revolution!” (Finely, November 23, 2013). What kind of revolution? By then, the erstwhile hacker Justine was working at Google as a software engineer, drinking the koolaid of a technological revolution. She even drafted a petition on the site, We the People, to place the US government under the control of Google, urging to:

20  The Founders 

249

1. Retire all government employees with full pensions 2. Transfer administrative authority over to the Tech Industry 3. Appoint [Google Executive Chairman] Eric Schmidt CEO of America. (Sampson, March 22, 2014) When questioned about the move she tweeted, “@ramdac @abbynormative Our government is already a corporation. All we’re doing here is finding a better corporation to run our government” (Sampson, March 22, 2014). When pushed, Justine went to great lengths to justify herself. Throughout the spring and summer of 2014, her posts became increasingly hostile and neo-reactionary (Biddle, July 30, 2014). She explicitly called for a technocratic monarchy tweeting, “Ever since the French Revolution, the merchant caste (aka Wall Street) has ruled the West. Why not bring back the aristocracy? (aka Techies)” (Tunney, February 6, 2014, 10:37am). She was advocating for a new tech aristocracy to replace the current government. There is a word for corporate control of the state—fascism. Occupy networks, of all political persuasions were having a field day trolling Justine. #IFoundedOccupyWallSt was trending, as hundreds joined in, and urged people to unfollow the account. Justin and Priscilla remained largely silent, trying to distance themselves, but the move was supported by Micah. He waited in the wings then took over the account along with the occupywallstreet.org (‘storg’) website. Micah listed himself as the sole founder of OWS, and used it to promote his own image, book, and ‘boutique’ activist consulting agency! He even later attended Davos to meet the 1% and claimed he had not sold out but rather “bought in” (Gupta, January 30, 2020).

The Wolf of Occupy Wall Street On 8 August, 2014, Justin decided to lock out everyone behind the other account—@OccupyWallStNYC. The rest of the #TweetBoat team wrote an open letter in response, posted to occupywallstreet.net, calling Justin the “Wolf of Occupy Wall Street” (a play on the popular film at the time The Wolf of Wall Street). They accused him of abusing the account and using it for his own pet projects:

250 

M. Holmes

We write this open letter to the global activist community to inform you of what has taken place. We seek to discredit any claims he [Justin] has made in the past or in the future to be a mouthpiece for OWS. He has violated our basic principles of horizontal organizing and group integrity. We disavow any connection between this individual and the movement at large,” (@OccupyWallStNYC Tweetboat collective, Aug 12, 2014).

Justin then wrote a blog post in which he claimed there were too many disagreements about how to use the account and said, pedantically, “The party is over. Time to go home,” (August 12, 2014). He continued to use the account to promote his own projects. For instance, the account featured the astro-turf humanitarian relief organization, Detroit Water Brigade (Justin Wedes), which was hording access to water, and steamrolling poor black organizers (Detroit Eviction Defense, February 26, 2015). He also promoted The After Party, a Millennial-focused third party formed with Micah and Priscilla and sponsored by the Occupy Solidarity Network (George, May 7, 2014).

Ownership and Use Watching all this drama unfold, the OWS Media Working Group felt compelled to intervene. We had helped build @OccupyWallStNYC from the beginning, and there was a sense that even the hijacking alone was an unacceptable breach of trust and appropriation. In an effort to defend the principles of #OWS and regain control, we formed an association, and sued over ownership of the account during the third anniversary of Occupy Wall Street (Moynihan, September 17, 2014). Justin was hosting an event for The After Party in Detroit when he was served papers. Multiple articles were written, and circulated, but he did not comment (GlobalRevolutionLive, November 19, 2014). All this begged the question of whether anyone owned a Twitter account to begin with. Twitter technically owned all of the services associated with its platform, as outlined in their terms of service, in which Twitter stated  at the time, “The Services are protected by copyright, trademark, and other laws of both the United States and foreign

20  The Founders 

251

countries” (Twitter, 2014). When setting up an account the user registering must agree to all the terms as an individual or on behalf of a group. The terms also stated, “If you are accepting these Terms and using the Services on behalf of a company, organization, government, or other legal entity, you represent and warrant that you are authorized to do so and have the authority to bind such entity to these Terms, in which case the words “you” and “your” as used in these Terms shall refer to such entity”(Twitter). As outlined earlier, Adbusters set up the account and agreed to the terms. However, they had, we argued, transferred the account over to me and, effectively, the OWS Media Working Group. Justin was one of many who had access to the account and was not representing the group. There was very little precedent for this kind of case. At the time there had been one high profile case in California in which the company PhoneDog, a website for “all things digital,” filed a case against a former employee who had been “given the use of ” a company account, but was misusing it, and continuing to tweet after being let go. The company won over the rogue employee (JVG, November 11, 2011). Given this background, Adbusters would have had the best chance at winning the account back but didn’t want to get involved in the case. Twitter also refused to get involved. Even though Twitter was a longtime tool used by social movements, many with collectively run accounts, the platform had no way of dealing with multiple users of the same account, especially if they were not part of a formal organization. One email address agreed to the terms of service. In the case of @OccupyWallStNYC, there were dozens of people using the account. They hadn’t all agreed to the terms, and Twitter couldn’t guarantee that they’d have access. In an effort to avoid a lawsuit, Justin tried to get rid of the account. Priscilla, cut out of her own account by Justine and Micah, was looking for a new one, so it was great timing. On 11 January, 2015, Justin wrote a blog post that began: “It is with hopeful optimism that I announce today my resignation from the Occupy Wall Street social media collective. Effective immediately, I have appointed Priscilla Grim owner and chief steward of the account” (Wedes, January 11, 2015). Grim built her own team for @OccupyWallStNYC and a new website occupywallst.nyc

252 

M. Holmes

(February 16, 2015). Some of the old #TweetBoat were allowed back, but not everyone, and it was under her control and vision. She continued to promote The After Party but was increasingly promoting the Democratic Party. The account became a consistent mouthpiece for the Bernie Sanders campaign in 2016 (@OccupyWallStNYC, July 25, 2016) and again in the 2020 campaign (@OccupyWallStNYC, March 2, 2019). Rather than continue in an endless string of lawsuits against current admins, the OWS Media Working Group gave up trying to regain control, and moved on to other projects.

References Biddle, S. (2014, July 30). Why Does Google Employ a Pro-Slavery Lunatic. Gawker. Retrieved December 5, 2018, from http://valleywag.gawker.com/ why-­does-­google-­employ-­a-­pro-­slavery-­lunatic-­1612868507 Bizapedia. The Occupy Solidarity Network Inc. Retrieved December 5, 2018, from https://www.bizapedia.com/ny/the-­occupy-­solidarity-­network-­inc.html Detroit Eviction Defense. (2015, February 26). Statement on the Detroit Water Brigade. Retrieved December 5, 2018, from http://detroitevictiondefense. org/wedes.php Finely, K. (2013, November 23). Geeks for Monarchy: The Rise of the Neoreactionaries. Tech Crunch. Retrieved December 5, 2018, from https:// techcrunch.com/2013/11/22/geeks-­for-­monarchy/ George, C. (2014, May 7). New Populist Political Party  – The After Party  – Launches in Detroit. Retrieved December 5, 2018, from https://www. occupy.com/article/new-­populist-­political-­party-­%E2%80%93-­after-­party-­ %E2%80%93-­launches-­detroit#sthash.TeJBcmhg.dpbs GlobalRevolutionLive. (2014, November 19). Justin Wedes Served with Lawsuit to recover @OccupyWallSTNYC.  Retrieved July 10, 2022, from https:// www.youtube.com/watch?v=aay-­Mynji1M Graeber, D. (2013, February 26, 3:37pm). Some Remarks on Consensus. OccupyWallSt.org. http://occupywallst.org/article/david-­graeber-­some-­remarks-­ consensus/ Grillo, B. (2013, December 4). OLTRE – V3DAY: Micah White e la solidarietà globale. Retrieved September 8, 2022, from https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=Hb5AGbPU2eA

20  The Founders 

253

Gupta, A. (2020, January 30). Micah White Is the Ultimate Occupy Grifter. Jacobin. https://jacobin.com/2020/01/micah-­white-­occupy-­wall-­street-­davos-­ grifter-­scam Hammond, J. (2019). Relations of Media Production in Occupy Wall Street. International Journal of Communication, 13, 897–917. https://doi. org/10.1932/8036/20190005 JVG. (2011, November 11). The Case of the “Stolen” Twitter Account. Venture Beat. Retrieved December 5, 2018, from https://venturebeat. com/2011/11/11/phonedog-­v-­kravitz/ Loucaides, D. (2019, February 14). What Happens When Techno Utopians Actually Run a Country. Wired. Retrieved July 10. 2022, from https://www. wired.com/story/italy-­five-­star-­movement-­techno-­utopians/ Moynihan, C. (2014, September 17) Occupy Activists File Suit Over Control of Twitter Account. New York Times. Retrieved December 5, 2018 from https:// www.nytimes.com/2014/09/18/nyregion/occupy-­w all-­s treets-­t witter-­ account-­is-­focus-­of-­lawsuit.html OccupyWallStreet.net. Occupy Irony. Retrieved December 5, 2018 from http:// occupywallstreet.net/story/occupy-­irony OccupyWallStreet.org. (2013, November 29). Holiday Firesale of the Occupy Wall Street Poster to Fund the Next Social Wave. Retrieved December 5, 2018 from http://occupywallst.org/tag/Occupy%20Solidarity%20Network/ Occupywallstreet. Wedes Hijacking of @OccupyWallStNYC. Retrieved December 5, 2018 from http://occupywallstreet.net/story/wolf-occupy-wallstreet-statement-justin-wedess-hijacking-occupywallstnyc. Rothberg, P. (2011, October 3). How to Support #OccupyWallStreet. The Nation. Retrieved December 5, 2018 from https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/how-­support-­occupywallstreet/ Russell, K. (2014, April 7). Meet the Google Engineer and Occupy Wall Street Organizer Who Wants Silicon Valley to Run the Country. Retrieved December 5, 2018 from https://www.businessinsider.com/google-­engineer-­ who-­organized-­occupy-­movement-­2014-­4 Sampson, T. (2014, March 22). Occupy Wall Street Organizer Wants Google to Run the Country. The Daily Dot. https://www.dailydot.com/debug/ occupy-­wall-­street-­organizer-­government-­petition-­google/ Strochilic, N. (2014, February 15). The Champagne Transarchist Who Hijacked Occupy’s Twitter Feed. The Daily Beast. Retrieved December 5, 2018 from https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-­champagne-­tranarchist-­who-­hijacked-­ occupys-­twitter-­feed

254 

M. Holmes

The Team Members of the @OccupyWallStNYC Tweetboat Collective. (2014, August 12). Wolf of Occupy Wall Street: Statement on Justin. Personal Collection. Tunney, J. (2013, February 13, 6:16pm). Occupiers! Stop Using Consensus! OccupyWallSt.org. Retrieved December 5, 2018 from http://occupywallst. org/article/occupiers-­stop-­using-­consensus/ Tunney, J. (2014, February 6, 10:37am). @OccupyWallSt. Retrieved December 5, 2018 from https://twitter.com/occupywallst/status/431451669109288 961?lang=en Weber, S. (2013, December 15). Occupy Wall Street Feud Goes Public with Twitter Hijacking. The Daily Dot. https://www.dailydot.com/unclick/ occupy-­wall-­street-­adbusters-­twitter-­hijacking-­micah-­white/ Wedes, J. (2014, August 12). Why I Closed the TweetBoat. Retrieved December 5, 2018 from http://www.justinwedes.com/2014/08/12/why-­i-­closed-­the-­ tweetboat/ Wedes, J. (2015, January 11). My Last Tweet: A New Chapter for Me and for @ OccupyWallStNYC. Retrieved December 5, 2018 from https://www.justinwedes.com/2015/01/11/my-­l ast-­t weet-­a -­n ew-­c hapter-­f or-­m e-­a nd-­f or-­ occupywallstnyc/

21 Power and Leadership

The 2011 movements including OWS described themselves as leaderless. Nathan Schneider argues that this was not just the influence of anarchists, although they did have influence, but that even those who were not anarchists used the term. He states, “Among the popular uprisings that were spreading around the world, leaderlessness was the rule, not the exception,” (2013, p. 89). I agree, and there was an assumption, ingrained from the dominant culture, that one could only be a leader, if one was at the top of hierarchical organization, spoke for other people, or had a cult following. These forms of leadership were masculine, and often done by men. There was such aversion to these forms of leadership that the term leaderless was embraced. There is a necessity now, after all that happened in the course of OWS and after, to bring some nuance to the terms, ‘leader’ and ‘leadership’. There were leaders in OWS, but not the kind typically held up as representatives. There were some people, who, at different times, took on more work, or were more influential. They were facilitators, media-­ makers, action planners, cooks, medics, legal supporters—all those who stepped up and made OWS possible. Being a leader did not mean telling others what to do, or having the most followers, it meant caring for the © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 M. Holmes, Organizing Occupy Wall Street, Alternatives and Futures: Cultures, Practices, Activism and Utopias, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-8947-6_21

255

256 

M. Holmes

collective, and stewarding the movement forward. Many people shared that leadership, which was more feminine, and often ignored.

Feminine Roles In Connective labor and social media: Women’s roles in the ‘leaderless’ Occupy movement, Megan Boler, Averie Macdonald, Christina Nitsou, and Anne Harris, draw attention to the feminist organizing practices in occupy (2014). They write, “The increasingly widespread practices of horizontalism and hybridity are the participatory cultural foundation of new social movements” (2014, p. 444). They place the Occupy movement, and other networked movements within a lineage of anarchist and feminist movements, tracing them back to second wave feminism emphasis of consciousness raising and collective decision-making (Epsetin, 1991). They rely heavily on Marina Sitrin’s research about horizontalidad in Argentina (2006), as well as David Graeber’s work on consensus process (2002, 2008). They’re also interested specifically in communication and draw on Bennett and Segerberg’s theory of ‘the logic of connective action’ as well as ‘practice theory’ (2014, p. 445). They identify three key roles that women performed in occupy: connector, documentarian, admin. I see this as a useful starting off point, to think through how OWS and occupy were organized, and how leadership was feminized.

The Role of Connector Boler, Macdonald, Nitsou, and Harris describe connecting as the set of practices, “alerting, re-reporting, and reaching out.” These practices are notably all about maintaining relationships. Being a connector means listening and reflecting back what people said and needed. It means weaving together people based on their interests and capacities. The practices they describe as largely informal. I’d like to emphasize, though, how the practices of connecting were actually formalized, most clearly through facilitation.

21  Power and Leadership 

257

The facilitator, trainer and witch, Starhawk, was part of the Global Justice Movement (GJM) and reflected on her experience in group processes in Web of Power: Notes from the Global Uprising. She argues that cultivating a power-among or with (against the dominant power-over) happens through ‘empowering leadership’. “Empowering leadership is not just a metaphor,” she explains, “It means literally supporting others energetically and emotionally and creating an atmosphere in a group in which that energetic support and respectful attention is the norm,” (2008, p.  176). She notes that facilitation is a form of ‘empowering leadership.’ A close collaborator of Starhawk, Lisa Fithian, taught me, “Facilitation can make or break a meeting. Facilitators must be confident, be authentic, and work with integrity. They need to be aware of the energy of the group, group needs, and watch for body language cues. They need to work with intention in creating the physical space as well as the space for discussion. They must be strategic in how they use time. Facilitators need to understand the dynamics of power and oppression to release blockages. They must be flexible at all times, willing to change or put the agenda aside if needed,” (Fithian, 2019, p. 286). This is what I learned it meant to facilitate. I took facilitation very seriously as a form of service to the collective in OWS. Often in facilitation exercises, there is an emphasis on the type of ‘container’ one wants to build. This can refer to many different factors influencing the physical and emotional space for a meeting. The location and time of day could be part of a container. The people invited into the space to participate are certainly part of it. A container is essentially the social space, built for the purpose of conversation and understanding. If a container is built well, it does not leak. It is able to withstand whatever pressures fall upon it, even if it pours. The facilitator is responsible for setting up the interaction, so in a sense, the ‘container’ is only possible through them. They are the vessels by which the social interactions happen and are held. Often others are not even aware of facilitation work. But when it isn’t happening, there are consequences. Meetings run long and chaotically, without any cohesion or direction. Friends and comrades are unable to hear each other clearly or communicate about basic tasks. There’s social

258 

M. Holmes

breakdown. Facilitation is the glue that holds it all together. I was often holding that glue.

The Role of Documentarian Being a documentarian, according to Boler, Macdonald, Nitsou, and Harris means having “a sense of individual responsibility not only to fellow Occupiers but also to the general public.” For them, documenting in OWS included practices of ‘witnessing’ and ‘archiving’ events and actions. At times documenting actually produced connections directly. I agree and would define much of the work done by the OWS Media Working Group, for instance, as documenting. The physical and digital spaces of OWS were co-constituted. As I have outlined extensively already in this book, there was an integration of real-­ time media with the 24/7 occupation. Even after the eviction, social media played an essential function in connecting people within OWS, and across occupy networks. The process of creating and connecting did not just happen automatically as a result of platform affordances. It was not only spontaneous on the part of users. There was an intentional move to encourage participation and diffusion of practices. I participated in documenting during the movement, and after, when I made a feature documentary on OWS.

The Role of Admin For Boler, Macdonald, Nitsou, and Harris ‘adminning’ means taking “responsibility for the logistics of information dissemination.” This included both in-person and online ways of connecting  in OWS.  The common thread was the maintenance of the collective through sharing. Some examples of adminning that were common in OWS include creating and moderating e-mail lists, sending reminders about meetings, one on one conversations with stakeholders in specific discussions or decisions, making flow-charts for how decisions might happen, making schedules and calendars, establishing and delineating roles and tasks, and

21  Power and Leadership 

259

tracking how tasks happened over time. Being an admin meant knowing what needed to be done, what was necessary for it to happen, and ensuring that it did actually happen. In short, an admin was the general back­up, responsible for filling in the cracks, smoothing over conflicts, and removing obstacles that occurred. I definitely did all these things at one point or another.

Connective Work Arlie Russell Hochschild coined the term ‘emotional labor’ alongside ‘emotion work,’ and she made important distinctions between the two. When she conducted a study of flight attendants, she saw them doing both physical labor and performed affect, such as smiling at customers, which she calls ‘emotional labor.’ She argued, “This kind of labor calls for a coordination of mind and feeling, and it sometimes draws on a source of self that we honor as deep and integral to our individuality,” (1983, p. 22). Hochschild contrasted this with ‘emotion work’ that has typically been done not in a work setting and is more self-regulated, when she wrote, “Feeling rules are what guide emotion work by establishing the sense of entitlement or obligation that governs emotional exchanges. This emotion system works privately, often free of observation” (1983, p. 61). Boler, Macdonald, Nitsou, and Harris describe connecting, documenting, and adminning as forms of connective labor. This is built on the term emotional labor. They’re on the right track, but I would make a distinction between labor and work. Given that few generally get paid to participate in movement spaces, what Hochschild called ‘emotion work’ would apply more directly. Let’s call connecting, documenting, and adminning, then, ‘connective work’ especially in the context of OWS. 

