I’ve just got to ask.. What kind of political activist group isn’t getting politicians to vie for their endorcement in the upcoming election. Or maybe a better question is, How does an anarchist political system feel about national politics? Is it more valueable to meet (halfway) with conditions in order to overcome them, or is that just a myth?
In Argentina, international corporate politics are consider a hinderence to occupier goals of self-determination. It would be easy to say that the Occupation itself is a class endevor, but really it’s something deeper. It’s struggle lies in its very own structure, but is this really an issue worth solving or just an attempt to hold on to past ideas, no matter how well we know the past for its outcomes, but where will we land?
Occupiers in America right now have an interesting set of options that could, by exercising them, strengthen their political value and complement their own goals by supporting an official that is friendly to the cause. There are a few political options that have surfaced, in all the events, to side with the support of the Occupy Class including; Barry Sanders, Ron Paul and a few others that could be of more help, advancing the occupation, than the current leadership.
But is this selling out the core of anarchy to simply fit in with a aging system for the political comfort of the half hearted or less? Even though it has fantastic strategic implications. Another brilliant tactic to promote a richer structure for the occupation is to call for a Constitutional Convention; demand our goals be included in the v2.0. On the other hand it promotes the structure of the state run political will, or local will, but is that a needful avoidance? Shouldn’t part of the goal be to occupy local politics?
Another, more significant option, is to stregthen the community base and set further reaching future goals to take back local resources. Cities may “obtain” possession of real estate for local projects and or “other” use, etc. The bottom line is that it seems, to me, advantageous to strengthen the ideas of what Occupation can accomplish and organize around developing the infrastructure, and a sustainable business plan, for those goals. Ones that include filling the gaps of a decaying system as the need might arrise, and eventually occupying everything.
All things considered, it might help benefit the Occupiers to support a presidential candidate for 2012. It would only take a few days to make our force a condition of the next presidential race, that would have to be met with by any candidate running. Ignoring Occupy is impossible at this point. It has become an institution and should begin acting like one politically! And, if there was a move to grease our own candidate for a run in 2012, I bet we could pull it off! Wouldn’t that be an interesting revelation for folks…
I see a lot of people struggling with the same concepts, in a more general way, but all the same exist. One thing to understand about the Occupy Movement is that it isn’t made up of members. Occupy is a method to a direct democratic process. That way, the door is open to anyone who has an idea, allowing them to put it directly into action. So, in essence, the occupy movement is an open dialog, and like you said it’s intelligent. I would also add that it is learning. In fact the entire tool of General Assemblies, to me, looks like a ‘more efficient form of society’ and it’s open source. If you have a strong idea to add to the living culture of occupiers, you can just facilitate it; A totally autonomous community assembly for every choice in the community we share, every group supported by the whole.
I agree that occupy is not going anywhere, and I also like the idea of supporting a presidential candidate, but not for the same reasons, and I don’t believe the two are connected. My reasoning for supporting a 2012 Presidential Candidate revolves around advantages to the “occupying along the path of least resistance” model. Consider Ron Paul in this light. He would be the least likely president to use ‘force’ to quell the movement, while he spent time attacking the Fed. Even better, if he was to get into office and start cutting taxes, it would have the adverse effect of carving off a thicker slice of the middle class than already exist, who are suffering from the new austerity model, which is the core group of occupiers; educated, fresh out of college with 30K in debt. All of these factors could benefit Occupy, instead of authorities wasting precious time and money trying to derail what is inevitable.
If anything, Occupy should be felt by everyone involved in this Presidential race. If the goal is socioeconomic change, we should be talking about it on every level. There shouldn’t be an event that effects the lives of the people, the size of an election, that does not have to look the 99% in the eye! The more I think about it the more I think it is important that we the 99% have some real say this election season!!