Occupy's 99% = Bottom-Up Participatory Democracy

The Question and Objection to the Occupy Movement


One recurring complaint/ question I have heard from the media, as well as those who oppose or  confused about the Occupy protests is this: What do you all want anyway?  For the rich to pay more taxes?  For an apology from Wall Street? What???  On one hand, "What do you want" is a good question being asked of the 99% protesters.  This is a common question asked whenever there is a movement protesting perceived wrongs.  If you have a problem with something, what is your proposed solution?  However, this is a "top-down" representative democracy approach to problems, rather than a "bottom-up" participatory democracy philosophy. The Occupy movement is a bottom-up philosophical movement.  As such, it is important to understand the difference between these two approaches and why the "what are your demands" question is not really an appropriate question to ask at this moment in time.

Image by Don Ryan/AP, and linked to from: "Occupy Wall Street" @ NPR.org

A Top-Down Approach

From the "Top-Down" perspective, it is expected that a centralized group of people/leaders organize, make demands, form a plan, and encourage the masses to follow the laid out plan.  Like a representative democracy, the followers select not simply the message or the plan, but the leaders they trust to facilitate that message and plan. If the plan or message runs into roadblocks, we can then feel comfortable that our leaders will make the adjustments needed. Power lies in the leader rather than the plan or demands. Thus, this mode of power/problem solving suggests that if we select the right person for the job, those people will act in our self-interest, and not just their self-interest.  In effect, this is the philosophy of a representative democracy since our focus is more on the elect rather than simply the plan of action.  Plans and "party philosophy" is important in this paradigm, but what takes focus are the leaders and their ability to make things right for us.

A Bottom-Up Approach

Conversely, a "Bottom-Up" participatory functions within an opposite paradigm.  Here, people who agree on a general protest idea or grievance, in this case the problems of capitalism and regulation of markets, come together to negotiate and work through the core problems or concerns at hand.  The focus is on the problem, the many possible solutions, and negotiation. The focus is not on absolute leader(s) who will make these decisions for us.  Process before a decided end result is emphasized because people recognize that one plan, one demand, will likely NOT be sufficient.

The Occupy Movement and the Bottom-Up Approach

Within the 99% Occupy Movement, it seems to me that an important fear about making specific demands at this moment is this: one solution will likely only benefit a portion of the population, not solve the root of the problems, whereas the hope is to benefit 100% (no one wishes to harm the 1%) and heal the roots. So, for example, maybe taxing the 1% is a good idea, but it is NOT the only good idea and more investigation is needed.  To reach this goal, we must negotiate over the use of language and action; we must negotiate everyday practices and ethical/social values between our personal self-interest and the interest of the collective (our local, national, and Global Community).  This is a "double process" of consensus, which takes much longer to accomplish then the top-down approach discussed above. This is why I call the occupy movement a "Bottom-UP" movement, and why this global group of people are an example of participatory democracy.

I suspect a plan and demands will come in a more concrete form later on, but right now what we are witnessing is a global discussion process of consensus building.  Such a discussion takes a lot of time and a lot of endurance.  As such, is it a waste of time?  This too is a good question.  After all, absolute consensus is almost always impossible to reach in a small family, let alone a nation or a global community.  But I would argue that the answer to that question is a resounding NO.  Equality in economics, politics, and social arrangements can only be reached through the consensus process. We no longer live in a world were we can allow ourselves to make top-down decisions for the global population.  This approach ends in increased conflict and war and, I would continue to argue, is a good part of the reason we are in the mess we are in right now. 

A Cosmopolitan Movement

The 99%ers are a cosmopolitan group functioning within the tradition of the World Social Forum and participatory-democratic philosophy - it is a new way of thinking.  A way of thinking that must trust wide participation in the democratic process (not simply a process based on voting), and one that must trust the chaos of that process, and the uncertainty of that process.  In the end, I suspect if we follow this approach through, we may end up with plans that support the majority rather than the minority of the population.

For more on cosmopolitan democracy and my thoughts on process (bottom-up), over end (top-down) approaches, you might wish to read: Toward a Cosmopolitical Democracy: Process over Ends.

I would love your thoughts on this!

R

It's About Inequality in Everything - duh!

Last week I posted on the motivation for Occupy Wall Street and explained, or attempted to explain, to the talking heads the motivation of the protesters. Now that this movement has gone global, and more media is being focused on the global protest, I am hearing even more talking heads either marginalize the points being made by the protesters, or arguing the point that asking for fairness is not the issues because: "fair" and "what is fair economically" is so vague - What is fair? after all: what is fair to me, is not fair to you ..... (spoken by a guest on the Diane Rehn show this morning).