Trainings and Roles There is an emphasis in Boler, Macdonald, Nitsou, and Harris’ research on how movements happen, and in particular how occupy happened. One key aspect of how, that they touch on, and I’d like to emphasize

260 

M. Holmes

more, is training. Taking on roles, especially without experience doing them, or access to the means to do them, requires some form of education. In a horizontal movement, there was an intention to undo all hierarchical structures and processes, which included more traditional forms of education in which a teacher possesses all the knowledge, and the student receives said knowledge. In OWS, there was an insistence on everyone having something to contribute based on their own life experiences and skill sets. Education was done horizontally and was the foundation for building a horizontal movement. Trainings were done horizontally. Anyone could be a connector, and this was encouraged. There were no set facilitators for life, who conducted all meetings. The role of facilitator, and support roles like stack taker and vibes watcher were made very clear and visible. At the beginning of meetings, there would be reminders about the roles, their functions, and how to take them on. The protocols and principles of the structures and processes we used would be introduced so that newcomers would be able to participate. We ran trainings, every day during the occupation and less frequently, but still regularly, afterwards. People who came to these trainings took on roles, sometimes immediately. Similarly, being a documentarian was not opaque or highly specialized, but a role anyone could step into in their own way. Some people were more interested in doing livestream, others in taking photos, and so on. There were people were enjoyed shooting video in the field more, and others who were more skilled at editing. Internally, in the OWS Media Working Group, we encouraged people to take on tasks related to their interests and skill sets. We conducted trainings on tactical media, developing counter narratives to dominant ones, and filmed the police. We used consumer and prosumer grade equipment and made it accessible. We also sent training materials and gear to other occupations. Anyone could also be an admin. What was particularly new about OWS was that the organization itself was open to those in the broader movement. The boundary between who was inside and outside was fluid. The collective created itself. Again, trainings were done on how to use communication infrastructure, and how to organize. Those who came through OWS learned the skills needed to be a leader, but a particular kind of leader. Rather than the strongman, charismatic

21  Power and Leadership 

261

kind of leaders, they learned to be leaders who walked with others. While the terms leader and leadership were rarely used, there was a form of leadership development. Leaders questioned power-over, built powerwith, and transformed our relationships as well as the world around us.

Organization and Disorganization In the later days of OWS and its offshoots, those who tried to claim more traditional and masculine leadership roles, undermined the more feminine leadership that already existed. This was an essential first step in gaining power-over. They had to destroy the fabric of power-among or with, and those who created it—the connectors, documenters, and admins. Interestingly, it was the anarchists, and in particular, the anarcha-­ feminists who wanted more organization, especially the democratic organization that Jo (a.k.a. Joreen)  Freeman called for in The Tyranny of Structurelessness (1971). It was those of us doing the connective work who tried for transparency, and clarity about roles and tasks. In contrast, those who sought power-over either as opportunists, professional organizers, or party operatives, worked against democratic organization. As I have shown in the previous two chapters, when hierarchies formed the movement ceased to continue. Rather than creating a stronger collective, hierarchies undermined the collective. Attempting to impose hierarchies led to fragmentation, distrust, and ultimately dispersion. Hierarchies did not create stronger organization, but in fact led to disorganization.

References Boler, M., Macdonald, A., Nitsou, C., & Harris, A. (2014). Connective Labor and Social Media: Women’s Roles in the ‘leaderless’ Occupy Movement. Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies, 20(4), 444–445. Epsetin, B. (1991). Political Protest & Cultural Revolution. University of California Press.

262 

M. Holmes

Fithian, L. (2019). Shut It Down: Stories From a Fierce Loving Resistance (p. 286). Chelsea Green Publishing. Freeman, J. a.k.a Joreen. (1971). The Tyranny of Structurelessness. Notes from the Third Year. Graeber, D. (2002). The New Anarchists. New Left Review. Graeber, D. (2008). Direct Action: An Ethnography. AK Press. Hochschild, A.  R. (1983). The Managed Heart: Commercialization of Human Feeling. University of California Press, p. 22, p. 61. Schneider, N. (2013). Thank You, Anarchy! Notes from the Occupy Apolacalyse (p. 89). Sitrin, M. (2006). Horizontalism: Voices of Popular Power in Argentina. AK Press. Starhawk. (2008). Web of Power: Notes from the Global Uprising (p. 176). New Catalyst Books.

22 Co-option

In the period of mid-2013 to late 2016, OWS followed similar trajectories of the other 2011 movements. Those that had made the global revolution possible faced entrenched political hierarchies and institutionalization, and were co-opted (Piven & Cloward, 1971). Political parties were the final step in this process. From North Africa and the Middle East to Southern Europe to the US, parties channeled popular anger into electoral agendas. It is essential to understand that the co-option often went hand and hand with repression. As soon as parties were in power, they turned against the movements that they claimed to have come from. There was a sharp turn toward criminalization of dissent, and an increase in militarization involving the imposition of anti-terrorism laws and surveillance of social media. At best, parties were unable to win or were simply ineffectual. Strategies of taking state power did not empower the movements or result in revolutionary transformations. They did not bring about a new world. They aided the old world to come back.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 M. Holmes, Organizing Occupy Wall Street, Alternatives and Futures: Cultures, Practices, Activism and Utopias, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-8947-6_22

263

264 

M. Holmes

Tunisia Zine El Abidine Ben Ali had purposefully kept the Tunisian military weak. His strategy was to build up the police as an arm of his political party, the Rassemblement Constitutionnel Démocratique (RCD, or Constitutional Democratic Rally) and utilize them to go after potential opponents (Gana, 2013). He feared that a strong military would threaten his ability to maintain control (Nassif, 2015). Before 2011, it was largely police who were rounding up suspected dissidents and torturing them in the dark corners of Ben Ali’s prisons. In the immediate aftermath of Ben Ali’s departure, in the period of transition after 2011, there was a lack of transitional justice, and the police continued to brutalize and torture with impunity (Marks, 2013). The Islamic political party Ennahda, which positioned itself as a peaceful and conciliatory party that had evolved from its more Islamist roots, won the first round of elections after the revolution (Marks, 2017). Despite Ennahda’s rhetoric, the party had a base that was still very extremist and willing to engage in political violence (Prince, 2012). This started to become very apparent with a wave of political assassinations. The opposition comprised of liberals, social democrats, and communists was a sizeable political bloc in the National Constituent Assembly and was perceived as a threat, and the Ennahda base responded. On 6 February, 2013 Chokri Belaid was murdered, followed on 25  July, 2013 by Mohamed Brahmi (Amara, July 25, 2013). Both were high profile left opposition leaders, and their murders were linked to Salaafist militants sympathetic to Ennahda. Fearing more attacks, and the revolution’s reversal, many of the revolutionary youth groups began mobilizing for another sit-in, first on the Avenue Habib Bourguiba, and then in the Bardo neighborhood where the National Constituent Assembly was located beginning 27 July, 2013 (Nawaat). This was called the “Departure Sit-in” or the “Bardo Sit-in.” The initial goals of the revolutionary youth included the resignation of Ennahda and the National Constituent Assembly (Nawaat  2013). In their place would be local and regional assemblies for a more directly democratic transition. After the first few days of pitched battles with

22 Co-option 

265

police including injuries and hospitalizations, the youth managed to maintain the space, and establish self-organizing systems, much like those used during the Kasbah 1 and 2 sit-ins of 2011 (Chennaoui, February 9, 2015). There were committees for organizing food, sanitation, tents-­ whatever was needed. Tragically, the revolutionary dreams of the youth were crushed again by an alliance between the left opposition and the old regime (Giuliani & Holmes, 2019). The Bardo Sit-in ended in mid-August after Ennahda, the opposition (influenced largely by the UGTT, which was the largest public sector trade union) and Nidaa Tounes agreed to enter what was called The National Dialogue (Ben Salem, 2016). Many discussions ensued and the group agreed to a transitional government headed by the neoliberal technocrat, Mehdi Jooma, with ties to defense contractors, who went on tour discussing Tunisia as a ‘democracy start-up.’ (R. Giuliani & M. Holmes, April 4, 2014). They then focused on writing a new constitution, which was signed into law the following January. It was agreed that Ennahda had gone too far, and there would be another round of elections in which they would not participate. Nidaa Tounes expanded to include some former National Constituent Assembly members. To be clear, there was a deal between Nidaa Tounes, a new political party run by Beji Caid Essebsi and his fellow ex-RCD members—the old regime, and the left opposition. Together, they easily won the election, and with this came international investment and military aid. In fact, the military budget in Tunisia doubled overnight. Those who had made the revolution possible in Sidi Bouzid often chose not to vote rather than bring credibility to the new regime (Chennaoui & Hugh, November 3, 2014).

Egypt In stark contrast to Tunisia, the military in Egypt was always strong, and even more difficult to counter. With the privatization and liberalization of Egypt’s economy came public-private partnerships, from which the military often benefited. Researchers on the Egyptian military estimate that between one fourth and one third of the Egyptian economy was under military control before the 25 January Revolution (Raphaeli, July

266 

M. Holmes

29, 2013). In a September 2008 WikiLeaks cable on Egypt, US Ambassador Margaret Scobey wrote, “The military helps to ensure regime stability and operates a large network of businesses, as it becomes a ‘quasi-­ commercial’ enterprise itself ” (Kholaif, August 5, 2013). In order to maintain its position of power, before the revolution, Mubarak’s regime tightened its grip on the population with increasingly egregious policies of repression. Field Marshal Mohamed Hussein Tantawi had carried out Mubarak’s orders. He used the Emergency Law (Law No. 162 of 1958) to detain people without charge, deny citizens of legal representation, and torture those who dared to speak out against the regime (Reza, Fall 2007). He enforced penal codes that criminalized free speech such as Article 184, which outlawed “insulting public authorities,” Article 179, which outlawed “insulting the president” and Article 102, which outlawed “spreading false information” (Human Rights Watch, June 7, 2011). All of these articles remained in place after Mubarak, when Tantawi was left in charge. The Supreme Council of Armed Forces under Tantawi went even further than Mubarak did. It instituted an anti-strike law, which criminalized public assembly that disrupted stability, and an anti-thuggery law, which was broadly applied to target protesters. For expediency’s sake, the Supreme Council of Armed Forces used military trials without oversight. By early June 2011, they admitted that there had been over 7000 military trials since the 25 January Revolution (Amnesty International, June 25, 2011). The revolutionary youth kept going back to the square throughout the summer of 2011 and turned their attention to fighting the Supreme Council of Armed Forces and ending military rule (Shuster, July 27, 2011). But during the lead up to the first round of elections in the fall, the military cracked down. Internal divisions were sewn by the military through inciting inter-religious and ethnic conflicts (The Mosireen Collective, October 11, 2011a). For the most part, the revolutionary youth pivoted toward boycotting the elections altogether. There was not a sizeable electoral bloc on the left like in Tunisia. At the same time the Muslim Brotherhood had formed the Freedom and Justice Party, an Islamist party (not Islamic party like Ennahda in Tunisia) and pulled

22 Co-option 

267

back from the streets. They supported the elections and made alliances with the military (The Mosireen Collective, November 27, 2011b). From November 2011 through June 2012 there were run-off elections, and legal challenges. Mohamed Morsi, with the Freedom and Justice Party was declared the winner, and subsequently sworn in as president on 30  June, 2012 (Urquhart, June 30, 2011). There were ongoing claims that the election was fraudulent. Morsi immediately began going back on campaign promises and consolidating power. On 22  November, 2012 he issued a declaration that banned all challenges to his decisions and prevented any court from dissolving the constituent assembly (Beaumont, November 23, 2012). He effectively made himself immune and protected his political allies while they drafted a new constitution. The language reflected an Islamist political project such as giving Islamic religious authorities control of legislative process. There was very little language about rights or privileges, and when it appeared it seemed purposefully vague. From 2012 into the first part of 2013 there was a simmering anger in the Egyptian population against the Brotherhood, who they viewed as having betrayed the revolution. At this moment, the military, including some of the Mubarak-era hardliners, stepped in. They pushed to discredit Morsi and called for popular opposition in the streets. The Tamarod movement emerged seemingly out of nowhere, supported by the military, and brought together both anti-Mubarak revolutionaries and pro-­ Mubarak counterrevolutionaries (Iskandar, June 30, 2013). It was a similar alliance to what happened in Tunisia with the secular left, afraid of Islamists, siding with the old regime, and the military. On 30 June, 2013, there were the largest demonstrations since the revolution, and even in Egypt’s history, in opposition to Morsi (Kingsley, June 30, 2013). The result was a military coup under the direction of General Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, who enjoyed widespread support (The Mosireen Collective, July 14, 2013). The same people who a year earlier were in the streets protesting the military now thanked them for preventing a theocracy from taking root. When new elections were held in 2014, the military squashed any opposition, and Sisi won, instituting another dictatorship (Carlstrom, February 18, 2014).

268 

M. Holmes

Greece In 2011, New Democracy, the center-left political party, was in power in Greece. It had long been a proponent of neoliberal policies. The financial crisis had plunged Greece into a debtor relationship with the European Union (EU), and the country was facing a sovereign debt crisis as a result. After Syntagma, the response from New Democracy was to continue its neoliberal policies with PASOK (the Socialist Party) and implement more rounds of austerity (Papachristou & Tagaris, December 6, 2011). Those that had been in the squares were increasingly angry and looking for alternatives. The anarchist and autonomist scene of Exarchia provided a spatial hub of ongoing resistance with confederated assemblies, squatted social centers, solidarity economy projects, and support for refugees largely from the Middle East (Bekridaki & Broumas, 2017). In this context, SYRIZA (Coalition of the Radical Left), a small left-­ wing party started gaining momentum. It positioned itself as being the party of the movement using similar rhetoric and taking up some of the same issues raised at Syntagma. It started forming solidarity economies in parallel to the anarchist and autonomist ones copying their tactics. Some members of SYRIZA who were lawyers even represented political prisoners. However, SYRIZA was not representative of the movement, and this became glaringly obvious once it was actually in power (CrimethInc., January 28, 2015). Throughout 2013 and 2014, SYRIZA was on a winning streak with local and parliamentary elections. Then, on 26 January, 2015, the leader of SYRIZA, Alexis Tsipras, became Prime Minister of Greece, and brought Yanis Varoufakis, a well-known economist, along with him as the Minister of Finance (Traynor, January 26, 2015). Their stated goal was to end austerity and reform the EU, which were positions also supported by ANEL, the right-wing nationalist party. SYRIZA and ANEL formed a left-right populist coalition (Smith, January 26, 2015). Not only did SYRIZA align itself with the right, their coalition couldn’t even deliver on the crumbs they promised. Immediately, they were backtracking, and issuing new memorandums on austerity (Yardley, March 22, 2015).

22 Co-option 

269

The anarchists and autonomists who had been on the frontlines of Syntagma understood immediately how SYRIZA had sold out, and they were the first to respond with waves of strikes and riots immediately after Tsipras took office. These culminated in an occupation of the SYRIZA headquarters on 8 March, 2015 (Thrasybulus). Throughout the spring, SYRIZA found itself caught between political negotiations with the EU and their base, which was increasingly restless. Thus, in June, Tsipras announced a referendum, which would give Greeks the ability to weigh in on the conditions of debt repayment set by the European Commission (EC), the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and the European Central Bank (ECB), known as the “Troika.” On 5 July the vote took place, and a majority (over 61%) voted ‘No’ (Wearden & Kollewe, July 5, 2015). Tsipras did not take the referendum into account, and again, immediately capitulated to the Troika creditors. The more radical members of SYRIZA quit over the betrayal, and formed the Popular Unity Party, but it was too late (Popular Unity, September 8, 2015). When new elections were held again in September only SYRIZA was in a position to mobilize, and Tsipras won again.

Spain 15M occurred in the political context of a bi-partisan consensus of the People’s Party, a center right party, and Partido Socialista Obrero Español  (PSOE), the Spanish Socialist Workers Party. Since the 2008 financial crisis, both had imposed bailouts of banks while cutting services, much like what happened in Greece (López & Rodríguez, May/ June 2011). In the wake of the square occupations, the November 2011, elections were held, and the People’s Party secured a majority (Tremlett, November 20, 2011). As a result, the same policies continued for years plunging Spain deeper into crisis. 15M continued in response, and millions of people kept taking the streets organized along citizen tides, notably the green tide for education and white tide for healthcare. At the neighborhood level there were assemblies and mutual aid projects. Resistance to evictions continued with the Platform for People Affected by Mortgages (PAH) (Jourdan, April 14, 2014).

270 

M. Holmes

Podemos (We Can) emerged as an anti-party or ‘party-movement’ critical of the political establishment in the post-15M period. The name was inspired by the Obama campaign slogan “Yes, we can” (drawn from the immigration movement in the US). A group of young intellectuals, who initially had communist sympathies, were influenced by the ideas of Ernst Laclau and Chantal Mouffe, and decided to put them into practice (New Left Review, May/June 2015). On 17 January, 2014, Podemos officially launched and circulated a manifesto, “Making a Move: Turning Indignation Into Political Change.” Pablo Iglesias Turrión, a professor turned television personality, was announced as the head of the party (Cerveza-Marzal, January 9, 2020). In the coming year, Podemos went from an idea to a political force to be reckoned with, outpacing establishment candidates and winning local elections. Then, on 20 December 2015, the general election was held, and Podemos came in third. Combined with other new parties there was enough to counter the bi-partisan bloc of the People’s Party and PSOE. There was no electoral majority (Kassam, December 21, 2015). This opened a political crisis for Spain, and run-off elections were set for 26 June 2016. In the lead up, Podemos formed a coalition with the Communist Party-led United Left (IU), under the new banner Unidos Podemos (UP). They were slated to win a majority in all the polls. But this did not happen. They actually lost votes (Jones, September 17, 2016). Why? Podemos had built their base from the anti-capitalist left, and 15M, but they drifted away from it. Instead of assemblies they formed ‘circles’ which were not decision-making bodies, but more akin to town hall style discussions. They created tech platforms like Plaza Podemos to debate policies, but these were rigged in favor of the party leadership. Pablo Iglesias won the general secretary position and appointed those he wanted on the central committee. From the beginning there was a contradiction between the horizontal 15M movement and the hierarchical party structure under the charismatic male figure of Iglesias (Meyers, July 3, 2016). This basic tension became even more pronounced as the party became more enmeshed in established politics. There was a constant rolling back of promises. Podemos had promised to end home evictions, institute a guaranteed minimum income, and reduce the retirement age from 65 to

22 Co-option 

271

60. Podemos had spoken of doing away with the monarchy once and for all and instituting a true Spanish republic. But all this seemed to evaporate, as Podemos grew closer to power (December 9, 2021). In 2019 Podemos even formed a coalition with its former enemy, PSOE.  As a result, internally, Podemos faced a number of fractures and defections. Iglesias’ second in command, Iñigo Errejón, left and formed an alternative coalition to challenge Podemos with the mayor of Madrid, Manuela Carmena. This was inspired by what the mayor of Barcelona, Ada Colau, had already built (October 23, 2021). Meanwhile, those who had actually organized 15M, who were coming from anarchist and autonomous positions, were still engaged in the day to day work of building power from below. They watched Podemos’ rise and could not be silent any longer so announced the formation of Apoyo Mutuo (Mutual Aid) and their own manifesto, Construyendo Pueblo Fuerte, para posibilitar otro mundo (Building a Strong Pueblo, to make another world possible). It received over 600 signatories (Bray, May 22, 2015). There continued to be conversations within 15M, insisting that Podemos was not an outgrowth of 15M, but actually its own political project (Castro, May 14, 2021).

