Occupy Chicago and... NATO?

[wiggin]

So something you probably don't know is that wiggin's sister is an active part of the Occupy Chicago movement. I can't say I really agree with her (okay, that's a vast understatement), but I respect her right to protest, and if it makes her happy, then more power to her.

What has puzzled me lately, though, is the recent hullabaloo about the NATO summit taking place in Chicago over the next couple days. Previously, the G8 summit was also scheduled for Chicago, before it was moved to Camp David. I had definitely expected that the Occupy chaps would be involved with G8 protest - things like unreasonable fear of globalization and conspiracy theories about the New World Order fit in quite well with their anti-corporatist rhetoric. It's not new to have leftist types shutting down cities during various meetings of global economic or financial bodies, so I wasn't surprised to hear my sister talk about preparations for it.

What was weird was that after the G8 was moved, the Occupy Chicago chaps decided they would still mobilize various 'actions' against the NATO summit as well. I asked my sister about this (okay, I actually pressed her quite a bit) to understand the connection between the rhetoric of Occupy Chicago/OWS and anti-NATO protests, and she was pretty much unable to give me a coherent answer. She mumbled a bit about 'solidarity' with antiwar protesters and a bit more about the military industrial complex, but she wasn't particularly clear on what she actually found wrong with NATO as an organization. Now, you might think that she's just not particularly well-versed in Occupy Chicago rhetoric on NATO, but apparently she's not a press liaison for the NATO protests, so apparently the other protesters think she has above-average coherence on the issue.

I did some quick online sleuthing and couldn't find any actual justification for it other than borrowed slogans from antiwar groups that have nothing to do with Occupy Chicago's raison d'etre. I did find this little gem over at HuffPost:

Webber, who helped start the group 99% Solidarity, an offshoot of the Occupy movement, said he opposed NATO because it fights wars and because governments fund those wars with money they should spend elsewhere.

"There's definitely a connection between the two and I think they're very important," Webber said. "My hope is 30 years from now, we won't have a need for marches like this."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1528901.html

...which has plenty of logical flaws, but is also pretty thin justification for throwing in with them. Is this just a case of 'well, this is a leftist cause, and we're mostly leftists, so let's jump on the bandwagon'? If it is, it seems to be a very poor choice. The G8/IMF/World Bank/etc. all attract lots of criticism in the Western world from more than just fringe crazies; protesting them (and banks/etc., which no one likes very much right now) is a good way to have a popular cause (just like the Tea Party protesting taxes can't really go wrong). Yet there is not much popular anger in the US against NATO, and I don't see where they're going with this as a movement.

Am I missing something? Is there some deep-seated hatred of NATO simmering in the American public of which I am unaware? Is there a rationale connected the Occupy movement to NATO that I'm simply missing?


I don't much like the Occupy movement - I think they're mostly shrill and spend most of their time complaining without suggesting even remotely workable solutions. But I do recognize that the movement is representing a great deal of frustration on the part of a significant part of the population - hardly the 99%, of course, but a decent chunk of people who feel that they have been treated unfairly. Yet when stuff like this happens I wonder if it's not just morphing into a fringe leftist group without any real sense of what most people are feeling. Have they been drinking the kool-aid too much? Are they too caught up in the protesting 'culture' to have a sense of perspective?

If so, that's a shame. I think that citizen protest groups - right, left, or neither - have a valuable place in allowing people to make politicians pay attention to issues they might not have otherwise. Yet if they marginalize themselves, their main message will be ignored, and they will only be able to blame their own stupidity. Thoughts?

[Nessus]

I am surprised at you, Andrew. There is a great history (in the sense of vast, not glorious) of protesting against NATO. But from what you say, they've forgotten it as well...

I can't speak for these people. So I won't. But there is, I feel, some obligation on my shoulders to at least remind of ETYK, to mention what awful, horrible things NATO represented, still does I suppose... It is, after all, in the final analysis, a question of preserving the species, and against that I can't speak out in good faith; it is possible these people are over-reacting, I hope they are. If it just a question of protesting for the sake of protesting, then shame on them, but they are protesting something that had been protested before them, and I for one hope will be protested after them... Not out of some general left-wing cliche, but simply from pragmatism...

