💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › h-schultze-occupy-the-class-war.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 10:49:52. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content

-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Title: Occupy the Class War
Author: H. Schultze
Date: January 22, 2012
Language: en
Topics: Occupy, class war
Source: Retrieved on 10th December 2021 from https://libcom.org/library/occupy-class-war

H. Schultze

Occupy the Class War

It would seem the division is clear. There is the “1%,” and there is the

“99%.”

We know what, and a lot of time we even know who this “1%” is, although

for some reason no one seems to be talking about it. Instead, we tend to

speak to the inverse—the “99%”. It is a created concept really, an

imagined unity that says somewhat clearly: “those who have been fucked

by the 1%.”

We might do well to call the 1% what they are—the ruling class. Today’s

ruling class are capitalists gone wild, heralding capitalism to its

logical neo-liberal conclusion. Yes, the 1% has all of the money, they

also have all control of the supposedly democratic system which we are

all, whether we like it or not, a part.

We might also do well to call the division what it is—a class war.

We say war for a reason. It implies that there is a battle, necessary

confrontation. It also implies that one must choose sides. One of the

things the 99% as a concept has done is draw the symbolic and newspaper

worthy battle-lines. On their side they have pretty much the entire

media-stream, a shit-ton of money, various laws, politicians, and

bureaucrats to protect them. When that isn’t enough, they have gated

communities, private security teams (in some cases whole armies),

municipal police forces, and if the shit really hits the fan, the US

military to protect them. Despite losing our homes, our rents rising,

our longer hours, our unemployment, our minimum wage, our non-existent

futures, our depression and anxieties, and our melting planet—we still

have our anger, our minds, our bodies, our collectivity.

But let’s take a step back. When we draw lines in the sand, between the

ruling class and the “99%,” what else do we imply by lumping so many

people together? We know that the 99% is a constructed concept of unity,

imagined, seemingly out of thin air, around September 2011 to articulate

the fragile alliance between those on the losing side of the escalating

global financial crisis.

But in practice this alliance or stated unity seems to only pertain to

those who self-identify with, or are involved in, the Occupy movement.

It is a mistake to include everyone who is not a millionaire into such a

concept—the 99%. In short, with the uncritical proliferation of the 99%

as a vague unifier of massive quantities of people—differing in gender,

race, class, etc, as well as political affiliations or sensibilities—we

need to look closer at the implications of such terminology, but more

importantly what it creates in reality.

Concepts can constitute reality and call it into being. They have the

power to communicate a basis for felt, but not yet described,

experiences when they resonate with our everyday lives. This can be a

powerful force—consider the words spoken by Stokely Carmichael in the

wake of the shooting of civil rights activist James Meredith in June,

1966: “This is the twenty-seventh time I have been arrested and I ain’t

going to jail no more! The only way we gonna stop them white men from

whuppin’ us is to take over. What we gonna start sayin’ now is Black

Power!” In one breath, years of struggle and articulation of

experience—from MLK and SNCC to the term’s more immediate inspiration,

the militancy of Malcolm X—are spoken in clear, precise, and

slogan-worthy words. Suddenly a growing tendency of black militancy is

translated in two simple words, and makes immediate sense regardless of

whether or not one had ever heard Malcolm X speak, but felt his message

in their every day experience. In that moment “Black Power” created a

possibility, a space, for the emergence of a fiery mass consciousness

that rejected the white supremacy and racist ideologies that

proliferated everywhere. One need not be a scholar of African American

history or political science, one didn’t need to have read MLK, Marcus

Garvey, or Malcolm X to understand the words, it was self-evident, felt,

and entirely clear.

The concept “the 99%” functions similarly, but resonates with quite a

different group of people and its antagonisms are much more vague.

Millions of people who are in debt, have lost their jobs, houses, and

life savings understand the 99% perfectly well with little or no need

for an explanation of the inner workings of financial capitalism (e.g.

“Wall St.”). Both the symbolic and pragmatic function of the term makes

sense—if 1% of people have all the money, 99% of people are getting

fucked. Like the abstraction of Wall Street as a stand-in for the

immaterial accumulation of capital, as well as the would-be residence of

the 1%, the 99% stands in symbolically for all those subject to the

whims of Wall St. The vulgarity and violence of the ruling class is

articulated in clear, slogan-friendly dialectical terms—1% v. 99%

But on the ground (that is, outside of the spectacular battles of the

media) another question becomes pressing: When we say 99%, whom do we

mean, exactly? Looking closer reveals rather quickly it doesn’t work

especially well to simply lump everyone together, at least, as it has

been used so far within Occupy.

Take for example the way the concept of the 99% is often used within the

movement to validate fairly specific liberal middle-class politics taken

as a priori, which in turn ironically cancels out other politics within

the 99% in the name of fear of scaring any potential occupiers, or

worse, the elusive “community” or “public” with voices of anger,

antagonism, or radical politics.

“Be nice to the police, they are part of the 99%, too.”

“Police need a raise! Police need a raise! Police need a raise!”

[Chanting protestors are hauled off in handcuffs.]