Back in the US Back in the US, OWS and the broader occupy movement were co-opted by the Democratic Party. The Bill DeBlasio campaign and the Bernie Sanders campaign were both attempts to build what they called ‘progressive’ blocs within and against the Democratic Party. These were moves toward building a ‘Big Tent’ or a ‘Tea Party of the Left’ but neither of these projects materialized. In both cases the campaigns ended up capitulating and silencing the social movements they claimed to come from. The Working Families Party (WFP) ran NYC Public Advocate, Bill De Blasio, for mayor in the 2013 election. He rode the wave of grassroots engagement during OWS and solidified a base among community-based organizations. Throughout the campaign he spoke of a “tale of two cities” in which there were the haves (1%) and have nots (99%) using the rhetoric of OWS (Coscarelli, September 17, 2013). All of this turned out, of

272 

M. Holmes

course, to be a performance, and not at all indicative of what he would do in office. One particularly painful display of WFP co-optation was their planning of an event at Duarte Square. WFP, Make the Road, and foundation partners organized a campaign event in November 2013. It was held, strangely, at the same space OWS had attempted to occupy in December 2011. They billed it as “Talking Transition to Pioneer New York’s First “Open” Transition of Mayoral Administrations.” Over the course of two weeks they erected a giant tent on the corner of Canal Street and Sixth Ave, to engage New Yorkers in a public discussion about the future of the city. There was even a parallel digital component for a “21st century soapbox.” It could have been OWS, except it was completely permitted, and for the specific purpose of advancing De Blasio’s mayoral agenda. In place of an assembly or spokes council, they had panels and ‘town halls.’ There was no real participation or collective decision-making (PR Newswire, November 7, 2013). The Bernie Sanders campaign also co-opted the rhetoric of OWS. Charles Lenchner, a middle-aged white man, and Winnie Wong, a middle-aged Asian woman  – two longtime Democratic Party media strategists, who ran progressive campaigns, were in the midst of working for Elizabeth Warren. But they but soon shifted gears when an opportunity came up that couldn’t be missed, to design media strategy for the Bernie Sanders campaign. Their strategy was to fold the networks of #OWS into support for Bernie Sanders, as if one evolved into the other (Levitz, July 4, 2015). In spring 2015, Charles and Winnie established peopleforbernie.com. They published a letter on 30 April which used the rhetoric of the 1% and 99% and stated, “Our goal is a government that carries out the will of the people, and not serve to increase the profits of the 1% at the expense of the rest of us.” They pivoted from the social and cultural revolution of OWS toward a political revolution aimed at taking state power. They then solicited support from many in occupy networks saying, “We call on all other progressive forces to unite behind Sanders so we can have a united front in this important campaign” and listed over a dozen signatories with organizational affiliations. Many were identified as being part

22 Co-option 

273

of OWS (April 30, 2015). Those three little letters indicated that somehow OWS was behind peopleforbernie.com. On 1 May, 2015 (May Day) Jenni Siri, a middle-aged white woman, founder of Women for Bernie, and team member of peopleforbernie. com, made a post on Facebook beginning with, “Now that Occupy Wall St. has come out in support of Bernie Sanders, the game has changed.” This ignited a firestorm of replies. One chat I was tagged in included Rebecca Manski, a white woman, who was very involved in organizing OWS, and part of the Public Relations Working Group, along with Ben Manski (Rebecca’s brother) from the Green Party. While Ben believed in an electoral strategy himself, he was appalled at what he saw as unethical behavior. He linked to Siri’s thread and asked, “How do people feel about all the posts circulating to the effect that #Occupy has endorsed a Democrat for president?” (Manski, May 2nd, 2015). Rebecca responded: Rebecca Manski: So endlessly tiresome. Why can’t they just stop using occupy as a brand to get themselves more attention? They know how disingenuous they are being, and they never stop. Makes me think half of them were hired by the dems to do this from day 1. Charles Lenchner and Winnie Wong were tagged. Winnie was smart enough to stay out of it, but Charles took the bait: OWS will never endorse any candidate. OWS Charles Lenchner:  doesn’t exist. No individual can represent all of the occupy movement. That said, I’m definitely someone who was an occupy activist. Is there some rule saying I can’t identify myself that way? OWS was part of a global moment in which Marisa Holmes:  oppressed people took the square, the site of direct democracy. OWS, historically, as an action, and as an organization, was against representation. It’s really that simple. Charles Lencher: Just like the Indignados in Spain, who went on to form Podemos, which is now the most popular party there ☺.

274 

M. Holmes

Marisa Holmes: By using the label in an endorsement you are misrepresenting (pun intended) what OWS was. Marisa Holmes: Even Podemos doesn’t claim that it is 15M, but that it came from it. Marisa Holmes: Form something else. Call it something else. Charles Lenchner: Who is claiming to “be” OWS? I certainly don’t. It’s not called that. Marisa Holmes: Be creative. Charles Lenchner: I’m part of something called “People for Bernie.” Doesn’t even have a ‘W’ in it. Marisa Holmes: Then why sign your name with “OWS” Marisa Holmes: ? Marisa Holmes: This is a ridiculous game. Just be honest about what you’re doing. The thread continued, as others piled on, some to offer their own take, and others to “be a fly on the wall.” As the comments rolled in, many of them were critical of the move. Ben chimed in: Ben Manski: The impression you are giving is that Occupy has endorsed a candidate. Check out this thread [Siri’s facebook]. If that’s not the impression you intended to give, you will want to adjust your id. If that is the impression you intended, that’s pretty messed up. Charles Lenchner: Please do correct everyone who has that impression. I’m going to do the work of supporting Bernie Sanders. Sign up here: www.peopleforbernie.com. Ben Manski: I’m supposed to correct the impression you gave? That’s not my job. That’s yours. Yes? Charles Lenchner: Absolutely not. I decline. Ben Manski: Got it. Ok, so it is just that intentional. I guess it’s true that every generation has its activist archetypes. Too bad. I was disappointed but not entirely surprised by the exchange. As the Sanders campaign developed, I watched to see who else would get on

22 Co-option 

275

board. Those who had always dreamt of building the big tent on the left, who saw themselves as professional organizers, jumped at the chance to ride the Bernie wave. There were also those in the middle on a spectrum of allies, who were not clearly politically aligned but sympathetic to the OWS message. These were the people who followed our social media accounts and participated in mass days of action. They were not organizers, or closely involved, but associated with the movement. Maybe OWS had been their first political awakening. They were the swing camp, who given the right conditions could be anarchists or social democrats. In 2011 they were anarchists, but in 2015 and 2016 they supported Bernie.

#FeeltheBern Throughout the primary season the Sanders campaign was building momentum by leveraging its origins in OWS. On 30 January, there was a National March for Bernie. In NY, a rally of several thousand gathered in Union Square. Signs read, “Power to the 99%” and “Political Revolution.” As the crowd moved south on Broadway they chanted, “What do we want? Bernie! When do we want him? Now!” and “Feel the Bern!” before arriving at Zuccotti Park. On the steps under the red thing, at the park entrance, Sanders supporters positioned themselves with banners that read “#FeeltheBern” and “Vote Bernie Sanders 2016” as they chanted, “We are the 99%” and “Tell me what democracy looks like! This is what democracy looks like.” I watched in horror as the Sanders campaign took all the aesthetics of OWS, and used them for it’s own purposes (Holmes, 2016a). The march was only the kick-off and was followed by many events in the coming months which blurred the lines between the movement and the campaign. One example was the phone banking for Bernie on 14 March, also at Zuccotti Park (not Liberty, which is what we called it in OWS). This was a step too far for those of us in the OWS Media Working Group, so we discussed what to do as a response and decided to make an intervention. Vlad and I approached the park, where dozens of volunteers were set up making calls, and fielding press requests. We brought a stack of flyers for everyone in attendance to read (Holmes, 2016b). They

276 

M. Holmes

were copies of The Statement of Autonomy originally consented to by the NYCGA in November 2011, and then again in March 2012. We mic-checked: Occupy Wall Street is a people’s movement. It is party-less, leaderless, by the people and for the people. It is not a business, a political party, an advertising campaign, or a brand. It is not for sale. We welcome all, who, in good faith, petition for a redress of grievances through non-violence. We provide a forum for peaceful assembly of individuals to engage in participatory as opposed to partisan debate and democracy. We welcome dissent. Any statement or declaration not released through the General Assembly and made public online at www.nycga.net should be considered independent of Occupy Wall Street. We wish to clarify that Occupy Wall Street is not and never has been affiliated with any established political party, candidate, or organization. Our only affiliation is with the people. The people who are working together to create this movement are its sole and mutual caretakers. If you have chosen to devote resources to building this movement, especially your time and labor, then it is yours. Any organization is welcome to support us with the knowledge that doing so will mean questioning your own institutional frameworks of work and hierarchy and integrating our principles into your modes of action. SPEAK WITH US, NOT FOR US.  Occupy Wall Street values collective resources, dignity, integrity, and autonomy above money. We have not made endorsements. All donations are accepted anonymously and are transparently allocated via consensus by the General Assembly or the Operational Spokes Council. We acknowledge the existence of professional activists who work to make our world a better place. If you are representing or being compensated by an independent source while participating in our process, please disclose your affiliation at the outset. Those seeking to capitalize on this movement or undermine it by appropriating its message or symbols are not a part of Occupy Wall Street. We stand in solidarity. We are Occupy Wall Street. (OccupyWallstreet.net, March 3, 2012).

The organizers, some of whom we knew, just stood there unphased. They treated us as if we were counter protestors in our own park. After a momentary pause for the reading, volunteers continued to take calls as if nothing had happened.

22 Co-option 

277

The Aftermath Bernie Sanders lost the 2016 primary to Hillary Clinton in what many understood as a rigged process in favor of the party establishment. He ran again, of course, in 2020, only to be iced out by Joe Biden. In both cases Sanders ended up conceding and going along with what was best for the party. It is hard to know what the US would have looked like if he had won. Likely, though, little would have changed with regard to foreign policy, and domestically there would have been many partisan battles over lukewarm reforms. At best, maybe there would have been single payer healthcare. Don’t get me wrong, this would be good to have. But achieving some healthcare reform is just not revolution of any kind, not a political one, and certainly not a social revolution, which is what OWS was making.

References Amara, T. (2013, July 25). Turmoil Hits Tunisia After Secular Politician Slain. Reuters. Retrieved September 10, 2022, from https://www.reuters.com/article/tunisia-­d eath/turmoil-­h its-­t unisia-­a fter-­s ecular-­p olitician-­s lain-­ idINDEE96O0GA20130725 Amnesty International. (2011, June 25). Egypt: End Military Trials, Scrap Repressive Laws. Retrieved September 10, 2022, from https://www.amnesty. org/en/latest/news/2011/06/egypt-­e nd-­m ilitary-­t rials-­s crap-­repressive-­ laws-­2/ Beaumont, P. (2012, November 23). Protests erupt across Egypt After Presidential Decree. The Guardian. Retrieved September 10, 2022, from https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/nov/23/protests-­egypt-­presidential-­ decree Bekridaki, G., & Broumas, A. (2017). Greek Society in Crisis and in Motion: Building the Material Bases for an Alternative Society from the Bottom Up. Interface: A Journal for and About Social Movements, 9(1), 230–255. http:// www.interfacejournal.net/wordpress/wp-­c ontent/uploads/2017/07/ Interface-­9-­1-­Bekridaki-­and-­Broumas.pdf

278 

M. Holmes

Ben Salem, M. (2016). The National Dialogue, Collusive Transactions and Government Legitimacy in Tunisia. The International Spectator, 51(1), 99–112. https://doi.org/10.1080/03932729.2016.1126997 Bray, M. (2015, May 22). Beyond the Ballotbox. ROAR Magazine. https://roarmag.org/essays/spain-­apoyo-­mutuo-­elections/ Broder, D. (Trans.). (2021, October 23). Íñigo Errejón: Podemos Missed Its Chance to Transform Spanish Politics. Jacobin. Retrieved September 10, 2022, from https://jacobin.com/2021/10/inigo-­errejon-­spanish-­left-­podemos-­ mas-­pais-­madrid-­15-­m-­vox-­populism Carlstrom, G. (2014, February 18). Retrieved from: Egypt’s New Dictator Was Made in the USA. Politico. Retrieved September 10, 2022, from https:// www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/02/el-­sisi-­egypt-­dictator-­103628/ Castro, N. (2021, May 14). Amador Fernández-Savater: “Spain’s 15M movement was undervalued and turned into something else; it was then that it lost the energy that was inherent to it”. Equal Times. https://www.equaltimes.org/ amador-­fernandez-­savater-­spain-­s?lang=en Cerveza-Marzal, M. (2020, January 9). Podemos: A “Party-Movement” in Government. Jacobin. https://jacobin.com/2020/01/podemos-­party-­social-­ movement-­pablo-­iglesias Chennaoui, H. Trans. by V. Szakal. (2015, February 9). Four Years After the Kasbah Sit-Ins  – Taking Stock of a Revolutionary Mission Confiscated. Nawaat. https://nawaat.org/2015/02/09/four-­years-­after-­the-­kasbah-­sit-­ins-­ taking-­stock-­of-­a-­revolutionary-­mission-­confiscated/ Chennaoui, H., & Hugh, C. F. Trans. by V. Szakal. (2014, November 3). Report: In Sidi Bouzid, Abstention Is the voice of the Voiceless. Nawaat. https:// nawaat.org/2014/11/11/report-­i n-­s idi-­b ouzid-­a bstention-­i s-­t he-­voice-­ of-­the-­voiceless/ Coscarelli, J. (2013, September 17). Occupy Wall Street Is Very Skeptical of Bill de Blasio. https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2013/09/bill-­de-­blasio-­occupy-­ wall-­street-­candidate.html CrimethInc. (2015, January 28). SYRIZA Can’t Save Greece: Why There’s No Electoral Exit from the Crisis. https://crimethinc.com/2015/01/28/ feature-­syriza-­cant-­save-­greece-­why-­theres-­no-­electoral-­exit-­from-­the-­crisis Gana, N. (2013). The Making of the Tunisian Revolution: Contexts, Architects, Prospects (p. 66, p. 86). Edinbourgh University Press. Giuliani, R., & Holmes, M.. (2014, April 4). Tunisia Democracy Startup? Waging Non-violence. https://wagingnonviolence.org/2014/04/tunisia-­ democracy-­startup/

22 Co-option 

279

Giuliani, R., & Holmes, M. (Co-Director). (2019). After the Revolution [Video; Vimeo Release]. HD. Holmes, M. (2016a, January 30). Personal Video and Photo Collection. Holmes, M. (2016b, March 14). Personal Video and Photo Collection. Human Rights Watch. (2011, June 7). Egypt: Human Rights Reform an Urgent Priority. Retrieved September 3, 2022, from https://www.refworld.org/ docid/4df1e2f62.html Interview with Pablo Iglesias. (2015, May/June). New Left Review. Retrieved September 10, 2022, from https://newleftreview.org/issues/ii93/articles/ pablo-­iglesias-­spain-­on-­edge.pdf Iskandar, I. (2013, June 30). Tamarod: Egypt’s Revolution Hones Its Skills. Jadaliyya. Retrieved September 10, 2022, from https://www.jadaliyya.com/ Details/28878 Jones, S. (2016, September 17). Battle for the Heart and Soul of Podemos as Spain’s Political Deadlock Continues. The Guardian. Retrieved September 10, 2022, from https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/sep/17/podemos-­ under-­pressure-­spain-­political-­deadlock-­continues Jourdan, B. (2014, April 14). Pieces of Madrid. Global Uprisings. Retrieved September 10, 2022, from http://www.globaluprisings.org/new-­documentary-­ pieces-­of-­madrid/ Kassam, A. (2015, December 21). Spanish Election: National Newcomers End Era of Two-Party Dominance. The Guardian. Retrieved September 10, 2022, from https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/dec/20/peoples-­party-­wins-­ spanish-­election-­absolute-­majority Kholaif, D. (2013, August 5). The Egyptian Army’s Economic Juggernaut. Al Jazeera. Retrieved September 10, 2022, from https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2013/8/5/the-­egyptian-­armys-­economic-­juggernaut Kingsley, P. (2013, June 30). Protesters Across Egypt Call for Mohamed Morsi to Go. The Guardian. Retrieved September 10, 2022, from https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/30/mohamed-­morsi-­egypt-­protests Levitz, E. (2015, July 4). ‘Feel the Bern’: Activists Spearhead Bernie Sanders Social Push. Retrieved September 10, 2022, from https://www.msnbc.com/ msnbc/feel-­t he-­b ern-­a ctivists-­s pearhead-­b ernie-­s anders-­s ocial-­p ush-­ msna632156 López, I., & Rodríguez, E. (2011, May/June). The Spanish Model. New Left Review. Retrieved September 10, 2022, from https://newleftreview.org/ issues/ii69/articles/isidro-­lopez-­emmanuel-­rodriguez-­the-­spanish-­model

280 

M. Holmes

Manski, R. (2015, May 2). How Do People Feel About All the Posts Circulating… Facebook. Retrieved December 5, 2018, from https://www.facebook.com/ meccabanksi/posts/10153298893964187?comment_id=1015329960 164187 Marks, M. (2013). Women’s Rights Before and After the Revolution. In N. Gana (Ed.), The Making of the Tunisian Revolution: Contexts, Architects, Prospects (p. 243). Edinbourgh University Press. Marks, M. (2017). Tunisia’s Islamists and the “Turkish Model”. Journal of Democracy, 28(1), 102–115. https://doi.org/10.1353/jod.2017.0009 Meyers, M. (2016, July 3). The Problems of Podemos. Novara Media. Retrieved September 10, 2022, from https://novaramedia.com/2016/07/03/podemos-­ elections-­what-­went-­wrong/ Nassif, H. B. (2015). Military Besieged: The Armed Forces, The Police, and the Party in Bin Ali’s Tunisia 1987–2011. The International Journal of Middle East Studies, 47(2015), 65–87. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020743814001457 Nawaat. (2013, July 27). ‫�أجواء اعتصام ابردو يف ليلته ا ألوىل‬. Retrieved September 10, 2022, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFkyyInFcKU OccupyWallStreet.net. (2012, March 3). Statement of Autonomy. Retrieved December 5, 2018, from http://occupywallstreet.net/policy/statement-­ autonomy Papachristou, H., & Tagaris, K. (2011, December 6). Greece Passes Austerity Budget After Clashes. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/article/greece/ greece-­p asses-­a usterity-­b udget-­a fter-­s treet-­c lashes-­i dINDEE7B600 A20111207 Piven, F., & Cloward, R. (1971). Poor People’s Movements: Why They Succeed and How They Fail. Vintage Books. Random House. Popular Unity. (2015, September 8). What Does Popular Unity Stand For? Jacobin Magazine. Retrieved September 10, 2022, from https://jacobin. com/2015/09/tsipras-­popular-­unity-­syriza-­eurozone-­snap-­elections/ PR Newswire. (2013, November 7). Talking Transition. Retrieved September 10, 2022, from https://www.prnewswire.com/news-­releases/talking-­transition-­ to-­pioneer-­new-­yorks-­first-­open-­transition-­of-­mayoral-­administrations-­ 230988971.html Prince, R. (2012). Tunisia’s Salafists: Brownshirts of Tunisia’s Arab Spring. Nawaat. Retrieved September 10, 2022, from https://nawaat.org/2012/06/04/ tunisias-­salafists-­brownshirts-­of-­tunisias-­arab-­spring/ Raphaeli, N. (2013, July 29). Egyptian Army’s Pervasive Role in National Economy. MEMRI. Retrieved September 10, 2022, from https://www. memri.org/reports/egyptian-­a rmys-­p ervasive-­role-­n ational-­e conomy#_ edn11