It is likely NATO will have to be the vanguard of civilization, the last fortress of the white race. So be it. But it will be a wrong-minded fight, won't it? It is wrong to champion that cause. There is no moral justification for it. And yet, we will place all our bets on it, and maybe sing Kaarina... What choice do we have?

If anyone has marginalized anyone else, it is the commercial culture. Consumerism. Political ideas have become instead jokes! Of course it seems ridiculous to protest, who in their right mind would protest...? Who in their right mind would put a brute next to a handsome woman, who would...? It has all become so mundane, and at the same time so easy to ridicule. You put in a lot of defence for your sister, you appreciate the sentiment, but not the means...

So how do you propose we fight back? We will, I feel, very soon be faced with a hopeless situation. Not by NATO, the G-8, none of them alone. But when they kick down your door, will it even matter anymore?

The feeling of protest, the feeling of hatred towards mindless, imperialist nationalism, can't we keep that? Without becoming hating, mindless imperialist nationalist ourselves?

You made your sister and her group seem like idiots...But they are, aren't they, at least well-meaning idiots?

[Loki]

My favorite part about this protest is that the main complaint is that the government of Chicago shouldn't be spending money on wars but rather spend it on keeping open mental health clinics in Chicago. Because we all know that the government of Chicago is responsible for the DoD budget. And to answer Nessus, no they're not well-meaning idiots; they're idiots who don't even know how the govermnent they're protesting against functions.

[Veldan Rath]

And Idiots (well meaning or otherwise) become useful idiots to someone else.

[Nessus]

My favorite part about this protest is that the main complaint is that the government of Chicago shouldn't be spending money on wars but rather spend it on keeping open mental health clinics in Chicago. Because we all know that the government of Chicago is responsible for the DoD budget. And to answer Nessus, no they're not well-meaning idiots; they're idiots who don't even know how the govermnent they're protesting against functions.

They are doing something, you are not; when they come for you, what will you have done? Other than drawn derision and scorn on democracy?

They are protesting something that is, after all, done with their money. Isn't that what Mittens is all about? That money is robbed, so cruelly, so wrongly, from the people?

You are saying Mittens does not know how the government functions over there. And you would not be wrong!

[Loki]

They are doing something, you are not; when they come for you, what will you have done? Other than drawn derision and scorn on democracy?

When NATO comes for me? And great argument there. These people are doing nothing productive, and because I'm also not being unproductive, they're better than me...

They are protesting something that is, after all, done with their money. Isn't that what Mittens is all about? That money is robbed, so cruelly, so wrongly, from the people?

Except they're protesting against the wrong government. Furthermore, I somehow doubt most of these people pay more in taxes than they receive in government benefits.

[Nessus]

When NATO comes for me? And great argument there. These people are doing nothing productive, and because I'm also not being unproductive, they're better than me...



Except they're protesting against the wrong government. Furthermore, I somehow doubt most of these people pay more in taxes than they receive in government benefits.

Champagne socialists, huh?

[Loki]

Champagne socialists, huh?

More like college students and minimum wage workers (and homeless people). They have no ideology. The only thing they know is that other people have more money than them and they want that money.

[Nessus]

I once had Veldan accuse me of envy; do you believe that to be true? If only I had money, I would support Mittens?

[Loki]

I once had Veldan accuse me of envy; do you believe that to be true? If only I had money, I would support Mittens?

You are smart and have an ideology. The same is not true of a vast majority of these protesters. Please don't confuse the anti-globalization groups in Europe to the "I want mo money" protesters in the US. They've been around for a year and have yet to put forth anything resembling a coherent platform. And from watching interviews with these people, it's pretty clear these people don't even know who Marx is. Three "anarchists" who got arrested at these protests have recently broke into a school while being drunk and destroyed property. Anarchism indeed.

[Nessus]

We both agree Marx was an ass!

