Re: Occupy

From October 3 to about 21 (it's tough to track time when you run on little sleep) I actively participated in the Occupy Portland movement. It was heavy.

I avoided labeling myself with any particular committee affiliation, but the work I chose to do would fit under their labels facilitation, communication, tactical, peacekeeping, mental health and sexual assault prevention.

Now that I've had some time to reflect on the whole thing, I've developed a conceptual framework that has helped me make sense of what I experienced:

The way I see it, Occupy can be broken into 3 parts:

1) The Movement: an overall, national and worldwide feeling of need for change. The Movement can still be best explained only by the very general slogan "We are the 99%" which attempts to address the increasing income inequality trends in this country and the world.

The Movement is very very important. As an economist, a former foreclosure prevention counselor, a product of poverty, a humanist... as all of who I am, I know that income inequality, which is accelerating and systemic in the U.S, is not good for society. We have to do better, or our civil society will devolve even further. See previous posts.

2) The Process: Decisions are made using a consensus model. General Assemblies are held daily, and last hours. Participants hash out decisions through the use of specialized language, specific hand signals and 'mic check' a call-and-response method of information dissemination. There are multiple rounds of "proposal suggestion", "clarifying questions", "points of process", "concerns", "direct responses", "proposal amendments", and "breakaway groups" until (in Portland's model) 90% of the participants agree or the proposal is blocked, in which case the idea is either dropped or it goes back to "working committee" for further revision.

There's a whole lot of social statement about group-think and inefficiency and lowest common denominator and self selection and etc. that could go here, but ultimately, The Process isn't the point of this post.

3) The Encampments: This is the physical manifestation of the movement at the local level. This is the tents and people and services that are holding the space itself and act as a tangible symbol of the movement and which allow a gathering space for The Process to happen in the hope that The Movement will go somewhere. This physical manifestation is incredibly important, becasue it gives a face to The Movement. It is unfortunately, this face that could destroy the Movement, if The Process does not adjust itself, quickly.


So, here's the thing: as far as reality goes, right now neither The Movement nor The Process can move forward, because The Encampments are taking them down.

When I first got involved, what I saw in the Occupy Portland planning process was a reasonably sized and very vocal contingent, but not nearly a majority, whose generalized distrust of "the system," and intense feelings of "personal authority above all," influenced The Process in ways that kept a clear statement of respect for basic rule of law at a structural level from being made, or even implicitly followed.

Despite this vocal minority, for the first few days of The Encampment spirits were high and public opinion was supportive. Within 48 hours of claiming the space, centers of operations for food, medical, peacekeeping, library services, information, and engineering had been established. The signs and chalk slogans on the sidewalks were on message and positive. Thousands turned out for the first march event on October 6, and then again a few days later on the 9th. The City and Police were cooperative. The Portland Marathon allowed the camp to remain in place the first weekend, despite the fact that they held a permit to the space.

The Process worked well enough, at first, because enough participants were motivated by their personal interpretations of what The Movement was about, and by the rush of positive feeling that accompanied the ability to do work, to be useful after such a long recession, a drought of personal utility unleashed into a flood of hope and constructive action.

At one point, I was so moved by the paradigm shift in the way that authority reacts to civil protest and the overwhelming manifestation of positive cooperation that I collapsed, weeping in joy (and, admittedly, exhaustion.)

But the empowerment of the people building the camp, combined with a desire to maintain autonomy, plus the feeling of the vocal minority that the movement was one of civil disobedience which required a position of opposition to all established law and structure, quickly took a toll.

As a result, it took about 4-5 days for the encampment to welcome the assistance of the police for rising issues of crime.

(I won't detail the events that occurred in the camp, nor the tipping point that led to increased willingness to request police intervention, at this time).

By the evening of Monday, October 10 Occupy Portland was an encampment of several hundred people spread over two city blocks separated by a (once opened forcibly by the police, the first arrests of Occupy Portland and in many ways the turning point for the future of the camp) heavily trafficked street... and by this time the demographics of those camping had changed.

Many of the women and the families and the folks who had someplace else to sleep at night left soon after. They were marginalized out by the partiers and the drug addicts and the homeless that flooded into the camp. This only further complicated the work of the folks who did decide to stay committed to peacekeeping/community safety in the name of either "The Process" or "The Movement".

The camp is now a concentration of those whose needs for social services is most desperate. They represent not The Movement, nor The Process, nor the 99%.

The Encampments now represent only the 1% on the bottom of the socioeconomic scale.