22 Co-option 

281

Reza, S. (2007, Fall). Endless Emergency: The Case of Egypt. New Criminal Law Review: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal, 10(4), 532–553. University of California Press. Retrieved September 10, 2022. Shuster, M. (2011, July 27). Revolutionary Spirit Returns to Egypt’s Tahrir Square. NPR. Retrieved September 10, 2022, from https://www.npr. org/2011/07/27/138681585/revolutionary-­s pirit-­r eturns-­t o-­e gypts-­ tahrir-­square Siri, J. (2015, May 1). Now That Occupy Has Come Out in Support of Bernie Sanders. Facebook. Retrieved September 10, 2022, from http://www.facebook.com/jenni.siri/posts/10205831433321257 Smith, H. (2015, January 26). Syriza’s Tsipras Sworn in After Greek Government Formed with Right Wingers. The Guardian. Retrieved September 10, 2022, from https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/26/syriza-­forms-­ government-­rightwing-­independent-­greeks-­party The Mosireen Collective. (2011a, October 11). Blood at Night, Grief by Day. Retrieved September 10, 2022, from https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=Mh5F0ot_p3s The Mosireen Collective. (2011b, November 27). Retrieved September 10, 2022, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_7WC6qT02c The Mosireen Collective. (2013, July 14). Retrieved September 10, 2022, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xrmhe5JuuNc The People for Bernie Sanders. (2015, April 30). Facebook @PeopleForBernie. Retrieved September 10, 2022, from https://www.facebook.com/People ForBernie/posts/1657317311155143 The Rise and Decline of Podemos. (2021, December 9). Socialism Today. Retrieved September 10, 2022, from https://socialismtoday.org/the-­rise-­ and-­decline-­of-­podemos Thrasybulus. (2015, March 8). Anarchists Occupy Syriza Headquarters. Libcom. Retrieved September 10, 2022, from https://libcom.org/article/anarchists-­ occupy-­syrizas-­headquarters Traynor, I. (2015, January 26). Syriza’s Historic Win Puts Greece on Collision Course with Europe. The Guardian. Retrieved September 10, 2022, from https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/25/syriza-­h istoric-­w in-­ greece-­european-­union-­austerity Tremlett, G. (2011, November 20). Spain Election: People’s Party Sweeps to Crushing Victory Over Socialists. Retrieved September 10, 2022, from https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/nov/20/spain-­election-­peoples-­ party-­victory

282 

M. Holmes

Urquhart, C. (2011, June 30). Mohamed Morsi Sworn in as Egyptian President. The Guardian. Retrieved September 10, 2022, from https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/jun/30/mohamed-­morsi-­sworn-­in-­egyptian-­president Wearden, G., & Kollewe, J. (2015, July 5). Greek Referendum: No Campaign Storms to Victory with 61.31% of the Vote – As It Happened. The Guardian. Retrieved September 10, 2022, from https://www.theguardian.com/business/live/2015/jul/05/greeces-­eurozone-­future-­in-­the-­balance-­as-­referendum-­ gets-­under-­way%2D%2Deu-­euro-­bailout-­live Yardley, J. (2015, March 22). In Greece, Syriza Struggles to Deliver Promises as Money Runs Out. NY Times. Retrieved September 10, 2022, from https:// www.nytimes.com/2015/03/23/world/europe/in-­greece-­syriza-­struggles-­to-­ deliver-­promises-­as-­money-­runs-­out.html

23 Repression

State repression has long been a threat to movements. The FBI Counter-­ intelligence Program (COINTELPRO), for example, destroyed the movements of the 1960s (Churchill, 1990). The way repression played out in the 2011 movements was similar but shaped by the context of the ongoing War on Terror. Counter-terrorism charges, surveillance, and censorship were used to control dissent. Since the movements were public, in person and online, I argue, the repression was targeted at our ability to meet and organize in public.

Tunisia In Tunisia, anti-terror laws were at times used to counter Islamists, but they were also used against the youth who had made the revolution possible. In particular, high-profile youth who were artists, musicians, writers, and journalists—anyone who used social media and had a following, were targeted. The first case was Jabeur Mejri, who was arrested for posting a cartoon of the prophet Mohamed on Facebook (Riahi, April 11, 2012). Later were the rappers Weld El 15 and Klay BBJ, both critical of the RCD affiliated police on YouTube (Massy, September 2, 2013). © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 M. Holmes, Organizing Occupy Wall Street, Alternatives and Futures: Cultures, Practices, Activism and Utopias, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-8947-6_23

283

284 

M. Holmes

An attack by Islamist extremists at the Bardo museum in 2015 provided even more political ammunition to increase militarization. Ben Ali had signed an anti-terror law in 2003, to justify the detainment and torture of dissidents. This law was used as the basis for the 2015 counter-­ terrorism law, which was more far reaching. Most concerning was language defining terrorism as, “prejudicing private and public property, vital resources, infrastructures, means of transport and communication, IT systems or public services when they are part of an individual or collective enterprise aiming at intentionally spreading terror among the population or forcing the government or an international organization to accomplish an act or abstain from so doing.” This was very broad. The law also included a provision about anyone aiding and abetting terrorist activity, including speaking in support of it. Anyone found to have “publicly and clearly praised” a terrorist crime, the perpetrator of a terrorist crime, an organization or an alliance connected with terrorist crimes, their members or their activities, could be sentenced to up to five years in prison. Also, rather than 6 days of pre-trial detainment, those considered terrorists could be held for 15 days without access to a lawyer (Human Rights Watch, July 31, 2015a).

Egypt When Abdel Fattah el-Sisi took power in Egypt, repression escalated against all who dared challenge the military rule. There were new laws restricting people from going to the streets, organizing, and speaking freely. Law 107 of 2013 on the Right to Public Meetings, Processions and Peaceful Demonstrations (dubbed the anti-protest law) which gave the Interior Ministry the absolute right to outlaw any activity critical of the government, had originally been drafted during the transition to el-Sisi (Human Rights Watch, November 26, 2013). He expanded on it. In August 2015, el-Sisi issued Law 94 on Confronting Terrorism, which gave a very wide definition of terrorism so that virtually all forms of civil disobedience could fall under the category (Human Rights Watch, August 19, 2015b). Following an Islamist attack (later claimed by ISIS) in April 2017, el-Sisi declared a National Emergency, which gave law

23 Repression 

285

enforcement the ability to hold people indefinitely in pre-trial detention without review. Rather than civilian courts or even military courts, el-­ Sisi’s officials could use emergency state security courts (Human Rights Watch, September 5, 2017). Like in Tunisia, repressive laws, written in the name of countering Islamic terrorism, were used against the revolutionary youth. The military rounded up tens of thousands of political prisoners and left them languishing in pre-trial detention. One of the most well-known has been the software engineer and blogger Alaa Abd El-Fattah. He was first arrested for protesting without a permit, and then later for retweeting a story about torture in Tora (the America-style prison). In a cruel twist, he was detained in the same prison under the watch of the same officer who he had named in the tweet (Democracy Now! April 19, 2022).

Greece SYRIZA kept the anti-terror laws in place under the New Democracy Party including Law Α article 187, Law 2001, Law B article 187A, Law 2004, and the ‘hoodie’ law preventing people from concealing their identities in public (indymedia UK, October 3, 2015). The Department for the Protection of the State and of the Democratic Polity, a special branch of the Greek Security Services created in 2000 for anti-terrorism, was used by SYRIZA to go after the radical left (Kouvelakis & Lapavitsas, October 6, 2018). The anarchist political prisoner Nikos Romano, a symbol of youth rebellion, went on hunger strike in order to study, and nearly died, but was left in prison (Avramidis, October 11, 2016). Even once close allies of SYRIZA became suspect. In 2018, Panagiotis Lafazanis of the political party Popular Unity, Elias and Leonidas Papadopoulos of the “I Won’t Pay” campaign, and Elias Smilios an activist from Thessaloniki were all drawn up on terrorism charges and faced eight years in prison. Facebook messages were used as evidence (CADTM, December 11, 2018).

286 

M. Holmes

Spain 15M was heavily repressed, not surprisingly, again through anti-terror laws. Originally, under the People’s Party there was an anti-terrorism law, Article 578 of the Spanish Criminal Code, which included vague language around criminalizing those who, “glorified terrorism” or “humiliated the victims of terrorism or their relatives” (Amnesty International, March 13, 2018). Following the attacks at Charlie Hebdo offices in Paris in January 2015, the code was expanded with the Law on Public Security, nicknamed the Gag Law or Anti-15M law (Freedom House, June 29, 2015). Amnesty International reported at the time that over 119 people had been convicted of speech-related “terrorism” since 2011. Four major “spider operations” took place rounding up musicians, journalists, and even puppeteers who dared speak out on Twitter and Facebook against the Spanish monarchy (Wray, June 15, 2018). Podemos, while it publicly condemned these actions, did not stop them from taking place.

OWS At the municipal level in NYC, the NYPD, larger than most militaries in the world and trained with military grade weapons, continued repression under the so-called progressive mayor, Bill De Blasio. Like many politicians before, De Blasio made grand promises and did not deliver particularly with regard to police reform. He said in his inauguration speech that he would do away with ‘Stop and Frisk’, a process of racially profiling people of color (January 1, 2014) but he appointed Bill Bratton, the architect of Stop and Frisk, as police commissioner (WNYC, December 5, 2013). The same policies continued of Stop and Frisk only rebranded as ‘Broken Windows Policing’ (Childress, June 28, 2016). He also oversaw the establishment the Strategic Response Group in 2015 (NLG NYC, March 9, 2015). While initially branded as an ‘anti-terror squad,’ it was used specifically to target protests. The Strategic Response Group was present for nearly every major demonstration in the years after OWS, and kept expanding its scope (Offenhertz, February 19, 2021).

23 Repression 

287

Repression had been happening since the beginning of OWS and occupy from the federal level down. The Partnership for Civil Justice Fund released documents they received from a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request concerning Occupy Wall Street and the broader occupy movement (December 2012). These documents show coordination between the FBI, the CIA, Department of Homeland Security, local police departments such as the NYPD, the National Park Service, other government agencies, and corporations such as the banks we were targeting (Wolf, December 29, 2012). Named in the documents is the Domestic Security Alliance Council (DSAC), founded by the FBI in 2005, with an original steering committee comprised of Chief Security Officers for major American companies including Citibank, Coca-Cola, and FedEx. By 2011, it had expanded to include hundreds of other corporations, especially in the financial sector. From the early planning phases of OWS, DSAC was facilitating information sharing between the FBI and New York Stock Exchange. This relationship continued well into 2012. The Partnership for Civil Justice Fund (PCJF) claimed that DSAC treated “protests against the corporate and banking structure of America as potential criminal and terrorist activity,” and that DSAC was “functioning as a de facto intelligence arm of Wall Street and corporate America.” (Lennard, January 2, 2013). What was particularly threatening to both the FBI and DHS was the high level of organization, and our use of online communication. The FBI began surveillance as early as the planning processes for OWS in the summer of 2011. One document reporting from a meeting at the New York Stock Exchange on 19 August reads: (U) Discussed was the planned Anarchist protest titled “occupy Wall Street,” scheduled for September 17, 2011. The protest appears on Anarchist websites and social network pages on the internet. (U) Numerous incidents have occurred in the past which show attempts by Anarchist groups to disrupt, influence, and or shut down normal business operations of financial districts. (The Partnership for Civil Justice Fund)

288 

M. Holmes

Throughout the fall of 2011, DHS had ‘Special Coverage’ of OWS, which it considered ‘domestic terrorism.’ These briefings were very consistent and gave detailed reports of the assembly and working groups. In mid-October, one document made the following analysis: Social media and the organic emergence of online communities have driven the rapid expansion of the OWS movement. In New York, OWS leaders have also formed ad hoc committees to organize protesters and manage communications, logistics, and security. The OWS encampment in Zuccotti Park features a medical station, distribution point for food and water, and a media center complete with generators and wireless Internet. Organizers hold general assembly meetings twice a day and a have established committees and working groups including an Internet Working Group and a Direct Action Committee, which plans protest activities and works to maintain peaceful and controlled demonstrations. This high level of organization has allowed OWS to sustain its operations, disseminate its message, and garner increasing levels of support. (The Partnership for Civil Justice Fund, December 2012)

In an effort to derail the organization of OWS, the FBI and DHS engaged in widespread surveillance both online and in person, infiltration of planning meetings, disruption of actions, and miscommunication. The agencies utilized over 70 Fusion centers run by DHS, sharing information between local, state, federal agencies, and the private sector in real time (Timm, October 9, 2012). Each of these physical locations had full-time staff evaluating data and providing intelligence reports that could be used across all levels of law enforcement.

Entrapment Cases What is largely missing in the PCJF documents are the high-profile FBI entrapment cases of the Cleveland 5 and the NATO 3. Brandon Baxter, Anthony Hayne, Connor Stevens, Joshua Stafford, and Douglas Wright had met during Occupy Cleveland, and were newly radicalized, and shaken up by the experience. After the eviction of the camp, they were

23 Repression 

289

unemployed, listless, and living on the edge in an occupy affiliated warehouse. They hadn’t yet heard the stories of elders dealing with COINTELPRO (Churchill, 1990) and lacked an understanding of how similar tactics might be used in the present and were vulnerable. At this exact moment Shaquille Azir, a heavy-set smooth talking ex con, who hung around occupy circles, befriended the young men. He got them work, booze, weed, other drugs, and made everything a little easier for them. Meanwhile, he kept talking about this idea he had to blow up a bridge during May Day, 2012. He convinced them it would really make an impact. According to Rolling Stone, Azir was an FBI informant, engaged in entrapment. He arranged for the young men to meet someone he called an ‘arms dealer’ to purchase eight bricks of C4 plastic explosives. The meeting took place on 29 April, a few days before the action. Strangely, the dealer didn’t need to get paid in full right away but accepted half the payment and the rest on credit. The group grew anxious as the reality of what they were about to do dawned on them. Stevens, in particular, tried to get out of it, but Azir pressured him with a possible loss of his job if he didn’t follow through. They set up the bomb, and then waited in an Applebee’s nearby checking the code with the ‘arms dealer’ but the code didn’t work. Instead, they were hauled off to jail. By September they had plead guilty to charges of conspiracy to use a weapon of mass destruction, attempted use of a weapon of mass destruction and use of an explosive device to destroy property used in interstate commerce (Erdely, September 26, 2012). Another example of entrapment was the FBI infiltration of the protests against the North American Treaty Organization (NATO) Summit on May 20 and 21, 2012 in Chicago. President Obama had called for the summit, in his hometown, to discuss the expansion of wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere in the Middle East. The primary agenda was about increasing military spending for surveillance and drone wars in the same counties where The Arab Spring had taken place. The event drew thousands of protestors from the GJM, anti-war movement, and occupy movement. From across the country, local occupy groups converged in Chicago. Mayor Rahm Emmanuel, former Chief of Staff to Obama, took

290 

M. Holmes

the opportunity to further streamline local policing efforts with those of the federal government. In advance of the summit, the Chicago Police Department established a special 90-day undercover operation Field Intelligence Team 7150 (FIT 7150). The team was tasked with attending, “Occupy Chicago and anarchist movement events for the purpose of observing and listening to reports of any planned criminal activity,” (Horn & Stroud, June 21, 2013). Two officers, a tall white man, named ‘Mo’ and his friend, a younger woman who claimed to be Syrian named ‘Nadia’ befriended occupy activists, attended organizing meetings for NATO, and provided intelligence reports back to the CPD, in addition, possibly, to military contractors such as Booz Allen Hamilton. But they went further than that. On 16 May, 2012 ‘Mo’ and ‘Nadia’ were hanging out at one of the convergence spaces where people were staying in Bridgeport (an industrial neighborhood on the South Side of Chicago). They egged people on and encouraged them to make Molotov cocktails. They even bought the fuel at a nearby gas station. The space was raided by the Chicago Police Department (CPD), and 11 arrests were made including the officers. In the process, all sorts of other equipment including knives, PVC pipes, an empty gas can, tactical black vests, and even a bow and arrow, were ‘found.’ The CPD claimed that the materials belonged to three people who had traveled from Occupy Miami: Brian Church, Brent Betterly, and Jared Chase. Without any evidence that they brought the above material, or that they specifically had plans to incite violence, let alone evidence that they had carried out these plans, the NATO 3 were charged with material support for terrorism, conspiracy to commit terrorism, among several other charges. They faced over 85 years in prison and were held on a $1.5 million bond (Pioneer Press, May 20, 2012). After a long trial, they were sentenced to lesser charges of arson and mob action on 7 February, 2014 (Schmadeke, Feb 7, 2014). These two cases are just some of the effects of the counter-terrorism strategies employed against OWS, and the occupy movement.