Driving to work this morning, I was listening to the Diane Rehn Show and the discussion on the global "Occupy" movement.  I hovered over the radio dial, contemplating changing it to some nice FM radio station because I knew my anger would likely flare - and it did. Speakers from the American Enterprise Institute tend to make me angry, and that is because the speakers I have hear sees only numbers. Economics baked in a number cake where the social element removed is dangerous. It is nothing less then theorizing in a vacuum. Regardless, this morning on the Diane Rehn show, I heard how economists are not in the business of politics, not in the business of ethics (the fair comment above), and not in the business of social policy.  And yet .... the economic factor challenges, colors, and changes each: politics, ethics, and social arrangements.

With that said, the thing I have noticed about this new media focus on the Occupy movement is that either the media is still suggesting that they don't understand the demands of the protesters, or the media marginalizes the demands to a simple argument: the protesters want to tax the rich.  Really, that is not it folks, it is far more complicated than that. 

It is not simply about taxing the rich; those who have over a million dollars in the bank.  Many of the protesters may want that, but if you spend some time listening to the protesters, they want a fair society with safeguards in place for potential economic break down, many want a return to the unions, many are looking for jobs, for corporations to get out of politics and start paying the taxes they are getting out of because of tax breaks and other "tricks" that allow a skirting of the law.  They want their retirement back. The young want to work.  The older, 50+ group, would like to be hired again and not viewed as obsolete workers.  they need to hired again - many have lost everything.

What the 99% want is to see substantial fairness in economics, politics, and social life.  You should not have to be rich to run for office - and yet that is the actuality now. The retirement we worked for should be there for us. The unemployment we paid into should be there for us. It is not simply about taxing the rich, it is about changing an entire paradigm that has crippled the 99% of people in this WORLD who have been made the scapegoat by a system that could care less about them.  That is the point.  Listen to what this one protester, Kyli Rhoads a 26 year old college graduate working toward a master's degree, in Seattle had to say to local KING 5 news about why she was protesting and pitching a tent, against city laws, in Downtown Seattle:

It means we're here to stay, we're not going anywhere. ... This is not something that's going to settle down, we're not going to be quiet. We're going to do this until somebody listens. I'm not lazy, I'm a very motivated person,  ... and I feel like having to go through these obstacles and wind up in debt and work a ridiculous amount of hours a week in order to accomplish happiness and what you want in life is ridiculous. It shouldn't be this way.

Rhoads is not alone in her anger regarding being called lazy.  Indeed, at the protest there are many older protesters, 50+ and older, who lost their retirement, lost their jobs and now lost any chance of a financially good end of life. Does this turn of events make them lazy?  No.  Yet I have heard, time and again from mostly conservative political heads that these people are lazy: You can't get a job?  Relying on public assistance?  Your are lazy and not taking responsibility for your self. Hump! Public goods and benefits are cut and so these folks will not even have that to rely on.  It is a problem. We are going to have hundreds of thousands of people living in tents very soon if we do not do something NOW. 

But that something, I fear, will not come fast enough. I also hear chants around the world for wide justice, and against an extreme capitalism. Capitalism does not care about the average person, after all, it only cares about profit and the mechanism in place for making profit - not creating jobs, health care, or any social benefit. As such we are now hearing a new chant:  Revolution.

As for the success for the current movement, I think Immamual Wallerstein (a social economist theorists) did a good job at projecting:

As to the future, it could be that the movement goes from strength to strength. It might be able to do two things: force short-term restructuring of what the government will actually do to minimize the pain that people are obviously feeling acutely; and bring about long-term transformation of how large segments of the American population think about the realities of the structural crisis of capitalism and the major geopolitical transformations that are occurring because we are now living in a multipolar world.

Occupy Wall Street is about Inequality - Duh!

I have been waiting simply to hear a news organization, any news organization, to report on the Occupy Wall Street, Occupy Seattle, Occupy Portland and all the other protests happing around this country. Finally, going into week three of the protests, major news organizations are taking notice and reporting on the activity. Part of that reason may be the fact that local news organizations are arresting protesters for breaking the law. Whether it is because protestors are sleeping in tents, or marching without a permit, or stoping traffic and hindering the normal flow of business, arrests are being made for bureaucratic red tape and this, apparently, is news worthy.

What is not news worthy, it seems, is an in-depth look into the whys, the motivation for the movement. Indeed, in the last 24 hours on NPR, Fox news, CNN, and even Huffington Post, I have hear the following: "we are not sure of their message but" ..... Seriously, people, you don't get the message?

