Transparency is a four-letter word

"For the record, I don't hate livestreamers. I just don't trust transparency."
--Comrade Kalamity on Twitter, March 27th 2012.

This could just as easily have been an off the record statement attributed to an anonymous Obama administration flunky, but this is where we are: some Occupy supporters are now eagerly mimicking the high-security, everything-is-classified government they supposedly hold in such contempt. Remember when the future President promised his would be "the most transparent administration ever"? Well, welcome to Occupy Oakland 2012: the populist movement so terrified of its own shadow that everything must be negotiated in a windowless room with the lights off.

How did we get to the point where someone filming a picnic can be threatened with bodily harm? It's been a slow, but inexorable process set in motion, I believe, when the Occupy Oakland GA failed to endorse non-violence back in November, thus setting the stage for the entire movement to serve as a shield for the tiny sub-set of black bloc practitioners and fuck-shit-uppers now in control. I've written before about how this presented a massive challenge for OO, but I was naive and optimistic at the time and thought that cooler heads would prevail. As the disastrous March 31st FTP walkabout proved, however, the seeds planted on that November night have now come into full bloom.

Quite simply and obviously, it is transparency and livestreaming that gave birth to Occupy in 2011, and it is opacity and embedded journalism that will be its death in 2012. Many livestreamers have already accepted the narrative and will no longer film revolutionary actions that could be misconstrued as vandalism. Others have been neutered to the point of ineffectiveness by filming only those who give consent--an impossible standard that results in endless shots of marching feet and little else. (A blessed few have been anointed as the chosen ones by the OO hierarchy, but quite how such decisions are made is another deep mystery. I’m sure smoke-filled rooms must be involved.)

Before Occupy, I had never supported any political movement or party in my life; it was the livestreaming of October 25th that convinced me, and many others, that this was a movement worthy of support. To discover that this movement has now forsaken two of the attributes that made it so attractive in the first place--transparency and non-violence--has been deeply disappointing.

Let me conclude with a personal statement for the sake of both clarity and transparency. I plead guilty to the following charges: I am a 49-year old white middle-class male with a full-time job, three writing gigs, three cats, a blog, a spouse highly skeptical of Occupy, and a son in high school. I am a pacifist. I am also a socialist who believes that one of government's greatest responsibilities and duties is the redistribution of wealth. I am not opposed to direct actions; I supported the General Strike, the Port shutdowns, and Move-In Day (I marched to the Kaiser Center and beyond). I am not opposed to flag burning, as long as you're burning a flag you bought or made yourself. I still consider myself a community ally of Occupy Oakland and I will be out on the street on May 1st. Keep the faith, baby, and Occupy Everything—but keep the cameras turned on!

(Cross-posted at Occupy Symposium)

What I hope Occupy Oakland can avoid

Foreword: I do not know who took the picture at the end of this essay. I chose it because I think it illustrates a critical point, and it's also an amazing photo. If the photographer wants me to remove it or if they would like to me to include attribution, please submit a comment to that effect.


All broad-based social or political movements inevitably have internal ideological or tactical divisions, and Occupy Oakland is no exception. These divisions first became apparent during and after the General Strike, when some protesters broke windows and others tried to stop them, and when fires were set and barricades constructed outside the Travelers' Aid Building. Though an uneasy truce currently exists between proponents of non-violence on the one hand and 'diversity of tactics' on the other, many people dropped out or backed away from Occupy Oakland because of its failure to condemn property damage and pass a non-violence resolution.

The resultant schism isn't going to go away any time soon. Many people have quietly withdrawn from active participation in the movement, while a few former Occupy supporters have joined the anti-Occupy Oakland astroturfers 'Standing for Oakland'. Meanwhile, rumours of a 'white bloc' persist, though I haven't seen any proof that it actually exists.

It is indisputable that supporting the movement can be a challenge for those of us at the extreme non-violent end of the spectrum, but being exposed to the arguments in favour of DOT has proven to be a valuable learning experience for me. The mainstream media have intentionally conflated the ubiquitous spectre of 'black bloc' with the ideology of anarchism, and while I don't claim to understand anarchism (sorry, guys, it seems a lot like libertarianism to me- not that there's anything wrong with that), I have learned that anarchists come in a variety of flavours. I believe it's critical that anarchism and black bloc be de-linked and each examined on their own merits, and though I'm personally quite uncomfortable with black bloc tactics, I'm trying to keep an open mind and educate myself. For now, consider me an agnostic in the ongoing Hedges-Graeber wars.