23 Repression 

291

References Amnesty International. (2018, March 13). Spain: Counter-Terror Law Used to Crush Satire and Creative Expression Online. Retrieved September 13, 2022, from https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2018/03/spain-­counter-­ terror-­law-­used-­to-­crush-­satire-­and-­creative-­expression-­online/ Avramidis, C. (2016, October 11). Syriza Tramples Anarchist Prisoner’s Right to Study. ROAR Magazine. Retrieved September 13, 2022, from https://roarmag.org/essays/nikos-­romanos-­study-­syriza/ Bill de Blasio Appoints Bratton, Rejects “False Choice” Between Safety and Privacy. (2013, December 5). The Brian Lehrer Show. Retrieved September 13, 2022, from https://www.wnyc.org/story/bill-­de-­blasio-­barack-­obama-­ and-­pope-­vs-­inequality/ CADTM. (2018, December 11). Against the Repression of Social Movements in Greece  – An International Call. Retrieved September 13, 2022, from https://www.cadtm.org/spip.php?page=imprimer&id_article=16915 Childress, S. (2016, June 28). The Problem with Broken Windows Policing. PBS Frontline. Retrieved September 13, 2022, from https://www.pbs.org/ wgbh/frontline/article/the-­problem-­with-­broken-­windows-­policing/ Churchill, W. (1990). The COINTELPRO Papers: Documents from the FBI’s Secret Wars Against Dissent in the United States. South End Press. Democracy Now! (2022, April 19). Free Alaa Abd El-Fattah: Meet Sanaa Seif, Calling on Egypt to Release Her Brother. Retrieved September 13, 2022, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=srAPUG1Gw60 Erdely, S. (2012, September 26). The Plot Against Occupy: How the Government Turned Five Stoner Misfits into the World’s Most Hapless Terrorist Cell. Rolling Stone. Retrieved September 13, 2022, from https://www.rollingstone. com/politics/politics-­news/the-­plot-­against-­occupy-­187832/ Freedom House. (2015, June 29). A Worrying Setback for Freedom of Expression in Spain. Retrieved September 13, 2022, from https://freedomhouse.org/ article/worrying-­setback-­freedom-­expression-­spain Horn, S., & Stroud, M. (2013, June 21). Revealed: The Story Behind the “NATO 3” Domestic Terrorism Arrests. Truthout. Retrieved September 13, 2022, from https://truthout.org/articles/revealed-­the-­story-­behind-­the-­nato-­ 3-­domestic-­terrorism-­arrests/

292 

M. Holmes

Human Rights Watch. (2013, November 26). Egypt: Deeply Restrictive New Assembly Law. Retrieved September 13, 2022, from https://www.hrw.org/ news/2013/11/26/egypt-­deeply-­restrictive-­new-­assembly-­law Human Rights Watch. (2015a, July 31). Tunisia: Counterterror Law Endangers Rights. Human Rights Watch. (2015b, August 19). Counterterrorism Law Erodes Basic Rights. Retrieved September 13, 2022, from https://www.hrw.org/news/ 2015/08/19/egypt-­counterterrorism-­law-­erodes-­basic-­rights Human Rights Watch. (2017, September 5). “We Do Unreasonable Things Here” Torture and National Security in al-Sisi’s Egypt. Retrieved September 13, 2022, from https://www.hrw.org/report/2017/09/05/we-­do-­ unreasonable-­things-­here/torture-­and-­national-­security-­al-­sisis-­egypt Inaugural Address of Mayor Bill de Blasio: Progress for New  York. (2014, January 1). Retrieved September 13, 2022, from https://www1.nyc.gov/ office-­of-­the-­mayor/news/005-­14/inaugural-­address-­mayor-­bill-­de-­blasio-­ progress-­new-­york Kouvelakis, S., & Lapavitsas, C. (2018, October 6). Jacobin. Retrieved September 13, 2022, from https://jacobin.com/2018/10/syriza-­repression-­ foreclosure-­banks-­tsipras Legislate Safeguards Against Abuse. Retrieved September 13, 2022, from https:// www.hrw.org/news/2015/07/31/tunisia-­counterterror-­law-­endangers-­rights Lennard, N. (2013, January 2). The Irony of Joint FBI/Private Sector OWS Policing. Salon. Retrieved September 13, 2022, from https://www.salon. com/2013/01/02/the_irony_of_joint_fbi_private_sector_ows_policing/ Massy, P. (2013, September 2). Retrieved September 13, 2022, from https:// nawaat.org/2013/09/02/weld-­el-­15-­et-­klay-­bbj-­condamnes-­par-­contumace-­ a-­un-­an-­et-­neuf-­mois-­de-­prison/ NLG NYC. (2015, March 9). NLG-NYC Mass Defense Committee Rejects New NYPD Protest Unit. Retrieved September 13, 2022, from https:// nlgnyc.org/2015/03/09/mdc-­rejects-­protest-­unit/ Offenhertz, J. (2021, February 19). How an NYPD Terror Squad Became a Tool for Cracking Down on Protests. Gothamist. Retrieved September 13, 2022, from https://gothamist.com/news/how-­elite-­anti-­terror-­squad-­transformed-­ nypds-­approach-­protest-­policing Partnership for Civil Justice Fund (PCJF). (2012, December). The Crackdown on the Occupy Movement. Retrieved September 13, 2022, from https:// www.justiceonline.org/ows-­foia

23 Repression 

293

Pioneer Press. (2012, May 20). More Activists Charged Related to NATO Summit. Retrieved September 13, 2022, from https://www.twincities. com/2012/05/20/more-­activists-­charged-­related-­to-­nato-­summit/ Riahi, O. (2012, April 11). Investigation – “Mahdia Affair”: 7 Years of Prison and 1200 Dinar Fine for Atheism? Nawaat. Retrieved September 13, 2022, from https://nawaat.org/2012/04/11/investigation-­mahdia-­affair-­7-­years-­ of-­prison-­and-­1200-­dinar-­fine-­for-­atheism/ Schmadeke, S. (2014, February 7). NATO 3 Found Guilty of Mob Action and Arson, But Not Terror Charges. The Chicago Tribune. Retrieved September 13, 2022, from https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-­xpm-­2014-­02-­07-­ chi-­closing-­arguments-­underway-­in-­nato-­3-­trial-­20140206-­story.html The Partnership for Civil Justice Fund. (2012) FBI Documents Reveal Nationwide Occupy Monitoring. Retrieved September 11, 2022, from https://www.justiceonline.org/fbi_files_ows Timm, T. (2012, October 9). New Senate Report: Counterterrorism “Fusion Centers” Invade Innocent Americans’ Privacy and Don’t Stop Terrorism. Electronic Frontier Foundation. Retrieved September 13, 2022, from https:// www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/10/new-­senate-­report-­confirms-­government-­ counterterrorism-­centers-­dont-­stop Wolf, N. (2012, December 29). How the FBI Coordinated the Crackdown on Occupy. The Guardian. Retrieved September 13, 2022, from https://www. theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/dec/29/fbi-­c oordinated-­ crackdown-­occupy Wray, B. (2018, June 15). Source News. Retrieved September 13, 2022, from https://sourcenews.scot/extolling-­terrorism-­in-­spain-­the-­spider-­operation-­and-­ the-­persecution-­of-­freedom-­of-­expression/

24 Neo-Fascism

Fascist movements do not arise in a vacuum. They tend to manifest in moments of extreme crises of capitalism and legitimacy of liberal democracies. They challenge entrenched political and economic systems and pose alternatives, but from the right. At first, they adopt the rhetoric and methods of revolutionary movements on the left through entryism, sowing confusion and fragmentation. Fascist movements are counter-­ revolutionary, for they claim to be revolutionary while doing the exact opposite of a left revolutionary movement. Instead of confronting inequality, fascists seek to worsen it. Instead of undoing oppression, fascists seek to further it. Fascism is the fun house mirror of revolution in which everything is turned upside down and distorted beyond recognition. The neo-fascism of the last decade is a reaction to revolutionary movements, such as those that arose in 2011 like Occupy Wall Street, and later Black Lives Matter. Neo-fascism has arisen in direct opposition to these movements and borrowed from their tactics, especially the use of social media using the language of hashtags and memes. Culture has been the terrain on which neo-fascism has operated. As Shane Lyons Burley clearly states, “It must be understood that white nationalism is the ideology, while Alt Right is the brand,” (Burley, November 28, 2017). © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 M. Holmes, Organizing Occupy Wall Street, Alternatives and Futures: Cultures, Practices, Activism and Utopias, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-8947-6_24

295

296 

M. Holmes

Breitbart Breitbart News started as the right-wing counter point to liberal The Huffington Post. The founder Andrew Breitbart and early collaborator Steve Bannon had met in media circles, and shared a desire destroy the left (York, March 1, 2012). Their strategy was fomenting a culture war, but they were not successful at first. Up until 2011, the operation was small, fringe, and ineffectual. It was covering The Tea Party, but not considered a serious threat. Breitbart didn’t gain ground until it began obsessively attacking OWS. Throughout their coverage many of the same frames were used that discredited 1960s social movements (Gitlin, May 2003). Protestors were portrayed as counter cultural and out of touch with mainstream society. There were repeated allegations of violence, drug use, sexual misconduct, and dirtiness. There was a general sense of lawlessness and moral decay (Shapiro, November 2, 2011). Some more infamous disruptors at OWS appeared regularly. Steve Bannon even produced a feature documentary, Occupy Unmasked, which featured Andrew Breitbart as the host, and the FBI informant turned right-wing commentator, Brandon Darby, in the field. The same narratives from the Breitbart website appeared on film. Breitbart created a spurious grand narrative of how the ‘organized left’—an umbrella term that included everyone from anarchists to unions to then president Obama—was really acting behind the scenes to make OWS happen. He also connected the “organized left” to the “liberal media” and went after left-leaning journalists. Visually, the film moved between Breitbart, other right-wing commentators, and footage from occupy camps and solidarity protests against banks. Cuts were rapid, and out of context, often accompanied by stock footage to make symbolic associations. In the background was an eerie industrial mix, which added to the overall mood of anxiety and fear. Their own platform  of the website was used to promote it (Bigelow, September 20, 2012). Andrew Breitbart mysteriously and suddenly dropped dead of a heart attack on 1  March, 2012 (The Huffington Post). He was replaced by Bannon, who built on what Breitbart had begun, and Bannon looked for

24 Neo-Fascism 

297

inspiration from the 4Chan boards, where there was an the emerging Alt Right. He hired Milo Yiannapolis, who utilized his platform to advance a white nationalist queer identity, and railed against Muslims, blacks, and women. The strategy was to continue baiting the left and position it as elite and out of touch with the ‘real’ America that was white, cis, heterosexual, and isolationist. Breitbart acted as the cross-over space where neo-­ fascism met right-wing populism (Burley, November 28, 2017).

Troll Armies #OccupyWallStreet was the action Anonymous had been waiting for. Gabriella Coleman writes, “On occasion, the two distinct though complementary movements directly crossed streams in a more dramatic fashion,” (Coleman, 2014, p.  22). Throughout the occupation, various chatrooms and Twitter handles helped to amplify what was happening with the movement. One example was the doxxing of police officer Anthony Bolonga after he pepper sprayed a crowd of people at OWS.  Ultimately, though, anons operated in a parallel world of lulz which was sympathetic but separate from the organization of #OWS. Coleman warns, “The difference being that Anonymous is perhaps just a touch more open to mutation” (Coleman, 2014, p. 118). There was targeted repression of Anonymous especially from the FBI, through infiltration of the black hat hacking group, lulzsec. In the process, the more political anons ended up collaborating, in prison, or scattered (Pilkington, December 14, 2014). This left an opening to be filled by those not as principled. Thus, the FBI helped create the environment for neo-fascism. In the years after OWS and Black Lives Matter, 4Chan, as well as the spin-off, 8Chan, degenerated into right-wing conspiracy theories, racial slurs, and sexist attacks. The language became increasingly explicit, as the Overton window shifted. A simmering rage exploded. A key turning point for the boards was #Gamergate. Zoey Quinn, a queer femme game designer, dated another gamer, Eron Gjoni, from late 2013 into spring 2014. Quinn writes how Gjoni was emotionally and physically abusive toward her and, when she broke things off, he tried to

298 

M. Holmes

get even (Quinn, 2017). On 14 August, Gjoni published a nearly 10,000-­ word blog post accusing Quinn of cheating on him. The conflict snowballed over the course of the next year and was dubbed #Gamergate. From the boards of 4Chan, messages ran over into Twitter. Between August 15, 2014 and August 15, 2015 there were 13.77 million tweets using the hashtag. Quinn was regularly doxed and received death threats. “It was like counting the seconds between thunderclaps to see how far away the storm is and knowing it’s getting closer,” writes Quinn (2017). Anyone who supported Quinn was drawn into the fray, including fellow feminist gamers Anita Sarkeesian and Brianna Wu. They too were subject to threats by the manosphere of Men’s Right’s activists and Incels. Mike Cernavich and Milo Yiannapolis, two emerging Alt Right personalities, supported Gjoni, as did Steve Bannon (Lees, December 1, 2016). The reaction on the boards to Black Lives Matter (BLM) was also intensely violent. There are many examples, but a key one to mention, especially from the vantage point of a world post-George Floyd Rebellion, is the shooting of BLM participants in Minneapolis on November 12, 2015 (Unicorn Riot, November 24, 2015a). A week earlier, on 15 November, a 24-year old black man, Jamar Clark was shot and killed by Minneapolis Police Department officers Mark Ringgenberg and Dustin Schwarze, while he was handcuffed. In response to the murder, community members affiliated with BLM set up an encampment in front of the local Minneapolis Police Department precinct calling for justice for Jamar (Unicorn Riot, November 16, 2015b). On 4Chan, discussion unfolded about protecting the police and clamping down on BLM.  Three white  men later identified as Allen Lawrence, Nathan Gustavsson, and Daniel Macey, were affiliated with the militia movement and white supremacist groups online and decided to take matters into their own hands. They put on military fatigues and balaclavas, loaded their guns, and rolled up to the camp. Remarkably, they made a video detailing their plans, and posted it to Facebook. In it, they addressed their friends on /pol/ saying: ‘We just wanted to give everyone a heads up on /pol/… Stay white’ (Feidt, November 26, 2015). Shortly thereafter, they arrived at the camp patrolling, and when asked to leave opened fire on the crowd shooting five unarmed black protestors, who were hospitalized.

24 Neo-Fascism 

299

In the coming years, 4Chan and 8Chan boards were overwhelmed with proto-fascist and fascist speech. Trolls would test out memes, communicate with in-jokes, and plot raids against normies on other sites and networks. The popular internet meme, Pepe the Frog, was transformed from a seemingly uncontroversial comic book character into a symbol of the far right. Images of Pepe with Hitler mustaches and swastikas became common, as well as him using the far right ‘ok’ symbol. The most notorious trolls, referred to as ‘shitposters’, even created their own country, Kekistan, with a bright green flag and black and white cross. An entire visual language was developed on the boards, which started to cross over into the mainstream (Weale, August 4, 2022). By the election season of 2016, there was an army of trolls, ready to wreak havoc, and they lined up behind Donald Trump. Some of this was the result of Russian meddling in the elections, but some of it also was coming from a real right-wing movement. White nationalists and actual Neo Nazis felt emboldened, and further spread their hatred from the boards to Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube channels. On social media, they were able to have a platform and gain new recruits. The truly committed trolls moved from /pol/ and joined The_Donald. According to Mike Wendling, “From The_Donald, the alt-right radiated out onto Twitter and other social networks, to Trump’s own Twitter account, and from there to the mainstream press” (2018). Bannon left Breitbart during this time, to become directly involved with the Trump campaign. The media strategies from Breitbart were applied to the overtly political terrain.

J20 For a moment, watching the election results come in November 2016, I felt paralyzed. I just stood there, with a blank expression and didn’t say a word for a good ten minutes. Then, like many, I got angry. I reached out to everyone I knew about mounting a response. There was already an anti-fascist movement rising during the Trump campaign. Early indications were the counter protest to the KKK in Anaheim (Conflict MN,

300 

M. Holmes

February 27, 2016) in February, and then the counter to Neo-Nazis at the state capitol, Sacramento, in June (Anonymous, July 8, 2016). In both cases, anti-fascists were stabbed and badly injured. Throughout the campaign trail, there had been disruptions of Trump rallies and other events. Now, all that energy would come together for a counter demonstration at the Inauguration of President Donald Trump on 20 January, 2017. From the election in November until January, my organizing went into stopping Trump. In Washington DC a committee came together to launch Disrupt J20, which included a framework for strategic non-­ violent blockades as well as an anti-capitalist march that took the form of a black bloc (It’s Going Down, November 11, 2016). In the lead-up there were planning calls and spokes councils, again, calling back to the Global Justice Movement (GJM) and OWS. Working groups and affinity groups were created, and some organizing committee members went on tour in advance, to hype the event. In this context, anarchists in New York City came together to build a more united front, and formed the Metropolitan Anarchist Coordinating Council (MACC) (2016). General assemblies were held using consensus drawing explicitly on the lessons of OWS. I arrived in DC in advance. The night before, there was a protest outside of the National Press Office that I didn’t want to miss—-The Deploraball. During the campaign, Hillary Clinton had made a remark about Trump supporters being ‘deplorables’ and the Alt-Right ran with it, embracing the label. The ball was an open celebration of all the deplorable things they had done. On the outside, hundreds of us booed, and chanted, “No Trump! No KKK! No Fascist USA!” as attendees, with police protection, made their way inside. Young white men in suits and MAGA caps passed by followed by two young white women with blonde hair wearing long white KKK hoods with red accents and high heels (Holmes, January 19, 2017). On the morning of J20, it was unusually warm for a winter day, and clouds moved in threatening to rain. It felt ominous. I wandered through the streets of downtown DC with my camera in hand ready to document whatever would unfold (Holmes). First, I made my way to the blockades at the Inauguration celebration check points. Each blockade was organized along a different theme or area of work, so there was a Black Lives

24 Neo-Fascism 

301

Matter bloc, a Feminist Futures bloc, and a Queer bloc, which I spent the most time with. They were just more fun, with music, dancing, and glitter thrown into the air. By mid-morning, the anti-capitalist march stepped off. It was a sea of black with over a thousand in attendance, and quickly moved through downtown, fueled by rage against Trump and all he represented. Some windows were smashed. A limo was set on fire. Richard Spencer was punched. The DC police moved to kettle. Luckily, I avoided the trap, but hundreds were stuck inside, including street medics, legal observers, and journalists (Lennard, January 22, 2017). In the coming year, the J20 defendants faced a drawn-out legal battle fighting conspiracy to riot charges. A few took pleas, but the vast majority of the 234 people rounded up, ended up staying together. Throughout the trial, the infiltration of the J20 organizing by fascists became much more obvious, as did the total ineptitude of the state. As a result, the case was thrown out (Lennard, July 14, 2018).

Charlottesville The boundary between the digital and physical was always porous, but it became even more so in the summer of 2017. Charlottesville, Virginia is a small liberal college town surrounded by conservative rural Virginia. In late 2016, the vice-mayor called for the removal of the statue of Confederate General Robert E. Lee, from a main square in the center of town, as a symbol of how the town had progressed on race (CNBC29, March 20, 2018). The City Council later voted to remove it and rename the park Emancipation Park (WSLS 10 News, February 7, 2017). Jason Kessler, a known Neo Nazi, was enraged, and openly critical of the plan. When the statue was slated for removal in May, he helped organize a torch-lit march in protest (MacGuil, May 15, 2017). He just couldn’t give up the park, and throughout the summer, there were other marches before Kessler called for reinforcements, and a Unite the Right rally on 12  August, 2017. Nothing this coordinated on the extreme right had happened in decades. It was promising to be a who’s who event with everyone from Richard Spencer to David Duke planning to attend (ADL, August 7, 2017).

302 

M. Holmes

Unite the Right was planned in advance online. Anon Andrew Auernheimer a.k.a. “Weev” was a vocal supporter of #OccupyWallStreet. However, it must be clarified, he never organized anything and so, was not part of the movement in a meaningful way. He was basically just the ultimate troll, inciting arguments on the boards, and igniting controversy over his often racist and anti-Semitic comments. At one point in 2012, he was sentenced on hacking related charges, and served 15-months in prison. When he got out in 2014, he was spewing even more vitriol than before (Southern Poverty Law Center). That’s when he got in touch with a like-minded hacker Andrew Anglin, the founder of https://dailystormer.name/, a website named after the Nazis storm troopers (Southern Poverty Law Center). They later worked together to promote Unite the Right. As was revealed by the activist media collective, Unicorn Riot, coordination happened through The Daily Stormer and the gaming platform, Discord, where there were open discussions about guerilla warfare, including driving through crowds of people as a tactic (Schiano, September 5, 2017). I had a really bad feeling about Charlottesville, but I went anyway. I just could not stomach the idea that racist, sexist, homophobic, ableist hatred would be on full display in public. The local organizers of the counter-protest, who were coming largely from Black Lives Matter networks, asked for outside support. Thus, I made my way from NYC to the back hills of Virginia, where I rode down Robert E. Lee Hwy, and passed Lynch Street. The signs were not subtle. I was in another America—the South. The clouds grew closer, and the sky went black. Far off in the distance there were four tornadoes forming like horseman of the apocalypse. Then the rain came. It just kept pounding the car, as I went at a snail’s pace to avoid spinning. By nightfall, though, I had arrived at my destination. On the morning of 12 August, a group of us circled around downtown Charlottesville, and found the staging ground for anti-fascists. There were maybe a hundred or so gathered holding banners and eating breakfast provided by the local Food Not Bombs. A legal support team came by asking for our information in case of arrest. It seemed like any other demonstration, until a friend pointed out to me that Red Neck Revolt, the armed anti-fascist network, was providing security.

