portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article announcements portland metro

media criticism occupy portland

Occupy Portland Successfully Throws Solidarity Under The Bus

Occupy Portland puts foot in mouth and continues to hemorrhage radical support, while simultaneously boring the masses.
Not that it matters but I figured I'd just point to this gem of a piece from the fence-sitters extraordinaire at the Occupy PDX PR Department. It's great that on one hand you have a movement that is shrinking from total boredom and on the other continuous attempts to push interesting and radical ideas out of the movement.

I sure hope that this time next year the ten supporters that are left keep up their parades of irrelevance.

Link is below for those interested.

homepage: homepage: http://occupyportland.org/2012/02/29/in-response-to-autonomous-property-destruction-on-228


Holy shit 29.Feb.2012 23:13

anarchist occupier

First of all this does not condemn the action, it merely says it is not part of OP's F29 actions. Do you understand that as the face of an inclusive movement OP can not happily endorse the trashing of a bank in the middle of the night, even if people in OP don't necessarily disagree with the action? It's called being tactful. What you take as a slap in the face of "rejected solidarity" reads to me like a pretty generic press release to cover our asses so other more moderate people might not be alienated by an action supposedly done in "solidarity" with Occupy, but with a clearly antagonistic attitude towards OP.

Not only were radicals present and welcomed at the march, the entire front of the march consisted of people with reinforced anarchist banners and people wearing black bloc attire. In fact it was the largest contingent of radicals at an Occupy march since November 2nd, so I don't see how that indicates a hemmoraging of radical support. Just because you and your shitty crew of anarcho-elitists don't show up doesn't mean much to anyone else.

You assert that by not endorsing the smashing of a bank in the middle of the night Occupy risks making itself irrelevant. Please logically explain how smashing up banks in the middle of the night makes something more or less relevant to a social struggle. I've got nothing against such actions per se, but I don't understand the obsession with the idea that breaking windows equals revolution, and that anyone who isn't breaking or fantasizing about breaking windows isn't doing anything. Like it or not most people in the wider public (you know the people you would need the support of if there was going to be an actual revolution) don't really have much interest in smashing windows and fighting with the police, and don't find actions like the one last night particularly relevant to their lives.

If you want an insurrection I would suggest doing more community based organizing filling people's needs in an anti-capitalist manner and less pseudo-vanguardist smash and dash actions.

Shitty Holes 01.Mar.2012 02:11

Occupy Irrelevance

mmm... k, well here's how I see it. In every inclusive movement that I've ever been apart of solidarity means either say something nice or don't say anything. You make a false assumption that occupy has to weigh in, a) it doesn't b) that it thinks it does is problematic in myriad ways c) that you built that straw-man indicates that you are either intellectually dishonest or don't know what you are talking about. I'm not sure which would offend you more to assume so I'll just assume both and neither to be on equal sides.


On the topic of irrelevance, it isn't that occupy doesn't smash windows that makes it irrelevant. What makes it irrelevant is that it is loosing the average-attention-challenged-american faster than can be track, and simultaneously trying like hell to distance itself from anything that isn't crusty old tried-and-failed kumbaya-on-the-corner tactics which means that your audience is the same audience that the portland anti-war crowd ended up being, and that ended up a well and popular movement didn't it? Oh wait.

As to who I know and where they were on the 29th, doubt yourself because a good number of folks I know were there and it wasn't all encouraging the tails that came back from them.

So let's talk about hemorrhaging radical support. When occupy is fairly ubiquitously used as a pejorative in every radical setting I've been in for the last few months, and that it is commonly understood how dangerously reactionary(in the counter-revolutionary sense) you've become that's bad... you don't want that if you want radical support. If you don't know of this trend you've probably been with occupy too long and need to get out to where radicals are gathering.

Point being, you only loose support if you publicly distance yourself from something, period. You don't want support from radicals, fine, this is how you do that. If you do, but don't want to endorse illegal activity, you can do that by fucking reigning-in that reactionary PR group and telling them to say nothing or say nice things. That's how it has always been done, and that is how it will always be done in movements with solidarity. Period.

anok 11.Mar.2012 07:22

anon

The biggest shows of solidarity with this movement in the last three months have been by Anarchists anyway. Oakland to Manhatten.

Who gives a shit about a bunch of vapid white people in Oregon anyway. We should unite somewhere and make a stand. Obama moved G8 cause he was scared, let's go to Chicago anyway and leave these shmucks standing in the rain holding signs, see what kind of change they can possibly affect.

Al Jazeera defends your tactics.  link to www.guardian.co.uk

And they should. (I know, it's only revolutionary newsrag Al Jazeera and not Joe Joe the Berkley Bimbo) The president is scrambling to gain ground amongst us, the youth, or whatever. The reason he's doing so is, I believe, because he's scared. Not of just losing the vote, but honestly, what happened in Oakland was big. (those not in solidarity with the bank and the windows and the black, ah the black have no context). He's genuinely scared. Anarchism could gain ground, bring people into a different paradigm if it's aloud to catch on. Occupy would be the perfect platform for that, since it's psuedo Anarchist already (or is in a lot of places that aren't Ore-lame). Seriously, Anarchists still have more footing in this movement than they think. If the movement sells you out, and if history has taught us anything it probably will, well...

Most of the people at these protests today will end up like their parents in 30 years scratching their twice divorced ass wondering why they talk in arrogant self satisfied tones about their "revolution" yet wondering why it never amounted to anything that brought their week, white, lame self esteems anywhere past 1973. That's for the youth. Old people are dead inside anyway, so we were never going to be able to rely on them. Just saying, just sayng. (all this of course if the ozone doesn't crack and we're all incinerated in a blaze of light, thank you Barack Obama, champion of the environemtn for recinding the bill that was going to guarantee the end of the world in my lifetime you fucking coward)

White people