Now, confession time. I am 'only' a community ally of Occupy Oakland. I participate when I can, but only when I'm comfortable with a particular action. I stay away from FTP marches; I come out for fundraisers, City Council meetings, and mass actions like J28. Though I passionately support Occupy Oakland, I have not invested the time and energy into the movement that many of you have. Consequently, it's easy for me to overlook some of the organizational day to day squabbling that can grind people down. I'll roll my eyes Quan-style or shake my head disapprovingly on occasion, but at the end of the day I still feel fully invested in the movement because I don't have an axe to grind with anyone in particular.

If, however, I had been organizing and participating in OO from day one, I can think of a number of events that would have precipitated feelings of anger or betrayal, some of which I've already mentioned. Most recently, there's been quite a bit of sexist and homophobic language flying around OO-affiliated Twitter accounts, and if I'd invested the amount of time some have invested in OO I could easily see myself saying 'enough is enough' at this point. The abusive language stems from tactical differences and I don't necessarily think it should be taken at face value, but it's still disturbing.







Of course, differences arise for all sorts of non-tactical reasons: race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, class, and education can all contribute to organizational friction. But it is the differences over strategy and tactics that provide governments with the ammunition they need to divide and conquer movements that pose a threat to business as usual. The state will use any means necessary to crush dissent, including selective enforcement of the law, psy-ops, and the use of agents provocateur, and they will use those tools to deepen and widen pre-existing differences within left-wing political movements. When successful, these actions almost inevitably force some activists underground, as happened throughout the late 1960s and early '70s. It's doubtful that hyper-radical organizations such as The Weather Underground (USA), The Angry Brigade (UK), Red Army Faction/Baader Meinhof (West Germany), The Red Brigades (Italy) and others would have existed if not for dirty tricks employed by western governments.


I do not defend the kidnappings, bombings, and bank robberies carried out by members of these splinter groups, but it is important to remember they were well-intentioned political activists before they were gangsters. Perhaps the 'most radical of the radical' will always gravitate to the most extreme actions, but internal divisions, dirty tricks, and constant police harassment no doubt played a role in driving many '60s radicals to 'safe houses' where paranoia ruled the day, debate and discussion were seriously proscribed, and violence seemed the only available option.

Unfortunately, we can see this same dynamic beginning to work its malevolent magic within the Occupy movement. Dubbed terrorists by Republicans and Democrats alike, treated like criminals or worse by the police, and now subjected to threatening graffiti ('kill the occupiers'), we're being psychologically and emotionally primed for extreme radicalization. The selection process has begun, with certain people subjected to stay-away orders, repeated arrest or threat of arrest, and other forms of law enforcement abuse. Of course, I don't know if the ruling classes are conspiring to create a violent Occupy-related splinter group in hopes of discrediting the entire movement, but I do believe the likelihood of such a splinter group emerging is increasing, and it would certainly prove a useful weapon for the 1%.




I believe all supporters and allies of Occupy Oakland must do their utmost to avoid this outcome. Don't let the ideological arteries harden: neither the non-violent nor the DOT factions should disavow the other or draw lines in the sand. Keep the lines of communication open, and continue to agitate, educate, and organise. I believe the strength of the Occupy movement resides in its commitment to economic and social justice, and whatever tactic we adopt to reach it, that goal should be our focus. If we allow the state to divert, distract, or divide us, we will surely lose.

"No more silly rules and no more law and order"

I finally figured out exactly what it is about the Occupy movement that's proven so inspirational to me. It's filling a space in my soul that has been empty since, oh, 1981 or '82--the space formally occupied (appropriately enough) by punk rock.

(By happy coincidence, calaverasgrande just published this on the Occupy Oakland website.)

I'm not an anarchist (never was, never will be), but the language of anarchism was an important and inspirational part of punk, especially when grafted to the raucous, distorted sounds of groups like Sweden's The Leather Nun, whose song 'No Rule' supplied this blog post's title. That song's chorus-- 'no more silly rules, and no more law and order'--strikes me as bearing more than a passing resemblance to the OWS chant, 'we are unstoppable, another world is possible.'



With punk, you never knew what was coming next, but you knew that it would be interesting, challenging, and exciting. As a teenager and a young adult, it offered a path to a place that existed outside the confines of 'regular' society: a place where all things were indeed possible and where anything could be imagined and put into practice.

It's been thirty years, but that path has once again been revealed to me.

NO RULE!