That they are out there speaks for something, you piss on it as you seem contractually obliged to piss on everything, for little to no reason...

[wiggin]

I am surprised at you, Andrew. There is a great history (in the sense of vast, not glorious) of protesting against NATO. But from what you say, they've forgotten it as well...

In the US in the last 3 decades? Occupy is a domestic movement for the most part, and I think the general consensus of the public is that NATO is either fine or actually good.

I can't speak for these people. So I won't. But there is, I feel, some obligation on my shoulders to at least remind of ETYK, to mention what awful, horrible things NATO represented, still does I suppose... It is, after all, in the final analysis, a question of preserving the species, and against that I can't speak out in good faith; it is possible these people are over-reacting, I hope they are. If it just a question of protesting for the sake of protesting, then shame on them, but they are protesting something that had been protested before them, and I for one hope will be protested after them... Not out of some general left-wing cliche, but simply from pragmatism...

It is likely NATO will have to be the vanguard of civilization, the last fortress of the white race. So be it. But it will be a wrong-minded fight, won't it? It is wrong to champion that cause. There is no moral justification for it. And yet, we will place all our bets on it, and maybe sing Kaarina... What choice do we have?

I'm not really getting what you're trying to say here other than the fact that many NATO nations are full of white people...? To my knowledge the Occupy people aren't saying that NATO is a case of a white colonialist oppressor controlling the world, either... and it also doesn't fit in much with their actual rhetoric.

If anyone has marginalized anyone else, it is the commercial culture. Consumerism. Political ideas have become instead jokes! Of course it seems ridiculous to protest, who in their right mind would protest...? Who in their right mind would put a brute next to a handsome woman, who would...? It has all become so mundane, and at the same time so easy to ridicule. You put in a lot of defence for your sister, you appreciate the sentiment, but not the means...
[..]
You made your sister and her group seem like idiots...But they are, aren't they, at least well-meaning idiots?

I don't have a problem with protest - I'm more confused by this than anything else. I'm completely on board with the antiwar types protesting NATO; it makes sense. But a largely economic/anticorporatist protest? They're mixing their message with irrelevancies.

Look, these people aren't idiots, but I question whether they are (a) ignorant and (b) guilty of not thinking things through. Just because some people in their movement (e.g. lefty antiwar people) happen to agree with them about issues central to Occupy doesn't mean they have to agree on NATO. I think it's a bad strategic move.

[Nessus]

Strategy towards what? They have nothing to gain!

[Veldan Rath]

I once had Veldan accuse me of envy; do you believe that to be true? If only I had money, I would support Mittens?

I don't recall specifically accusing you of envy. But yes they (a portion of them) want OPM...and not the movie.

[Steely Glint]

Leftist protest movements have always tended to amalgamate causes to bring out numbers. Occupy Wall Street is ostensibly an anti-corporatist/anti-banking movement, but in reality it's just another generically left wing protest movement of the Noam Chomsky/Naomi Klein school, same as the anti-g8 protests, reclaim the streets, the anti-iraq war protests (though those managed to get a much broader base) and the rest of them. I agree with wiggin that this strategy is actually counterproductive: I've read a few documents from Occupy Wall Street produced in the wake of accusations that they protest weren't actually about anything; they were as a rule rambling, incoherent documents demanding nothing less than the reordering of the whole of society, basically everything your average moderate-to-radical leftist doesn't agree with should be changed. Which is a trifle ambitious for a movement with members in the 10s to 100s of thousands range.

In my opinion, they'd do far more social good to pick something specific, let's say corporate tax evasion, and protest the fuck out of that. I genuinely believe that if the could pull their numbers and organization they have about something like that - something a lot of people could agree on beyond their traditional demographic - they stand a good chance of actually getting some laws changed. But they'd rather go with 'hey man, we should, totally, like abolish war' and 'yeah, we want trees not factories'. However, I suspect many of the people they depend on for organizations and for bringing out the numbers are to in love with their pet causes for this to actually work.

[wiggin]

Strategy towards what? They have nothing to gain!