Seeing how many within the traditional media are having a problem articulating the message of Occupy Wall Street, outside of stories about the problems of using tents to sleep in in downtown Seattle(1) where it is raining, I thought I might be able to help.

First, let us look at the recurring 99% message that many of the protestors are displaying on picket signs, and I have displayed on my house windows. This number can be understood in two lights: 1) in relation to the 99ers, and 2) the growing income gap between the "haves" and "have nots."

99ers

I should start with a definition of this idea:

99ers is a colloquial term for unemployed people in the United States, mostly citizens, who have exhausted all of their unemployment benefits, including all unemployment extensions. As a result of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act passed by Congress in February 2009, many unemployed people can receive up to 99 weeks of unemployment insurance benefits, hence the name '99ers.' An estimated 7 million people are affected.

The 99ers are a growing number of disenfranchised citizens in the US and beyond who, because of the recession, ageism, shrinking job market, loss of full-time work and so on, find themselves still without work and now, without means to live (hence tent cities). These disenfranchised members of our society are often called lazy, moochers, unresponsible and uneducated. I have heard this line of unsupported rhetoric over and over again and it is NOT true. Many of the 99ers want to work and many are educated.  Many are over the age of 50 and find a market that is uninterested in experienced workers. A market that boldly promotes how the unemployed may not apply. Many are also underemployed, and find that the part-time work available will not, and can not sustain a simple life. Underemployment is as dangerous to society as unemployment - maybe more so as it offers an illusion of an income without any sustainability. The 99ers are often hard-working, deeply caring, educated (either by life or institutions), and they have been left behind. This group of people are growing everyday, right along with the income gap in this country.

99%

If you wish to consider the "%" aspect of the protest signage found in this movement, take a moment and read the article "It's Inequality Stupid" in The Mother Jones, and you will have the answer to your question regarding 99%, 99ers, and the Occupy Wall Street protest.  The problem is simple, each year the income gap between the rich and poor grows, and each year more middle class citizens slip into the poor category. Add to that a growing number of Americans who heard the call, went back to school to get "retrained" and then graduated to find, wait for it, still no jobs ... but now they are saddled with thousands of dollars of educational debt - and you have a problem Washington.

So the message is clear really: We live in a culture that has worked to disenfranchise the average citizen from political participation (you gotta be rich to run of office now, on time for voting, with the perfect form of identification and so on and so forth), from a strong working economy, from jobs, and from the so-called American Dream. The idea of public goods are wrongly associated with evil as well as communism and so are destroyed.  This is why average folks, now marching and sleeping in tent cities for protest or livelihood reasons, are protesting and you (meaning many in the mass media) don't understand why? Can't get the message? Really?

Why wall street and why corporations?

Earlier this week I was listening to NPR on my drive to work (an adjunct teaching job with no security, benefits, and that offers little hope of any in the future), and I heard an interview with Bill Frezza of the Competitive Enterprise Institute talk about the myths regarding job creation (listen to the NPR story here), stating that it is not the responsibility of business to provide jobs for American workers. It is their responsibility, Frezza expressed, to make money, to make products, to do business. I got angry but I know he is right when we examine the paradigm our economic philosophy has pushed since our founding. If we look at how we have promoted business in America, we have promoted business as profit making institutions. In the US we love profit and if you are a business, in a capitalist or free-market economic system, that is indeed the point: to make profit. But I think the protesters are asking now: is this enough? What about the public good? Should our culture really just be about making money and making as much money as we possibly can, without really caring to give back to the society that made this happen? Unlike the tycoon Ford, although a screwed up and scary man on most accounts, businesses no longer care if you or I can afford their products. It does not matter anymore because we are not the ones making the products. Rather, the drum-beat is now: make it cheap and make in on the backs of workers in countries where you can pay pennies on the dollar for compensation. Abuse the workers there as you abuse the consumers here. I do not have to care about the American worker - my products are made in China or the Philippines or India.

This is also linked to the death and the continued assault on the dwindling worker unions that are left, on workers rights, on retirement potential, on health care and benefits - all these central things have gone away to make room for a few people in our society to get richer. This is why people are occupying the "wall" streets of America.

As Mother Jones said it, so it is. The message of the Occupy Wall Street protests throughout our nation is simple really:

It's Inequality Stupid, and it is time to Rebuild the Dream.

(1) Seattle has a problem with "tent cities" because as a city, we like to pretend there is not nearly a big of a homelessness problem here as there is. If we can hide the tents, then it does not exit - besides, we don't wish to harm tourism!