24 Neo-Fascism 

303

Reports came in over texts to go immediately to the park. Robert E.  Lee Park or as it had been renamed, ‘Emancipation Park,’ was surrounded by right-wing militia groups like The Oath Keepers, and 3 Percenters. Opposing them was a line of clergy singing, and anti-fascists providing blockades. Then, the Traditionalist Workers Party came geared up with helmets, shields, and weapons, and forced their way through the crowd, beating people with batons, and slashing them with knives. Some fought back and held the line while others ran screaming, or falling, bloody to the ground. Pepper spray flung threw the air in all directions, creating a cloud over the scene, and burning everything in sight. My skin was burning, and I could barely see through the haze. Clashes continued throughout the day, as fascists attempted to take the park and hold their rally. But they did not succeed. After allowing the violence to unfold for hours, the police and National Guard finally stepped in, ending the event. Running on adrenalin, and fueled by the victory of the day thus far, anti-fascists amassed together to take the streets. Multiple feeder marches converged, and with over 1000 strong, and moved through downtown Charlottesville chanting “Cville we got your back! We got your back!” Then, out of nowhere, “Screeech! Boom!” A car came barreling through the crowd causing a pile up. A stampede rushed behind me, and I ran, but was hit by the last car, and went flying, falling face first on the asphalt. All I could hear were screams, and my body ached, but I got up and realized I could walk. Where was everyone? One by one, we found each other and gathered our strength. Medics came rushing to our aide with tourniquets and bandages. But the ambulances arrived late. Somewhere in the crowd was Heather Heyer’s dead body.

No Platform The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) report on domestic extremist killings from 2008–2017, found that 71% were perpetrated by the far right (ADL Center for Extremism, 2017). While many groups claim to be under attack from anti-fascists and marginalized communities, they are actually the ones committing the vast majority of violent acts. The

304 

M. Holmes

rhetoric espoused in 4Chan, 8Chan, and the dark webs of the internet, had actual material effects, leading to hate crimes, and even death. Social media platforms tend to see themselves as neutral service providers, who are not responsible for what kind of content is posted on their platforms. After Charlottesville, though, this position was increasingly untenable. Google banned The Daily Stormer from YouTube, and then other companies followed (Brandom, August 14, 2017). Twitter deleted The Daily Stormer handle (Buncombe, August 16, 2017). Facebook removed pages, and Instagram accounts were closed. Not all the groups were removed immediately, though, and it seemed social media platforms were more interested in avoiding bad PR than actually banning fascists. There needed to be ongoing pressure. Social media users started doxing—a popular troll tactic—to out fascists to their family and friends. @YesYoureRacist had put out a call with photos of fascists tweeting, “If you recognize any of the Nazis marching in #Charlottesville, send me their names/profiles and I’ll make them famous #GoodNightAltRight” and this picked up steam after the car attack (August 12, 2017, 12:43pm). There were many initiatives like these, to bring justice online. One was No Platform, a research group on just what exactly was happening with these platforms, to ensure that they would no longer be a haven for far-right extremism. To make the content easy to report, No Platform made a plugin for Firefox and Chrome, which presented users with videos that violated the YouTube hate speech policy (Metropolitan Anarchist Coordinating Council NYC, December 22, 2017). The plugin ensured that YouTube knew there was a problem, and pressured them to respond. This strategy seemed to work to some extent, because the Traditionalist Workers Party, Republic of Florida, and some of the Proud Boys had content removed. Tech companies were already experiencing heat from Cville, but then the Facebook Cambridge Analytica story broke. On 10  April, 2018, Mark Zuckerberg testified before Congress on Facebook giving over user data to Cambridge Analytica in advance of the 2016 elections. In a mannered and laconic voice, he stated, “I consider us to be a tech company, not a media company” (April 11, 2018). The primary act of the company was to code and provide a platform for users to make their own media. Their goal was to connect people. Zuckerberg insisted that the company

24 Neo-Fascism 

305

was willing to work with Congress, and the government more broadly going forward to tackle ‘hard questions’ facing the industry. Shortly thereafter, on 17 May, Facebook launched a partnership with the Atlantic Council, a shadowy group of corporate and political masterminds, which Matt Taibbi described as “backed by weapons makers like Raytheon, energy titans like Exxon-Mobil, and banks like JP Morgan Chase.” This is whom Facebook was consulting about fake news, data breaches, and the design of its algorithms (Taibbi, November 26, 2018). Twitter was also under fire. When Jack Dorsey, then CEO of Twitter, testified before Congress in September he claimed, “Abuse, harassment, troll armies, propaganda through bots and human coordination, misinformation campaigns, and divisive filter bubbles—that’s not a healthy public square. Worse, a relatively small number of bad-faith actors were able to game Twitter to have an outsized impact,” (Henry, September 4, 2018). They began cleaning up accounts and deleting millions of followers in the name of fighting fake news. However, it remains a question as to why Twitter started to ban some of the very activist media accounts, that were on the radical left, which had been debunking conspiracy theories and fake news for years. ‘Your account has been suspended for violating the Twitter Rules’— The friendly blue bird icon delivered this Orwellian message on 11 October, 2018 to several media activists, including those who helped organize and amplify #OccupyWallStreet. The last remaining Twitter accounts (that had not been commandeered by the OWS ‘founders’) were shutdown. @globalrevlive, @audiosol15m, @glassbeadcol, @nikkyschiller, and @pmbeers, altogether had access to close to five million followers, and were coordinating international media support for participants from Occupy to Black Lives Matter in the seven years since 2011. Vlad Teichberg, after seeing movement accounts banned, launched an appeal to Twitter: Over the last 7 years, I was one of the architects of strategy and methods of using your platforms to help people who are disenfranchised, who are not privileged, who are oppressed, to speak about injustice, to bear witness, to let the world know what is happening, to speak truth to power.

306 

M. Holmes

Then he explained how important this work had been to giving movements a platform and closed with “History will judge you,” (Teichberg, November 22, 2018). With one click of a button, Twitter deleted an essential part of movement infrastructure. It did not listen to appeals and didn’t have to. Twitter, the multi-national and multi-billion-dollar corporation, was totally unaccountable to its users. It made its own rules.

References @YesYoureRacist. (2017, August 12). Retrieved September 5, 2022, from https://twitter.com/YesYoureRacist/status/896411734617075712 Anonymous. (2016, July 8). Blood in the Valley: Why People Put Their Lives On The Line To Run Nazis Out of Sacramento. It’s Going Down. Retrieved September 14, 2022, from https://itsgoingdown.org/blood-­in-­the-­valley-­ nazis-­sacramento-­shut-­down-­june-­26th/ Anti-Defamation League Center on Extremism (2017). Murder and Extremism in the United States in 2017. Retrieved September 14, 2022, from https:// www.adl.org/resources/reports/murder-­a nd-­e xtremism-­i n-­t he-­u nited-­ states-­in-­2017 Bigelow, W. (2012, September 20). Occupy Unmasked Review: Shredding the Lies of the Movement. Breitbart News. Retrieved September 14, 2022, from https://www.breitbart.com/entertainment/2012/09/20/occupy-­unmasked-­ rips-­the-­lies-­of-­the-­movement-­to-­shreds/ Brandom, R. (2017, August 14). Google Says It Will Ban Neo-Nazi Site After Domain Name Switch. The Verge. Retrieved September 14, 2022, from https://www.theverge.com/2017/8/14/16145064/google-­daily-­stormer-­ban-­ neo-­nazi-­registrar-­godaddy Buncombe, A. (2017, August 16). Twitter Deletes Daily Stormer’s Accounts Amid Outrage at Neo-Nazi Site’s Response to Charlottesville. Independent. Retrieved September 14, 2022, from https://www.independent.co.uk/news/ world/americas/daily-­s tormer-­c harlottesville-­t witter-­a ccounts-­d eleted-­ heather-­heyer-­funeral-­a7897411.html Burley, S. (2017, November 28). Fascism Today: What It Is and How to End It (p. 21, p. 54). AK Press. CNBC. (2018, April 11). Zuckerberg Tells Congress Facebook Is Not a Media Company: ‘I consider us to be a technology company’. CNBC.  Retrieved

24 Neo-Fascism 

307

September 14, 2022, from https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/11/mark-­ zuckerberg-­facebook-­is-­a-­technology-­company-­not-­media-­company.html Coleman, G. (2014). Hacker, Hoaxer, Whistleblower, Spy: The Many Faces of Anonymous (p. 22, p. 118). Verso. Conflict MN. (2016, February 27). Solidarity with Anaheim. It’s Going Down. Retrieved September 14, 2022, from https://itsgoingdown.org/solidarity-­ with-­anaheim-­3/ Feidt, D. (2015, November 26). “Play Stupid Games, Win Stupid Prizes”: White Supremacists Arrested for Shootings. Unicorn Riot. Retrieved September 14, 2022, from https://unicornriot.ninja/2015/play-­stupid-­ games-­win-­stupid-­prizes-­white-­supremacists-­arrested-­shootings/ Gitlin, T. (2003, May). The Whole World Is Watching Mass Media in the Making and Unmaking of the New Left. University of California Press. Henry, E. R. (2018, September 4). Read CEO Jack Dorsey’s Full Testimony on Twitter and Political Bias. PBS. Retrieved September 14, 2022, from https:// www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/read-­c eo-­j ack-­d orseys-­f ull-­t estimony-­ ontwitter-­and-­political-­bias Holmes, M. (2017, January 19). Personal Video and Photo Collection. It’s Going Down. (2016, November 11). #DisruptJ20: Call for a Bold Mobilization Against the Inauguration of Donald Trump on January 20, 2017. Retrieved September 14, 2022, from https://itsgoingdown.org/ disruptj20-­c all-­b old-­m obilization-­i nauguration-­d onald-­t rump-­ january-­20-­2017/ Lees, M. (2016, December 1). What Gamergate Should Have Taught Us About the ‘alt-right’. The Guardian. Retrieved Septemer 14, 2022, from https:// www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/dec/01/gamergate-­a lt-­ right-­hate-­trump Lennard, N. (2017, January 22). Neo-Nazi Richard Spencer Got Punched – You Can Thank the Black Bloc: A Dispatch from Inside the J20 Protests. The Nation. Retrieved September 14, 2022, from https://www.thenation.com/ article/archive/if-­y ou-­a ppreciated-­s eeing-­n eo-­n azi-­r ichard-­s pencer-­ get-­punched-­thank-­the-­black-­bloc/ Lennard, N. (2018, July 14). In the J20 Trials, the Feds Said They Went After “Bad Protesters.” That Just Means Another Crackdown on Dissent. The Intercept. Retrieved September 14, 2022, from https://theintercept. com/2018/07/14/inauguration-­protest-­prosecutions/

308 

M. Holmes

MacGuil, D. (2017, May 15). Torch-Bearing White Supremacists Rally in Charlottesville, Virginia. Snopes. Retrieved September 14, 2022, from https:// www.snopes.com/news/2017/05/15/torches-­rally-­charlottesville/ Metropolitan Anarchist Coordinating Council NYC. (2017, December 22). Take Action with New Plug-In: YouTube Is a Platform for Fascism. It’s Going Down. Retrieved September 5, 2022, from https://itsgoingdown.org/ take-­action-­youtube-­platform-­fascism/ NBC29. (2016, March 20). Vice Mayor Wes Bellamy: Take Down Robert E. Lee Statue. Retrieved September 14, 2022, from https://web.archive.org/ web/20191017043030/http://www.nbc29.com/story/31521671/ vice-­mayor-­wes-­bellamy-­take-­down-­robert-­e-­lee-­statue Pilkington, E. (2014, December 14). Anonymous Superhacker Turned FBI Informant Sabu Remains Defiant Over Snitching. The Guardian. Retrieved September 14, 2022, from https://www.theguardian.com/us-­news/2014/ dec/09/hacker-­sabu-­defends-­informing-­anonymous-­fbi-­interview Quinn, Z. (2017). Crash Override: How Gamergate (Nearly) Destroyed My Life and How We Can Win the Fight Against Online Hate (p. 28). PublicAffairs. Schiano, C. (2017, September 5). Charlottesville Violence Planned Over Discord Servers: Unicorn Riot Reports. Unicorn Riot. Retrieved September 5, 2022, from https://unicornriot.ninja/2017/charlottesville-­violence-­ planned-­discord-­servers-­unicorn-­riot-­reports/ Shapiro, J. (2011, November 2). Top 10 Alleged Crimes Committed During Occupy Wall Street. Breitbart News. Retrieved September 5, 2022, from https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2011/11/02/top-­10-­alleged-­crimes-­ committed-­during-­occupy-­wall-­street/ Southern Poverty Law Center. Andrew “weev.”Auernheimer. Retrieved September 5, 2022, from https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-­hate/extremist-­ files/individual/andrew-­%E2%80%9Cweev%E2%80%9D-­auernheimer Southern Poverty Law Center. Andrew Anglin. Retrieved September 5, 2022, from https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-­hate/extremist-­files/individual/ andrew-­anglin Taibbi, M. (2018, November 26). Who Will Fix Facebook? Rolling Stone. Retrieved September 5, 2022, from https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/ politics-­features/who-­will-­fix-­facebook-­759916/ Teichberg, V. (2018, November 22). Twitter Rules. Facebook. Retrieved November 22, 2018, from https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbi d=10156819923897152&set=pob.646757151&type=3&theater

24 Neo-Fascism 

309

The Huffington Post. (2012, March 1). Andrew Breitbart Dead: Conservative Blogger Dies Suddenly at 43. Retrieved September 5, 2022, from https:// www.huffpost.com/entry/andrew-­breitbart-­dead-­blogger-­dies_n_1312944 Unicorn Riot. (2015a, November 24). White Supremacists Shoot Five Protesters and MPD Attacks #Justice4Jamar Crowd. Retrieved September 5, 2022, from https://unicornriot.ninja/2015/white-­supremacists-­shoot-­five-­ protesters-­mpd-­attacks-­justice4jamar-­crowd/ Unicorn Riot. (2015b, November 16). #Justice4Jamar Camp Expands; Minneapolis Residents Block I-94; Unicorn Riot Reporter & 40+ Others Arrested. Retrieved September 5, 2022, from https://unicornriot.ninja/2015/ minneapolis-­r esidents-­b lockade-­i nterstate-­u nicornriot-­l ivestream-­ reporter-­arrested/ Weale, S. (2022, August 4). Signs of Hate: Parental Guide to Far-Right Codes, Symbols and Acronyms. The Guardian. Retrieved September 5, 2022, from https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/aug/04/signs-­of-­hate-­parental-­ guide-­to-­far-­right-­codes-­symbols-­acronyms-­uk Wendling, M. (2018). Alt-Right: From 4chan to the White House. Pluto Press. WSLS 10 News. (2017, February 7). Charlottesville City Council Votes to Move Lee Statue, Rename Park. Retrieved September 5, 2022, from https:// www.wsls.com/news/2017/02/07/charlottesville-­city-­council-­votes-­to-­move-­ lee-­statue-­rename-­park/ York, B. (2012, March 1). In Politics Fight, Breitbart Knew Culture Is Key. The Washington Examiner. Retrieved September 5, 2022, from https://www. washingtonexaminer.com/in-­politics-­fight-­breitbart-­knew-­culture-­is-­key

25 Conclusion: Building the New Society

The square both physically embodies and symbolizes the society as a whole. Occupying the square calls into question how the existing society functions and opens the possibility for a new one to take its place. Whoever controls the square controls the future. The question is: What kind of society do we, the 99%, want to live in? At the moment, the status quo of neo-liberalism is holding on by a very thin thread. It nearly missed a fascist coup on 6 January, 2021 in the U.S. Elsewhere, there are also increasingly violent counter-revolutionary and fascist movements. Thus, the radical left finds itself in a three-way fight with the state on one side and fascists on the other. The two often collaborate against us. As history has shown, reform will not get us out of this situation. We cannot continue as if these are normal times, with politics as usual. There must be a true revolutionary path forward against and beyond the state and capitalism, as well as all forms of domination. Reflecting on Occupy Wall Street (OWS) and the 2011 movements can inform the direction of this path: as a common chant in OWS went, “This. Is. Just. Practice.” In different contexts, the 2011 movements used the terms autonomous, horizontal, and democratic to describe both their practices and ultimate goals. The revolutionary youth of Egypt and Tunisia were © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 M. Holmes, Organizing Occupy Wall Street, Alternatives and Futures: Cultures, Practices, Activism and Utopias, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-8947-6_25

311

312 

M. Holmes

independent, decentralized, and horizontal, and had the goal of creating regional democratic councils. Common chants across The Arab Spring were about bread, freedom, and, above all, dignity. In Spain, at Puerta del Sol, and in 15M after, they were against all forms of representation and practiced what they called ‘real democracy.’ They engaged in an intentional constituent process against and beyond the state and made the strategic decision to go into the neighborhoods where they squatted new social centers and defended people from evictions. At Syntagma in Greece, they insisted on ‘direct democracy,’ created mutual aid projects, and defended the semi-autonomous neighborhood of Exarchia. The New  York City General Assembly (NYCGA), that organized OWS, defined itself as a “an open, participatory, and horizontally organized process.” During the occupation, The Declaration of the Occupation called for direct democracy, and the Statement of Autonomy asserted our autonomy from existing political structures. In one meeting of the 2011 movements in Tunis in 2013, we occupied the World Social Forum, and established an autonomous, horizontal, and democratic space. What were shared most across the new movements of 2011 were our practices of organization.

F rom The Global Justice Movement to Occupy Wall Street One important precursor to OWS and other 2011 movements was the Global Justice Movement (GJM) sometimes called the alter-globalization movement. If one reads this book  carefully, it becomes apparent that there were many direct connections, and intergenerational conversations. Action frameworks, agreements, and tactical plans were informed directly from the GJM.  Even the people’s mic was adapted from the WTO in Seattle. A genealogy can be traced from the GJM to OWS. The GJM was primarily organized around summits of major financial organizations like the WTO. There were many months in between summits, and time for trainings and organizational development. Then, those who could afford to go, or were in some way subsidized to go, would

25  Conclusion: Building the New Society 

313

descend on summits, and engage in a variety of creative and direct-action antics. When a summit was over, the attendees would return home. The squares were convergences around physical spaces, in opposition to a shared corporate target, where alternatives were created. However, they were not counter summits. First, they were not intended to be temporary, but permanent. Even if they were all eventually cleared, there was an initial intention to stay and hold space indefinitely. Second, during the GJM summits, there would be convergence spaces for collectives and working groups to coordinate. Food, legal support, medical care, shelter, art making, and action-planning happened in these convergences. However, they were not very open. During OWS and other squares, organization was generated in the course of occupation, by those who participated. The practice of engaging in direct democracy was extended to the society as a whole. There was an invitation to participate on social media, and in person, in the co-creation of another world. This world was possible, because it was unfolding in real time before our eyes. Third, in the GJM, there were more formal coalitions among institutional partners such as non-profits, community-based organizations, and unions. In contrast, the squares were organized largely around individual participation rather than group affiliation. Jeffery Juris calls this ‘a logic of aggregation,’ (2012). This allowed for people who were not already organized to plug in, as well as individuals to challenge the more hierarchical organizations they may have been part of. For example, there were rank and file workers, who were organized, but stifled by the bureaucracy and hypocrisy of their labor unions. There were organizers who had day jobs in non-profits, who held more radical politics. They could find an outlet for their real interests and talents at OWS. Organizing people as individuals into a collective created a dynamic space, where participation in our own structures grew, while the more institutional left was pressured to respond. Fourth, during the GJM, participatory and democratic structures with consensus decision-making processes were used. This primarily took the form of councils, working groups, and affinity groups. Consensus was built in smaller groups, and then confederated to accommodate for scale. During the squares consensus was also used, but started in assemblies and then later moved into councils. Members often rotated between groups,

314 

M. Holmes

and the boundaries were fluid. This allowed for more flexible organization and guarded against too much specialization or bureaucracy. Overall, OWS, and the squares, could be read as a next step after the GJM.  Much of what was developed in the GJM was adapted and expanded upon. The biggest shift was operating in the open, in public. This generated a movement that was not only internally participatory or democratic, but outward facing and inviting for anyone who wanted to join. The 2011 movements were what I call participatory movements.