Of course, this generous form of unity contradicts others’ inclusion in

the supposedly blanket 99%—people of color, prisoners, undocumented

immigrants, queer and transfolk come to mind, as people who face or fear

police violence on a daily basis. It is not just about the cops though,

and I don’t want to over-emphasize a hatred toward the police that we

anarchists can slip into (there are plenty of legitimate critiques of

the police, but that isn’t the point I’m trying to make here). The point

is that this example of “be nice to the police” is indicative of a

larger tendency within the movement of the way that the 99% concept /

term is used as propaganda externally, as well as internally to suggest

directions for the movement to go and what tactics we should use to get

there. It condescendingly and often ignorantly assumes an affinity

between white middle-class folks who, perhaps, have lost their moderate

to high paying jobs, or students who are crippled by debt, with poor and

oppressed peoples who have struggled and fought for generations against

a systemic racism and classism. Scroll through the “we are the 99%”

tumblr, and you’ll see a hell of a lot more “I played by all of the

rules,” implying “why did I get screwed?” than you’ll see “half of my

family is in prison,” “my boss frequently steals wages from workers,” or

“as an undocumented immigrant I work sub-minimum wage.” There is a sea

of difference between “I tried to pull myself up by my bootstraps and

the straps broke,” compared to “I never got a pair of fucking shoes!”

We shouldn’t fetishize the “most oppressed” though either. The point is

that we need to have a better understanding of the rhetoric we use, and

its relationship to real world effects in terms of who participates, but

as importantly, how we as ‘Occupiers’ understand ourselves as a unified

group, a would-be class, at the very least related group in common

struggle. Like the middle-class folks who neglect to recognize how their

liberalism and political assumptions can affect particular oppressed

peoples as participants in Occupy, a militant and narrow-minded

commitment to only the “most oppressed” (often times excluding oneself,

flirting with a kind of awkwardly vanguardist role) can similarly result

in a failure to recognize certain groups of people (students, for

example, as a legitimate part of the working class who are enslaved by

debt) and the pervasive and diverse ways in which capitalism has

affected various peoples.

I not only think it is possible but that it is essential to begin to

understand contemporary class politics as they emerge in all of their

messy complexities within a grassroots movement that identifies the

ruling class as the enemy. Some Marxist theorists call it

‘class-composition,’ referring to a complicated ever changing

structuring of class both as it relates to political affinities and

labor realities, but also and equally as important—their potentials in

assembling or conjoining in struggle. As I understand it,

class-composition works toward a re-conceptualization of class such that

the social and the political spheres that were formerly thought to be

necessarily distinct can be reconciled. But more importantly, to compose

implies to create—that is, to articulate our similarities as well as our

differences, without a need to refer to representative politics, and to

understand how those affinities between different types of people, as

well as singularities specific to the individual, offer potential to

struggle on multiple terrains. When we build sincere affinities, which

will require much more listening than has happened thus far, that are

based on deep understandings of the various ways capitalism and

oppression affect and manipulate different people, we more deeply

understand how our actions have consequences on others within the

supposed 99%, and we better understand how to struggle collectively

while maintaining our respective politics, identities, etc. We will also

see in the processes of composing our affinities toward one

another—understanding and embracing our differences, rejecting our

internalized oppressive behavior—a deepening of our bonds and an

intensified commitment to each other as well as to our respective

struggles. In this sense, quality over quantity might prove important,

and might again reveal that not all of the 99% are our friends.

This, it seems to me, is what Occupy is all about in its attempt to pull

a thread between so many differing types of people that make up the 99%

while also resisting, so far at least, representative politics. But,

generally speaking, it seems Occupy has neglected to do any work to

articulate the both subtle and great differences as well as fragile

alliances, instead conveniently harkening back on the reductive 99%

unifier, muddling and canceling out many people. There are ways in which

students, for example, can be militant about being exploited as workers,

and having a critique of debt, without throwing out a nuanced

understanding of our other racial, intellectual, geographic, hetero,

gendered or other kinds of privileges. But this requires a re-imagining

of what it means to be a part of the oppressed, it requires checking

one’s privilege without relinquishing individual agency, and finally it

requires a persistent linkage between various groups balanced with an

understanding that capitalism distributes violence, economic inequality,

and other forms of oppression unevenly and thus not everyone’s

experiences (or politics) are the same.

This, in my estimation has been the primary problem with the [lack of]

class analysis within Occupy, and of the concept of the 99%. Thus far it

has not gotten us closer to understanding our differences in

relationship to our shared forms of exploitation, either as workers or

the subjects to the violence of financial capitalism. There are several

stories of transphobic, racist, classist, patriarchal activities within

GAs and various encampments. These stories signal that Occupy has so far

struggled to listen, to be self-critical, but most importantly to deepen

an understanding of all of the lingering -isms amongst ourselves. It

also signals a realistic difficulty of learning again how to speak to

one another, how to reject our own internalized systems of oppression,

how to relate, how to join one another in the streets and re-learn how

to speak, and perhaps most importantly how to listen. But if we are

going to insist upon generalized language of inclusivity we must also

ask in an honest way: Who gets to be part of such a group? Or better,

who isn’t showing up, and why?

---

In the spirit of this essay I should note that I am definitely not the

first to bring up these problems or analyses; I’ve learned from many

brilliant people. Below are a few links that have made an impression on

me and helped to sharpen my politics; surely there are many other great

voices to be heard.

Colorlines continually posts good articles putting race on the table in

relationship to Occupy. See their posts

here

W.I.T.C.H. (Women and Trans* Conspiracy from Hell) produced a scathing

and productive critique of Occupy coming from a queer / anarchist

perspective. It was here that I first read a good critique of “99%.” Can

be downloaded

here

Transgender artist / activist Micha Cardenas describes her frustration

to find that OccupyLA has kept sexual assault that has occurred at camp

from public discussion, and thus not adequately dealt with, for fear of

‘damaging the movement.’ Can be read

here