Political power? The tea party certainly managed to get some political gains in elections; I don't see why OWS and their ilk can't also try to craft a relatively mainstream protest movement that can wield actual political influence. As it is, they're marginalizing themselves. Fine with me, but I don't get it.

[GGT]

Political power? The tea party certainly managed to get some political gains in elections; I don't see why OWS and their ilk can't also try to craft a relatively mainstream protest movement that can wield actual political influence. As it is, they're marginalizing themselves. Fine with me, but I don't get it.

Perhaps you decided they're marginalizing themselves (including your sister) because you don't understand it/them?

It's the same type of thing we see with 'not understanding' the Occupy Wall Street movement....even though "most" people would agree that special considerations were given to the financial/banking sector after they brought global economies to the brink.

Political polarization is at an all time high. Most everything is posed (in media sound bytes) as Success vs Failure. Austerity/Stimulus. Stimulus/Deficits. Deficits/Debt. Debts/Borrowing. Borrowing/Revenue. Revenue/Taxes. Taxes/Spending....

It's a game of musical chairs. Global politicians are leading the orchestra, while certain groups are spiking the orchestral punchbowl. Only the angry "audience", as paying ticket-holders....can protest the whole mess.

[Ominous Gamer]

context that paints a slightly different picture
EDIT:
Lots more context

[wiggin]

My sister was proudly tweeting about all of the abuse they were shouting at (and occasionally hurling at) the CPD. I don't really get it; they're doing their jobs in a (relatively) professional manner - in fact, Occupy Chicago was bragging in earlier periods about how the CPD had been relatively restrained in dealing with them, without much of the violence seen in other cities.

[LittleFuzzy]

Is this just a case of 'well, this is a leftist cause, and we're mostly leftists, so let's jump on the bandwagon'?

Yes. Well that and a cardinal rule of activism is to always be trying to broaden your presence.

[Loki]

Except I don't think the US anti-war people particularly care about NATO (assuming they even know what that is)...

[wiggin]

Yes. Well that and a cardinal rule of activism is to always be trying to broaden your presence.

I would think this would narrow their presence, though - although there's plenty of protesters, I doubt they have much popular support for anti-NATO rhetoric - certainly nowhere near as much as anti-banker.

Except I don't think the US anti-war people particularly care about NATO (assuming they even know what that is)...

Oh, please, they definitely do. Let's not infantilize them just because we may disagree with them.

[LittleFuzzy]

Except I don't think the US anti-war people particularly care about NATO (assuming they even know what that is)...

Oh, I suspect most of them are at least vaguely aware of what NATO is and does. But that doesn't really matter. The "Occupy" protests are now an ongoing effort rather than a set of spontaneous events. They've transitioned and developed a bit of organization, prompted a number of new activity networks, and given the participants a group of people to go along with without having to think too much about it. "Occupiers" protesting NATO isn't happening because they all are opposed to NATO or think there is a link but because some people there are opposed to NATO *and I'd bet most of them are "professional" activist/protestor types* and the rest are going along with it and letting themselves be co-opted.

[Loki]

Oh, please, they definitely do. Let's not infantilize them just because we may disagree with them.

Please don't assume your sister's intelligence is indicative of the rest of the group. I've read several interviews where the protesters were attacking Rahm Emanuel for funding NATO instead of mental health facilities.

Oh, I suspect most of them are at least vaguely aware of what NATO is and does. But that doesn't really matter. The "Occupy" protests are now an ongoing effort rather than a set of spontaneous events. They've transitioned and developed a bit of organization, prompted a number of new activity networks, and given the participants a group of people to go along with without having to think too much about it. "Occupiers" protesting NATO isn't happening because they all are opposed to NATO or think there is a link but because some people there are opposed to NATO *and I'd bet most of them are "professional" activist/protestor types* and the rest are going along with it and letting themselves be co-opted.

Surely it would have made more sense to just protest the Afghan War...

[LittleFuzzy]

Surely it would have made more sense to just protest the Afghan War...

Why? The NATO meeting is a convenient locus and focus for continuing protest/activism efforts.

[Loki]

That explains the huge turnout.