I have seen no effort to delineate the Encampments from The Movement, and the general public doesn't understand The Process at all.

This is not the way to win hearts and minds.


At this point, we're hearing more and more reports of police intervention because

1) the amount of crime continues to increase, and

2) there is willingness to report crime, a sign of acceptance by the people working in the camps that they can't handle all of these issues internally. This acceptance is good, because it's true, but it's also the beginning of disillusionment.


How feasible will it be for the limited number of folks on the ground to maintain their willingness to fight against the tide of deprivation that they are immersed in? These are people who for whatever reason, can afford to be there in the first place, but their motivation comes largely from a feeling of purpose that was unleashed after years of recession, in which their desire to work was not allowed an outlet. These people need to feel like their work is valuable.

They are working long shifts in a 'hyper-real-time', constantly moving and changing environment of near constant and super direct interaction with, in addition to The Process and The Movement aspects, a proportion of severe mental health/social services needs that exist in a free to all, initially perceived as somewhat lawless, no particular assurance of future security, place.

Already they are realizing that the work they're doing is not making a difference. No one can tread water forever. Many have already walked away. Those that are left are increasingly unable to see clearly.

Is is possible for The Encampments to get to a place of safety/security that will encourage a larger demographic of people to camp, representing more of "the 99" on the ground, thereby allowing the three parts of this social event to merge more?

Should the encampments try to go mobile and limit the communities that are allowed to camp with the group? What effect does self limiting have on the other (moving, working, developing) parts of this thing?

What it would take, and/or how effective it could even be, to try to raise awareness of the differences between the three elements of this social event?

Is it possible to separate/eliminate The Encampments from The Process and/or The Movement?

In the national news, we're seeing more and more encampments being broken down by police in riot gear, firing tear gas and rubber bullets. This isn't surprising at all, once you realize what The Encampments really are.

Portland police have halted their implicit support of the movement and have started publicizing the lists of problems and complaints in the camp. Public opinion is increasingly hostile. The City is obviously building the case for a eviction deadline.

It is almost, if not already, too late to stop the inevitable end of the current camp, because the camp has become a public health concern.

Reading notes from the last few days of General Assemblies, I see that the vast majority of energy is going into addressing the issues of crime and violence in the camp. Little to no energy is left over to systemically address evolving The Process, or enlarging the reach and message of The Movement.

The Movement arose from imbalance. Over the last 30 years, the percentage of American resources owned by the richest 1% of the population has doubled, and now stands, by some counts, as high as 40%.

The Movement is being destroyed by imbalance.

Over just the first few weeks, the monopolization of the Occupation resources by the poorest 1% of its members makes the 40% of wealth owned by America's elite seem almost reasonable.

The 99

About a year ago, as part of a PSU Economics Department Symposium, I had the opportunity to stand in front of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco and ask them to use their authority to refinance consumer debt at an interest rate more like 3-4%, with a repayment forbearance period along an income scale.

I found the authorization in their charter, I convinced my group, I made a Powerpoint with the words liquidity trap and helicopter money. I asked for changes to the ZZZ and the FDCPA.

I chickened out.
I'm sorry.

In many ways, it was already too late. My plan would have been most effective before Americans in recession dumped their money into paying their debt down.

Now, maybe I don't understand international capitol flows as well as I should.

But I do know that American consumers cannot keep up, with their stagnant incomes, on the interest payments they make to the banks, which now average 13% and range up to around 28%.

We are in a trap we can't afford. I do not see any justification where finance needs that money more than we do. Whether it should be going to individuals or to government is truly beyond the point. Finance is not using it to grow the economy by reinvesting it productively. Finance is using it to hoard wealth. While people are suffering.

We are in deep. Our problems are complicated and agreement is hard to come to.

But we, the people, cannot afford to buy our groceries on loan anymore.
We, the people, cannot afford to pay half, or more, of our incomes on housing anymore.
We, the people, want to work.
We want to believe our children will have a life at least as good as ours, if not better.

We, the people, at least the ones on my block, and in my classes, and in the grocery store and the thrift store, have changed the way we shop, and have stayed in town on our vacations, and have learned how to get by on less. We have seen our positions cut, our workloads increase, our wages fall and our leaders fiddle, all while we continue to just try to adjust.

We want a reallocation.

We want less hoarding. We want more work, and we want more of the benefit of our labor to be in our hands and in our communities.

We want the games to stop, because it is our lives and our futures that are being gambled by an entrenched minority that has ceased to provide adequately for the masses.

We, the people, are the 99%, and we cannot afford no change.