Internal Challenges Walking down Wall Street in the financial district one will notice a series of wooden squares in the ground. They mark the original wall constructed by Dutch colonial settlers in the seventeenth century to keep out potential invaders whether pirates, natives, or the English. It was along this wall that slaves were bought and sold. It was here that women were subjugated and trafficked. Here, J.P. Morgan Chase privatized the New York water system, and built his first headquarters. Here the U.S. customs house was established, and the Bill of Rights was signed into law. During OWS we practiced a coalitional politics that wove together individual identities into a collective one—the 99%. We, the 99%, were those who had lost homes to foreclosures, those who faced long term unemployment, or were buried under student debt. We, the 99% were day laborers, prison workers, domestic workers, and sex workers. We, the 99% were brutalized and killed by police and stopped at borders. We, the 99% were disciplined along gender binaries and roles. We, the 99% were denied healthcare. We, the 99% were all of those long oppressed and exploited, who had simply had enough. There was a common enemy, and it was right there in front of us—Wall Street. It was the solidarity between us that was powerful. It was multi-racial, multi-national, and multi-­ gender. It had a lot of potential, but it fell apart. The GJM and OWS faced many of the same internal challenges around race and gender. Elizabeth Betita Martinez reflected on the racial composition of the convergence against the World Trade Organization (WTO) in Seattle, 1999. In her widely cited article, ‘Where was the color in

25  Conclusion: Building the New Society 

315

Seattle? Looking for reasons the Great Battle was so white’ (2000) she argued there were multiple factors that led to a lack of people of color participating in the event. The solution Betita Martinez proposed for addressing the demographic problem of Seattle, and the GJM more broadly, was for POC to get more organized themselves. She wrote, “There must be effective follow-up and increased communication between people of color across the nation: grassroots organizers, activists, cultural workers, and educators. We need to build on the contacts made (or that need to be made) from Seattle.” A similar conclusion was reached by Manissa McCleave Maharawal, who I cite in Chap. 10. After the GJM there was more of a commitment on the radical left, to more seriously address oppression. Some of this work was specifically centered around accountability. As outlined in Chap. 11, much of the work done in OWS around community accountability by the Safer Spaces Committee  (SSC) was inspired by INCITE! (2006) and driven by members of Support New  York (2016). The  SSC consistently took a survivor centered and intersectional approach that acknowledged the many ways power operates. It’s not as if this work wasn’t happening. It was. It just wasn’t prioritized or valued by everyone in OWS. If more people had listened to the Safer Spaces Committee, and they had been more influential, then our spaces would have been better equipped to deal with harm and conflict. During the park, the Safer Spaces Committee, the People of Color Caucus, Women Occupying Wall Street, the OWS Queer Caucus, and OWS Disability Caucus insisted on an intersectional framework for our work and pushed us all to do better. They called on OWS to be inclusive rather than open, and to engage more seriously with power. While we did not solve all problems, and were not perfect, there were lessons learned from the caucuses in real time, which shaped how OWS continued. I describe in Chap. 16 how during the May Day planning process, there was an intersectional analysis, and coalitional approach that was made explicit with the phrase, “All Our Grievances Are Connected”. Work definition was broadened to include domestic work, reproductive work, sex work, prison labor, and unskilled labor—forms of labor generally excluded from the mainstream labor movement that have more oppressed people doing them. During the one-year anniversary, described in

316 

M. Holmes

Chap. 17, we used the phrase “All Roads Lead to Wall Street” and built an action framework to accommodate multiple areas of organizing and tactics. This was just not enough.

External Challenges OWS and the other 2011 movements were hit on all sides by those who wanted to tear us down. This cannot be over-stated. Institutionalization, co-optation, repression, and counter-revolution were strong forces working against a true social revolution from taking place. Part of the current struggle against these forces, involves the writing of analytical work from within our movements. If this work is not done, then our enemies will drive the narratives that current and future generations take for granted. In OWS, there were attempts at particular forms of institutionalization. As detailed in Chap. 15, early examples were the Occupy Office and the Movement Resource Group. These projects consolidated access to physical and financial resources without any accountability, transparency, or oversight, and attempted to steer OWS, and the broader movement toward more acceptable, reasonable, forms of political engagement. Those involved utilized the language of affinity, and distorted it beyond recognition, in order to justify themselves. There were informal elites throughout OWS, but they became most prominent in the later stages of offshoots. Strike Debt faced multiple power plays by political blocs who, again used the language of horizontal, autonomous, or democratic politics, but prevented these ideas from being put into practice. Instead, they worked to create formalized hierarchies with themselves at the top. Those in Occupy Sandy talked about mutual aid, not charity, but coordinators were in fact doing charity. Hierarchies were again created around resources. These examples are both discussed in Chap. 19. Similar processes played out in other squares. Given the centrality of social media, there were brutal battles for control over accounts by informal elites, which I go over at length in Chap. 20. In parallel to institutionalization, there was a more overt process of co-­ option from political parties. The Working Families Party (WFP), a

25  Conclusion: Building the New Society 

317

‘progressive’ wing of the Democratic Party, infiltrated OWS, and sought to redirect some of its energy into an electoral process. Bill De Blasio, for instance, visited the park, as NYC Public Advocate, and later ran for office using the rhetoric of the 99% and the “tale of two cities.” The Bernie Sanders campaign was even more explicit about its strategy and made constant conflations of the movement and the campaign. This happened in parallel to SYRIZA and Podemos, which considered itself a ‘party-movement.’ The process of co-option is described in Chap. 22. The repression was shaped by the context of The War Terror, which I explain in Chap. 23. The Global Justice Movement (GJM) had reached its peak before 9/11, before the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the creation of the Department of Homeland Security. The GJM, was, in part, disbanded, due to escalating repression and creation of counter-­ terrorism campaigns. OWS came along at a time when the War on Terror was much more entrenched with drone campaigns striking the very countries in North Africa and the Middle East rising up in 2011. The Department of Homeland Security had developed much more widespread and integrated methods of surveillance and data collection, alongside old fashioned in person infiltration. The GJM could not withstand the repression, and neither could OWS. The counter-revolution that took hold after OWS, and Black Lives Matter, was much more intense than anything experienced during the GJM. Actual white supremacists and Neo-Nazis emerged, using many of the same digital and social media tools, to integrate and broaden their reach. They also sought to control in person public spaces. Charlottesville is one key example.  Neo-fascism developed as an international movement, in reaction to the potential for a real revolution to break out. It was already under way before Donald Trump ever considered running for office, although his campaign and victory definitely added fuel to the fascist fire.

318 

M. Holmes

Lessons Learned Horizontal, autonomous, and directly democratic practices were shared across contexts, and made the 2011 movements happen. People had a voice, many for the first time in their lives. The energy and excitement of this was palpable and made new worlds possible. Unfortunately, the squares and OWS were met with many internal and external challenges and they could not address them all effectively. This brings us to a contemporary aim—building more intentional, intersectional, accountable, equitable, and resilient movements.

Setting Intentions There was not strong enough organization in OWS or the squares over the long run. Being in public and open to new people meant exposing ourselves to many different experiences and understandings of the world. At the beginning this was essential and helped fuel our growth. However, not everyone who came through the squares or other organizing spaces understood why these practices were important. They were gaining some hands-on experiences, and were becoming highly skilled, but lacked a sense of movement history or ideological cohesion. Without a consistent commitment to political education and collective defense of principles, it was much easier for other political tendencies, with hierarchical practices, to swoop in, and take control. Future movements must be prepared to move from the initial moment of growth into a more sustained horizontal, autonomous, and democratic organization.

Working at the Intersections Race, gender, class, and ability were not central enough to our work. They should have been baked into the work from the very beginning. Learning from this, future movements must start with an intersectional analysis, and practice. This would include centering those who are oppressed in decision-making, action-planning, and more public facing

25  Conclusion: Building the New Society 

319

visible roles. It would mean listening to those who are oppressed and taking their concerns seriously. Most of all, this would mean acknowledging that while the new world is being built, we tend to replicate patterns of the old one. None of us are immune from doing things that are harmful. There is also no immediate answer or way to fix systems and structures that are so ingrained without struggle. Undoing racism, undoing sexism, undoing classism, and undoing ableism, will be a constant process of abolishing what is, and creating what we want.

Being Accountable There was not enough emphasis on harm reduction or addressing conflict. We all went in a bit blind to the many possible ways that people could get hurt. There was the naive belief that everyone who participated would be well-intentioned, and there for all the right reasons. Most people were, but it doesn’t take many—only a handful really—to totally derail the work of building relationships. Future movements must have processes of accountability for all instances of harm and conflict. There must be shared expectations of all those involved to be accountable to others, and share in the work of doing accountability. There must be consequences when people refuse to be accountable and perpetuate harmful behavior. Excluding some people, so that other people can keep participating, must be an option.

Distributing Resources It is essential to think carefully about who has access to resources, when, where, and why. Much like the current society, resources become sites of informal and formal concentrations of power-over others. These could include financial, cultural, social, or other resources. Given the reliance on social media in the squares and OWS, the accounts were resources. I hope that future movements take the use of social media very seriously, and how it can facilitate both horizontal and hierarchical structures. A movement is not a marketing campaign. It cannot be reduced to brands,

320 

M. Holmes

memes, and hashtags. It is not about individual celebrities or fundraising. It is about our relationships.

Becoming Resilient Going about making a social revolution, inevitably put us at odds with the forces of institutions, political parties, the state, and counter-­ revolutionary movements. It is an essential step to come to terms with this fact. If there is no conflict with opposing political forces, then there is no struggle. The question really is when and where to draw a line between one’s friends and enemies. After establishing this, the follow-up question is how to be participatory and open enough to new people, while protecting a project against attacks. There is no easy answer here that works in all cases. There may be different strategies and tactics given the context. Overall, though, the goal must be to minimize the influence of those seeking to institutionalize, co-opt, repress, or re-direct for the counter-revolution. At the same time, there must be increasing influence of those seeking a horizontal, autonomous, and democratic revolution. Facing our enemies was very physically, emotionally, and mentally exhausting during the squares. To guard against this in the future there is a need for pacing and taking things slow when needed. There must be a conscious effort to build capacity with regular people who are sympathetic, but not professional organizers. There must be a holistic way of approaching the work and integrating healing practices. We must build a culture of care if we are to outlive fascism.

Occupy Everywhere Wherever there are people who insist on acting as if they’re already free, the spirit of OWS is present. OWS lives in occupations of public space, and  squats. It lives in rank and file independent labor actions such as work stoppages, strikes, and sabotage. It lives in direct actions during pipeline campaigns to protect water. It lives in the refusal to pay all unjust debts, whether student, medical, housing, or personal credit debts. It

25  Conclusion: Building the New Society 

321

lives in prisoners struggling inside, and supporters outside. It lives in immigrants and refugees breaking down borders. It lives in actions against police murders, abolition, and black liberation.  It lives in indigenous struggles to defend and reclaim land. It lives in those reclaiming Pride from corporations and police. It lives in LGBTQI+ liberation. It lives in feminists challenging all concentrations of dominate power, like the Supreme Court of the United States. It lives in disabled bodies asserting autonomy and fighting for healthcare. It lives in neuro-divergent folks fighting for mental health support. It lives, perhaps most of all, in the ever-expanding networks of mutual aid, providing material assistance and care to one another. OWS lives on, if not always in name, in practice. The question now, is how to weave together all these struggles. How can we emulate what was effective from OWS and the squares? How can we overcome all the challenges we faced? What began in 2011, and at OWS, is still possible, now, in the present. Let’s stop thinking of the world as it is and imagine what it could be. Then, we can really occupy everywhere.

References INCITE! Women of Color Against Violence. (2006). Color of Violence: The INCITE! Anthology. South End Press. Juris, J. (2012). Reflections on #Occupy Everywhere: Social Media, Public Space, and Emerging Logics of Aggregation. American Ethnologist, 39(2). Martinez, E. B. (2000). Where Was the Color in Seattle? Looking for Reasons the Great Battle Was So White. Colorlines. Retrieved September 15, 2022, from https://www.colorlines.com/articles/where-­was-­color-­seattlelooking-­ reasons-­why-­great-­battle-­was-­so-­white Support NY, Accountability Process Curriculum. (2016). Retrieved September 15, 2022, from https://supportny.org/transformativejustice/curriculum/

Glossary1

Anarcha-feminism 

A political philosophy that is both anarchist and feminist. In the late 1960s and early 1970s, the term was used both to claim a feminist lineage of thought within anarchism, and to claim an anarchist space within the feminist movement. Anarchist  Someone who believes in and practices anarchism. Anarchism  A political philosophy that is against capitalism, the state, and all forms of domination, and for an egalitarian and free society. Autogestion  Self-organized activity against and beyond capitalism and the state. Autonomous  A way of being separate from the structures and systems of capitalism and the state. This may refer to a territory that is liberated from the control of police or the military, alternative institutions, or even individual expressions. Assembly  A body of individuals engaged in deliberative decision-making. Caucus  A self-determining group of people that share a common experience of being systemically marginalized in society at large based on (but not limited to) their real or perceived race, gender identity, sexuality, age, or ability. It is not the responsibility of a caucus to educate others about oppression.

 In this book, there are some terms used that may not be familiar to all readers. I’ve included a list here. 1

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 M. Holmes, Organizing Occupy Wall Street, Alternatives and Futures: Cultures, Practices, Activism and Utopias, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-8947-6

323

324 Glossary Cluster 

An aggregate of individuals or small groups, as in working groups or affinity groups, around a theme or action. Consensus  A form of decision-making that rests on the principle of consent rather than coercion. In the formal consensus process, developed by the Quakers, and the anti-nuke movement in the United States, there is a flow that moves from discussion to questions to concerns to stand-asides to blocs. If no one blocs a decision from moving forward, then consensus has been reached. Modified consensus can account for greater heterogeneity of a group and allow for more dissenting voices. Civil disobedience  Non-compliance with unjust laws. Council  A body of groups engaged in deliberative decision-making. Direct Action  Taking action without making appeals, or asking permission, to address a problem or need. Direct democracy  A political process in which people have the power to make decisions about their own lives and society. This is opposed to representatives making decisions on behalf of other people. Disruption  Acting against business as usual. Diversity of Tactics  An agreement that allows for multiple approaches to action alongside time and space separation, and solidarity. Dumpstered  Retrieved from a trash dumpster. This could be to minimize food waste, or to feed people who are hungry, or both. Flying squads  Formations of people moving in the streets together. These are mobile and flexible when taking action. Kettled  Surrounded by police barricades or nets. Hand signals  Choreographed movements of hands to indicate a feeling or protocol. Horizontal  A way of sharing and building power with others. Hubs  Physical sites for storage and distribution of materials. Mic check  When someone repeats what someone else says in order to amplify it. Mutual Aid  Meeting each other’s needs against and beyond corporations and the state. Occupation  Repurposing a space for the purpose of building alternative ways of being. Stack  A place in the que to speak during a meeting. Spoke  A person who conveys the feelings and decisions of a smaller group to a larger group on a rotational basis. Swarm  An informal, self-organized, group often mobilized against a target in the streets.

 Glossary  Tactical 

325

Strategic and skillful moves, especially in the context of street actions. Operating in an emergency state to stop pain. This is derived from the medical term ‘triage’ referring to stopping bleeding. Twinkling  Moving hands from side to side on each side of the head. Wildcat  An unsanctioned action, often in the context of a workplace. Triage Mode 

Index

A

Action, vii–ix, xiii, xvii, xviii, xxi, 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 10, 13, 23, 31, 33–35, 39, 44, 48, 49, 51, 58, 59, 61, 64, 75, 80, 81, 83–88, 93, 101, 106, 107, 111, 118, 125, 126, 134, 142, 151, 152, 160, 163, 166, 170, 173–176, 178–183, 188, 193–201, 207, 211, 224, 226–228, 230, 235, 243, 244, 247, 255, 256, 258, 273, 275, 276, 286, 288–290, 312, 316, 320, 321 Activism, 5, 231, 247 Affinity groups, xxi, 3, 151, 152, 163, 165, 166, 176, 185, 197, 199–201, 234, 243, 300, 313 Agreements, 60, 76, 77, 123–126, 138, 139, 176, 195–199, 228, 245, 312

Allies, 8, 99–108, 129, 130, 175, 267, 275, 285 Anarcha-feminism, 262 Anarchism, 71, 158, 236 Anarchist, ix, xvii, 3, 5, 12, 14, 33, 34, 36, 37, 45, 70, 122, 132, 166, 197, 255, 256, 261, 268, 269, 271, 275, 285, 287, 290, 296, 300 Anti-nuclear, 3, 134 Assembly, viii, xi–xiv, xix, 10, 31, 32, 35–39, 41, 46, 48, 51, 56–60, 64, 67, 68, 77–80, 99, 101, 102, 104, 105, 107, 112, 119, 125, 134–136, 148, 155, 157, 158, 160, 178, 180, 182, 183, 188, 194, 197, 201, 206–208, 210, 213, 214, 218, 219, 224–226, 229, 231, 264, 266–270, 272, 276, 288, 313

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 M. Holmes, Organizing Occupy Wall Street, Alternatives and Futures: Cultures, Practices, Activism and Utopias, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-8947-6

327

328 Index

Autogestion, 214 Autonomous, xi, xiii, xviii, xx, 1, 2, 5, 38, 133, 146, 198, 271, 311, 312, 316, 318, 320 B

Bray, Mark, xviii, 83, 198, 271 Bureaucracy, 165, 313, 314 Bureaucratic, 5 C

Camp, xx, 3, 13, 31, 42, 65, 96, 197, 218, 275, 288, 296, 298 Capitalism, 40, 115, 170, 206, 214, 295, 311 Care, xii–xiv, 63, 69, 88, 117, 153, 171, 174, 208, 247, 313, 320, 321 Caucus, xxi, 8, 111, 117–119, 129, 130, 132, 133, 136, 137, 139–142, 315 Civil, 18, 23 Civil disobedience, 197, 284 Cluster, xx, 92–94, 125, 132, 175, 178, 188, 193, 199–201 Coalition, 9, 14, 34–36, 111, 174, 175, 178, 181, 182, 197, 213, 216, 238, 268, 270, 271, 313 Coalitional, 173, 314, 315 Coercion, 19, 246 Collective, xii, xviii, xix, 3–5, 12, 29, 36, 38, 39, 41, 45, 68, 69, 79, 80, 84, 96, 117, 140, 160, 171, 182, 183, 185, 194, 215, 224, 232, 243, 245, 248, 250, 251, 256–258, 260, 261, 272, 276, 284, 302, 313, 314, 318

