Will There Be "Son of Occupy"? Will its Saturn side start to show?

As the Occupy Movement's visible presence begins to fade, as we suspected it would, either by force or due to winter weather, journalists and bloggers are taking sides for and gainst the view that either OWS has been either an abject failure, or alternatively has done a worthwhile job of raising awareness and will winter "underground", revitalising come springtime 2012. (Photograph from http://www.phibetaiota.net/)

It's obvious that, if OWS's main aim was to raise awareness, they succeeded. The movement's best known signature: 99% versus 1%, in spite of its over-generalisation has caught a mass attention that was absent this time last year.

If I had to give a zodiac sign to the Occupy movement(s) it'd be Aquarius. Aquarius has 2 rulers: Uranus and Saturn. We've seen the Uranian, surprisingly unexpected side of Occupy, now I believe its Saturn side should come to the fore, at least for a while.

"The end of consciousness-raising leaves people with no place to go, and the lack of structure leaves them with no way of getting there...."

That quote comes from a feminist book Quiet Rumours: An Anarcha-Feminist Reader . The feminist movement aimed to be "structureless", using "horizontal" decision making rather than hierarchal. OWS has aimed to emulate this and to remain leaderless. With no figurehead(s) to act as targets, they feel individuals remain less vulnerable to attack. The feminist movement must have dealt with similar problems. There's a very good good piece on these very issues, written by Jo Freeman :

The Tyranny of Structurelessness

SNIPS:
(Highlighting is my own)

"Contrary to what we would like to believe, there is no such thing as a structureless group. Any group of people of whatever nature that comes together for any length of time for any purpose will inevitably structure itself in some fashion........

....... A "laissez faire" group is about as realistic as a "laissez faire" society; the idea becomes a smokescreen for the strong or the lucky to establish unquestioned hegemony over others. This hegemony can be so easily established because the idea of "structurelessness" does not prevent the formation of informal structures, only formal ones."

"The more unstructured a movement is, the less control it has over the directions in which it develops and the political actions in which it engages.... Given a certain amount of interest by the media and the appropriateness of social conditions, the ideas will still be diffused widely. But diffusion of ideas does not mean they are implemented; it only means they are talked about. Insofar as they can be applied individually they may be acted on; insofar as they require coordinated political power to be implemented, they will not be."

I've been on the side of OWS from the get-go, but lately have wondered about their insistence on remaining leaderless. Leaders are a part of our nature, human nature, and the nature of many of our fellow creatures on planet Earth. Think of a V-shaped flight of geese, a pack of wolves, the bees with their Queen - and so on.

OWS would argue that "hierarchies have been tried - look what happened. We must try something different", they'd say. Hierarchies, of one sort or another, have been part and parcel of human history and experience - forever. Like it or not, they are an embedded part of our nature. The 21st century trick will, in my opinion, be to allow for hierarchies of wealth, but to protect those at the base of the pyramid. Legislation should be put in place to ensure that the wealth of the top tier should not be allowed to subjugate those beneath. I'm using a bit of hyperbole there -subjugation was more Roman Empire style.....Hmmm - I don't know though, maybe I'm not using hyperbole after all.

One of the biggest problems (I believe it to be THE biggest) for the 99% in the USA is the now unlimited ability of the most wealthy 1%, both corporate and individual, to buy power via lobbying with "benefits" and HUGE contributions to political campaigns of those running for seats in Senate or House or as president. Not to mince words: bribery.

To make such a dent on the status quo would require a Constitutional amendment. That would involve an impossibly high level of politicical support. Politicans are bought and paid for by the very people who would lose out badly if such a dent in the status quo were to come to pass.

Catch 22!!!

If OWS would adopt, initially, a spokesperson to present a single defined aim (the one above for example), publicise it among supporters online and elsewhere, also offering a means of showing support - e.g. financial support for TV adverts or billboards. A strong, charismatic leader might eventually emerge. A figure from their own ranks, or a known public figure. (Importantly without links to the two-headed one-bodied Democrat/Republican monstrosity). Such a figure, wielding a certain amount of clout, with intention to influence other heavy-hitters, could herald the next stage of OWS or "Son of OWS".

I realise that this idea isn't in line with the ideology OWS has embraced, so far. But - when you're playing on a square-shaped sports field, it's not helpful to keep complaining that the game would be better played on a circular one. Use what skills are available to try to win the game on the field as it stands, then the ability go about shape-shifting would be yours.

For a more positive assessment of Occupy's current situation see Occupy: We Are the World, by Patrick Kingsley and Adam Gabbatt at Common Dreams.

And - one I've just seen, re our Oklahoma City contingent - good on 'em, and especially on Jay Vehige!

Arrested for Supporting Local Business: Occupying Black Friday at the Big Boxes in Oklahoma City, by Lori Spencer