Committee, 7, 27, 69, 118, 127, 167, 212, 216, 220, 265, 270, 287, 288, 300 Communication, xviii, xix, 3, 18, 21, 22, 25, 28, 29, 34, 36–40, 42, 44, 45, 47–49, 51, 56, 59, 67, 72, 76, 92, 93, 101, 106, 124, 127, 129, 135, 136, 138, 164–168, 170, 174, 175, 182, 198, 199, 209, 210, 224, 239, 244, 245, 256, 260, 284, 287, 288, 315 Community, xi, xii, 1, 2, 10, 12, 31, 34, 39, 80, 81, 101, 103–105, 108, 118, 119, 122–128, 131, 138, 154, 156, 160, 169, 171, 173, 176, 178, 179, 184, 206, 210, 216, 228, 230–234, 238, 239, 245, 250, 288, 298, 303, 315 Connect, xxi, 31, 41, 44, 65, 88, 119, 127, 304 Consensus, xx, xxi, 4, 7, 33, 37, 38, 57, 58, 75–77, 80, 81, 131, 134, 140, 141, 151, 182, 188, 197, 199, 212, 228–229, 245–246, 256, 269, 276, 300, 313 Consent, 38, 122, 125, 127, 138, 141 Co-option, xxi, 6, 263–277, 316, 317 Council, xix, 2–4, 10, 25, 35, 125, 126, 129–142, 165, 166, 168, 175, 176, 182, 183, 201, 220, 272, 300, 312, 313 Critical, xix, 20, 71, 93, 231, 270, 274, 283, 284, 301

 Index 

Culture, xviii, 11, 27, 35, 63, 75, 93, 119, 127, 132, 138, 178, 179, 227, 234, 236, 238, 255, 295, 296, 320 D

De-escalate, 125, 139 Defend, 83, 106–108, 250 Demand, viii, ix, xi, xviii, xx, 9, 12, 23, 26, 28, 38–39, 78–81, 156, 185, 213 Democracy, xii, xiii, xx, 2, 6, 9, 13, 17, 33, 34, 75–81, 107, 130, 207, 209, 245, 265, 275, 276, 295, 312 Digital, xix, 33, 45, 46, 96, 106, 210, 248, 251, 258, 272, 301, 317 Direct action, xiii, xvii, 1–6, 10, 48, 49, 83–88, 107, 126, 166, 176, 179, 180, 182, 183, 199, 227, 228, 247, 313, 320 Direct democracy, viii, 4, 17, 39, 58, 77, 81, 93, 136, 171, 209, 227, 231, 273, 312, 313 Disruption, 130, 137, 140–142, 165, 193, 197, 199, 201, 246, 288, 300 Diversity of tactics, 83, 176, 195, 198 Dumpstered, 194 E

Ecology, 194, 199, 212 Egypt, xii, 18–20, 22, 23, 26, 29, 30, 36, 205, 265–267, 284–285, 311

329

Empowerment, xii, 80, 257 Energy, 21, 44, 63, 76, 103, 152, 161, 183, 194, 201, 257, 300, 305, 317, 318 Environment, 138, 158, 164, 214, 297 Epstein, Barbara, 129, 163 F

Facilitate, 8, 9, 37, 58, 69, 77, 79, 91, 96, 137, 157, 171, 198, 201, 208, 214, 225, 257, 319 Facilitation, 3, 4, 36, 57, 59, 60, 77, 135, 137, 139, 140, 142, 160, 165, 168, 170, 171, 208, 214, 219, 234, 256–258 Family, 21, 46, 153, 154, 187, 228, 230, 304 Fascism, 249, 295, 320 Fascist, xxi, 295, 299, 301, 303, 304, 311, 317 Feminism, 71, 212, 256 Feminist, ix, xix, 122, 166, 212, 256, 298, 321 Fithian, Lisa, 3, 8, 34, 48, 49, 51, 151, 257 Flexible, 58, 201, 208, 246, 257, 314 Fluid, 44, 183, 260, 314 Flying squads, 197, 200, 201 Free, 7, 23, 46, 48, 64, 69, 70, 93, 104, 115, 137, 155, 180, 183–184, 188, 194, 206, 217, 246, 259, 266, 320 Freedom, xi, 2, 4, 92, 147, 184, 187, 246, 312

330 Index G

Gender, xiv, xix, 87, 119, 121–128, 137, 139, 141, 183, 208, 231, 314, 318 Global, viii, ix, xiii, xx, 5, 17, 36, 93, 95–96, 154, 205, 207, 208, 210, 216, 218, 227, 247, 250, 263, 273 Graeber, David, xviii, 3–6, 33, 34, 36–38, 41, 76, 130, 132, 140, 184, 189, 193, 224, 246, 256 Greece, xii, xiv, xx, 17, 56, 57, 205, 214, 268–269, 285, 312 H

Hand signals, 77, 78, 137, 177, 182, 208 Harassment, 122, 127, 305 Hold, xiv, 4, 7, 48, 65, 79, 84, 86, 107, 151, 171, 177, 198, 228, 258, 285, 288, 303, 313, 317 Hop, 177 Horizontal, ix, xi, xiii, xvii, xviii, xx, 1, 2, 19, 33, 36, 95, 99, 100, 132, 197, 211, 213, 216, 223, 228, 237, 250, 260, 270, 311, 312, 316, 318–320 Horizontalism, 124, 205, 256 Horizontality, 36, 205, 219 Hubs, 5, 13, 233–237, 268 I

Independent, 5, 22, 29, 91, 166, 276, 312, 320 Indymedia, 5–7, 18, 29, 56, 91, 244, 285

International, xix, 96, 205, 208, 209, 218, 219, 226, 228, 265, 284, 305, 317 K

Kettled, 114 L

Leader, 23, 26, 102, 103, 156, 181, 182, 211, 230, 255, 260, 261, 264, 268, 288 Leaderless, 255, 276 Leadership, 10, 11, 59, 173, 181, 230, 255–261, 270 Left, ix, xi, xiv, xviii, 2, 22, 25, 27–29, 34–36, 40, 51, 56, 68, 79, 88, 93, 99, 114, 117, 146, 151, 157, 165, 167, 173, 177, 185, 189, 212, 213, 216, 224, 230, 231, 233, 264–267, 270, 271, 275, 285, 295–297, 299, 305, 311, 313, 315 Liberation, xi, 71, 92, 227, 321 Liberty, 64, 66, 85, 88, 112, 132, 157, 158, 160, 275 M

Magic, 66, 160–161 Map, 8, 46, 51, 195, 200, 212 Media, vii, ix, xii, xix, 3, 5, 7, 18, 19, 21, 27, 29–33, 44–45, 63–65, 91–96, 147, 152, 156, 170, 176, 193, 210, 219, 224, 232, 243–245, 258, 260, 272, 288, 296, 299, 302, 304, 305

 Index 

Melt, 177 Mesh, 132 Mic check, 58–61, 63, 69, 78, 80, 103, 107, 108, 115, 116, 135–137, 153, 154, 158, 177 Military, 20, 25, 28–30, 127, 153, 217, 264–267, 284–286, 289, 290, 298 Mountain, 1, 9, 160–161, 208, 224 Movement, vii–ix, xi–xv, xvii–xxi, 1–4, 6–10, 17–26, 30, 36, 37, 40, 43, 44, 48, 61, 63, 71, 77, 79, 80, 92–94, 96, 100–103, 106–108, 111, 113, 116–119, 129, 130, 132–135, 137, 152, 156, 159, 163–171, 174–177, 180, 183, 184, 189, 193–195, 197, 205, 207, 209, 210, 212, 213, 216, 219, 223, 224, 226, 227, 231, 243–245, 247, 248, 250, 255, 256, 258–261, 263, 267, 268, 270, 271, 273, 275, 276, 283, 287–290, 295, 297–299, 302, 305, 306, 311, 312, 314–320 Mutual aid, xvii, 37, 63, 163, 176–178, 181, 188, 225, 227, 231, 233–234, 247, 269, 271, 312, 316, 321 N

Nation, 78, 206, 315 National, 7, 12, 13, 92, 99, 100, 152, 167, 168, 228, 303 Neo-fascism, 295–306, 317

331

Network, 4, 5, 7, 9, 12, 13, 34, 40, 44, 48, 91, 112, 113, 132, 152, 155, 160, 164, 173, 193, 205, 210, 213, 225, 226, 233, 235–237, 239, 245, 247, 249, 258, 266, 272, 299, 302, 321 New Left, xx, 2, 6, 69 New society, xx, 311–321 Non violence, 84, 200, 276 Non-violent, 3, 83–84, 95, 197, 300 O

Occupation, xvii, xx, xxi, 1–2, 11–13, 25, 31, 34, 57, 61, 63, 64, 67–72, 75–77, 79, 84, 85, 91, 93–96, 99, 103, 106, 112, 117, 118, 122, 124, 129, 130, 138, 146, 150–152, 154, 155, 158, 159, 164, 165, 188, 189, 194, 206, 238, 244, 258, 260, 269, 312, 313, 320 Organization, ix, xvii, xxi, 1, 2, 6–8, 10, 19, 22, 29, 34, 58, 63, 75, 99, 102, 103, 105, 106, 117, 118, 129–131, 155, 163, 164, 166, 168, 171, 176, 178, 187, 197, 208, 211, 216, 223, 225, 229–232, 236, 238, 239, 250, 251, 255, 260, 261, 271, 273, 276, 284, 287, 288, 297, 312–314, 318 Organize, xii, xv, 1, 19, 20, 31, 34, 35, 61, 70, 95, 116, 121, 128, 138, 176, 181, 197, 206, 210, 215, 224, 232, 235, 260, 283, 288, 301, 305

332 Index

Organizer, ix, xiv, xvii, xviii, xx, xxi, 3, 4, 7, 8, 12, 13, 38, 101, 122, 129, 153, 157, 164, 166, 173, 175, 178, 182, 183, 186, 194, 205–207, 212, 213, 217–219, 225, 239, 250, 261, 275, 276, 288, 302, 313, 315, 320 P

Participation, 7, 19, 75, 93, 180, 186, 210, 211, 248, 258, 272, 313 Participatory, ix, xii, xx, 38, 54, 79, 80, 171, 210, 223, 276, 312–314, 320 Patriarchy, 121, 164 People of color (POC), xxi, 12, 111, 117–119, 125, 129, 133, 137, 158, 228–230, 238, 286, 315 Personal, vii, viii, xix, 14, 18, 21, 22, 25, 28, 29, 34, 36–40, 42, 44, 45, 47–49, 51, 67, 76, 80, 93, 101, 105, 106, 124, 125, 127, 129, 136, 138, 154, 164–167, 170, 174–176, 182, 199, 206, 224, 228, 238, 239, 244, 245, 247, 320 Plural, 130 Police, 5, 12, 18, 24, 25, 28, 30, 42–44, 48, 49, 54, 56, 58–60, 85–88, 92–94, 103, 106, 111, 113–116, 126, 146–149, 155–159, 170, 186–189, 197, 199–201, 230, 260, 264, 265, 283, 286, 287, 297, 298, 300, 301, 303, 314, 321

Political, viii, xviii, xxi, 12, 14, 22, 23, 29, 35–38, 40, 41, 69, 70, 75, 76, 79, 80, 99, 103, 107, 119, 134, 151, 152, 154, 159, 160, 168, 180, 194, 197, 199, 205–207, 210, 211, 213, 216, 227, 229–231, 237, 244, 248, 249, 263–265, 267–272, 275–277, 284, 285, 295, 297, 299, 305, 312, 316, 318, 320 Politics, ix, xiii, xvii, 38, 43, 99, 168, 173, 178, 189, 197, 223, 236, 244, 270, 311, 313, 314, 316 Polletta, Francesca, 2, 3, 75, 129 Prefigurative, 63, 102, 123, 129 Q

Queer, 41, 42, 45, 69–71, 76, 108, 121, 122, 137, 139, 140, 142, 297, 301 R

Race, xiv, xix, xxi, 71, 111–119, 129, 131, 133, 137, 141, 231, 301, 314, 318 Racism, xxi, 7, 107, 111, 119, 123, 229, 319 Radical, viii, xvii, xviii, 2, 4, 35, 68, 69, 117, 151, 173, 181, 184, 185, 189, 216, 217, 269–271, 285, 305, 311, 313, 315 Rain, 37, 65, 88, 152, 154, 185, 300, 302 Representation, xi, 181, 214, 266 Repression, xxi, 6, 70, 151, 263, 266, 283–290, 297, 316, 317

 Index 

Resource, 6, 35, 81, 127, 163, 166, 168–169, 173, 175, 199, 216, 217, 224, 232, 234, 237, 276, 284, 316, 319–320 Revolution, viii, ix, xiii, 17–23, 26, 27, 30, 34, 92, 96, 103, 154, 215, 218, 248, 263–267, 272, 277, 283, 295, 316, 317, 320 Right, xviii, xxi, 19, 23, 27, 30, 35, 43, 46, 48, 57, 65, 66, 79–81, 83, 86–88, 102–104, 106, 112, 115–118, 131, 136, 149, 170, 171, 174, 177, 181, 187, 200, 201, 207–209, 218, 236, 259, 267–269, 275, 284, 289, 295, 297, 299, 301, 303, 314, 319 Role, xvii, xviii, 1, 5, 7, 14, 20, 22, 25, 37, 49, 56, 58, 77, 91, 93, 108, 130, 133, 140, 158, 174, 216, 223, 231, 246, 256–261, 314, 319 Rotation, 139, 223 S

Safety, 54, 103–106, 115, 125, 127, 138, 149, 176, 238 Schneider, Nathan, xviii, 76, 85, 99, 174, 197, 255 Screen, xx, 24, 30, 65, 91, 93, 96, 167 Security, 8, 10, 13, 25, 27, 34, 59, 60, 66, 85, 104, 105, 125, 127, 182, 219, 285, 288, 302 Sitrin, Marina, vii, xviii, 17, 47, 205, 256 Social, viii, xi–xiii, 2, 6, 12, 14, 18, 29, 34, 44, 127, 142, 155, 159,

333

170, 171, 181, 194, 205–208, 214, 227, 231, 235, 247, 257, 264, 268, 272, 275, 277, 287, 299, 312, 316, 319, 320 Social media, xviii, xx, 19, 27, 72, 113, 213, 232, 239, 243, 251, 258, 263, 275, 283, 288, 295, 299, 304, 313, 316, 317, 319 Social movement, 71, 215, 216, 248, 251, 256, 271, 296 Solidarity, xx, 3, 10, 12, 22, 41, 59, 85, 88, 92, 100, 105, 107, 108, 112, 117, 127, 138, 171, 174, 176, 177, 183, 194, 227, 245, 268, 276, 296, 314 Space, xii, xiii, xx, 2, 3, 9, 10, 13, 17, 21, 26–28, 30, 33, 45, 46, 48, 51–54, 58–61, 63, 64, 66, 67, 70, 80, 81, 94, 96, 104, 105, 111, 112, 117–119, 121–125, 127, 128, 132, 133, 135, 138, 139, 141, 145, 148–151, 155–161, 165, 168, 171, 176, 183, 185, 188, 194, 195, 197, 198, 200, 201, 206, 209, 216–219, 225, 235, 236, 244, 257–259, 265, 272, 290, 297, 312, 313, 315, 318, 320 Spain, xii, xiii, 17, 18, 30–32, 56, 57, 96, 205, 209, 214, 270, 286, 312 Spirit, 48, 81, 88, 124, 160, 320 Spoke, xix, 3, 4, 7, 10, 18, 35, 58–60, 79, 83, 96, 117, 130, 132, 134, 135, 137, 139, 140, 175, 176, 182, 183, 201, 206, 212, 214, 219, 229, 244, 255, 271, 272, 300

334 Index

Stack, 37, 38, 59, 60, 77, 121, 135, 142, 220, 260, 275 Storm, 65, 88, 126, 127, 201, 233, 244, 298, 302 Sunflower, 45 Swarm, 197 Swirl, 126, 197, 201 Symbol, xxi, 177, 276, 285, 299, 301 T

Tent, 27, 64–66, 72, 83, 105, 126–128, 145, 146, 148, 149, 217, 218, 272, 275 Terrorism, xxi, 284–286, 290 Trap, 88, 301 Triage mode, 234 Tunisia, xii, 57, 154, 205, 210, 215, 218, 264–267, 283–285, 311 Twinkling, 103, 137, 182, 208 U

Union, 5, 11, 34, 88, 99–102, 129, 151, 164, 173, 175, 176, 179–182, 188, 189, 212, 213, 216, 219, 225, 231, 232, 265, 296, 313 V

Vertical, 151, 223 Violence, 5, 20, 105, 127, 230, 246, 264, 290, 296, 303

W

Wall Street, vii, 8, 32, 34, 36, 42, 45, 46, 51, 53–56, 59–61, 85–87, 101–103, 112, 116, 117, 159, 180, 193–201, 224, 248, 249, 287, 314 Weather, 64, 65, 154 Wildcat, 188 Wisconsin, 34, 102 Witch, 257 Women, 1, 2, 8, 18, 24, 25, 27, 36, 43, 54–56, 60, 61, 65–68, 70, 72, 77, 79, 87, 93, 96, 101, 103, 104, 107, 108, 114, 116, 117, 121, 122, 125, 127, 128, 130, 135–140, 142, 147, 148, 152, 153, 157–160, 163, 168, 170, 171, 174, 176, 185, 186, 189, 206, 208–210, 212, 214, 218, 219, 225, 227, 230, 232, 235, 237–239, 243, 256, 272, 273, 290, 297, 300, 314 Workers, 11, 12, 22, 23, 53, 55, 61, 88, 101, 104, 127, 146, 173, 174, 179–181, 183, 187, 189, 206, 217, 313–315 Working groups, xiv, xx, xxi, 4, 7, 48, 61, 63, 69, 75, 93, 119, 124, 128, 129, 132, 133, 136, 137, 139, 146, 160, 165, 166, 170, 171, 175, 176, 179, 212, 225, 226, 232, 244, 288, 300, 313

 Index 

World, viii, ix, xi–xiii, 3, 5, 10, 14, 39, 56, 60, 63, 80, 106, 107, 114, 129, 131, 140, 149, 151, 155, 163, 173, 177, 180, 181, 185, 215, 218, 232, 247, 255, 261, 263, 271, 276, 286, 297, 298, 305, 313, 318, 319, 321

99, 101, 103, 112–117, 122, 135, 136, 138, 152, 153, 157, 160, 168, 170, 181, 189, 200, 206, 207, 209, 210, 212, 214, 218, 224, 225, 235–239, 270, 289, 300 Youth, 6, 18, 22, 26, 40, 48, 166, 230, 264–266, 283, 285, 311

Y

Young, 6–8, 21, 22, 24, 26, 27, 36, 37, 42, 54–56, 59–61, 65, 67–70, 77, 79, 80, 84–87, 91,

335

Z

Zapatista, xi, xiii, 1–2, 5, 216