OCCUPY OAKLAND
Actions and Strategies

Occupy Oakland (OO) has earned a worldwide reputation within the larger Occupy movement, and one that has been characterized by the mainstream media as having a particularly radical and militant angle. Media coverage has focused mainly on clashes between protestors and police, the shooting of Iraq war veteran Scott Olsen by the Oakland Police Department (OPD), and excessive repression as seen in the arrest of over 400 protestors during the January 28th Move-In Day action. While these events have been central to activists’ focus on police brutality in Oakland, OO has achieved an array of successes in other areas and is represented by a far more diverse community of committed activists than the media has portrayed.

Successful maneuvers at organizing include city-wide actions such as the November 2nd General Strike that brought thousands of Oakland citizens into the streets, the shutdown of the Oakland port during the December 12th West Coast Port Shutdown, and the subsequent general strike on May Day of 2012. Smaller-scale actions include temporarily shutting down banks, disrupting foreclosure auctions, protesting school closures, and organizing community-based outreach campaigns to educate the public about pressing issues (such as the shooting of unarmed African American teenager Alan Blueford by OPD, or how the rising costs of AC transit bus fare disproportionately affect Oakland’s poorest citizens). OO has had over 20 committees and working groups ranging from Labor Solidarity and Anti-Repression, to Foreclosure Defense and the Tactical Action Committee. Since the encampment, internal conflict, divisiveness, organizing burnout, and successful counter-insurgency, have left many protestors discouraged. Yet those who have turned away from OO have often created parallel projects that more closely represent their values and goals, such as Decolonize Oakland, revealing the enduring commitment of activists who take a variety of approaches to social change.

Unfortunately, one of the most sensationalized aspects of OO, from outside as well as within the movement, has been OO’s embrace of a diversity of tactics, or rather, that it has not passed a resolution to support only “nonviolent” action. While some proponents of nonviolent civil disobedience strongly feel that a failure to shun property destruction will only serve to alienate the general public, the degree of attention that has been paid to this particular issue has distorted the larger picture. The overwhelming majority of Occupiers in Oakland have not engaged in property destruction, some are openly against it, and some support such tactics even if they don’t personally partake in them. The vilification of the black bloc is problematic in that most protestors who cover their faces and brandish shields are not breaking anything, rather, they are the ones who head to the front of a march with shields to protect themselves and their comrades from police projectiles that have been indiscriminately deployed against protestors (peaceful activists, not so peaceful activists, families with children, etc.). What is most significant is that people on both sides of the tactics debate, with many taking a neutral position, continue to participate in OO actions on the basis that the imperative is to address the everyday structural and institutional violence that harms people living in Oakland. This goal is seen by many as more important and realistic than trying to control a handful of protestors who may try to break some bank windows.

Jesse: “If people come and they break things, they are inherently not adherent to anything anyone says, so there’s no point in having the discussion. It’s a criminal matter, and we can approach it. I, myself, and other people who live down here confront the vandals physically. And the people who want to pass condemnation against them…they don’t do that. And, you know, they don’t respect or study why these young people are doing it. And it is a fact, an uncomfortable reality that mass property damage has amounted in the billions of dollars over the course of decades nationwide as a result of high-profile instances of police brutality. LA, for instance, resulted in a change in police protocol without resolving the problems of mental illness, corruption, and racism. So, as far as reform and revolution, vandalism is an effective means of reform. And it might even be counter-revolutionary as reform methods are commonly critiqued, but people aren’t really having an honest discussion about it. I believe this is largely due to a generation gap in activists. There’s young people, and people with grey hair. And people my own age…we’re very obscure. Political activism was un-cool when I was growing up. A lot of that is the fallout of COINTELPRO: destroying the Black Panthers and creating gangs. You know, when I was a kid we didn’t have the internet to talk with everyone, to have the discussion. I had to study Marx on my own and I didn’t have anyone to talk to about it. And now they do, and it’s cool again. I don’t think people really respect and appreciate it — that, ok, so maybe they’re doing the most youthful thing, that’s great. That’s the thing, when I talk about people changing, the individuals who do this, they’re very brave, and they’re putting themselves at risk, and they believe that it’s what they need to do to be a good person, and to make the world a better place. That’s what they believe. Whether they’re right or wrong is irrelevant because it’s whether they rise to that challenge, or if they’re cowardly and they just cheer for it.”

The preoccupation over tactics has also detracted from what is seen as the most important and meaningful work to many activists in Oakland (including those who participate in the black bloc): the opportunity to build a self-sustaining and supportive community that can provide for its participants in a way that a government in a capitalist nation simply will not. In discussing the successes of OO, most protestors mention feeding and housing the homeless (as well as each other), providing safe spaces for children and youth, and fostering empathy and education through outreach to Oakland citizens. In addressing local injustice, a great deal of energy has been spent on addressing the ongoing legacy of police violence in Oakland, which has ravaged low-income communities of color, and has been felt to a considerably less degree by Occupier’s who’ve been on the receiving end of police batons, rubber bullets, tear gas, and repeated trips to jail for their participation. The Tactical Action Committee, consisting mainly of young people of color who were born and raised in Oakland, organized the only ongoing weekly event at OO aside from the General Assembly. The weekly Fuck the Police march has been one of the most diverse actions at OO, drawing many participants from among the local citizenry, as well as those newer to the city who are appalled by the extent of violence that occurs on Oakland streets. Those who have witnessed years to decades of police brutality in their communities feel particularly compelled to fight back and demand accountability from a police force that is best known for their failure to “protect and serve.”

This excerpt on Occupy Oakland is taken from the ethnographic pamphlet “Occupying in California: Voices and Contexts.” The pamphlet was written to provide Occupiers and those who would like to know more about the Occupy movement with a juxtaposition of three sites of Occupation in California.  The authors explore how the particular context of each location led to site-specific manifestations of strategy, action and narrative as reflected in activist practice. Download the pamphlet here

Kristy Keller, September 2012

IN RESPONSE – Buck Bagot

Occupy Oakland: Actions and Strategies presents a number of difficult issues. Which came first – the chicken or the egg/the history of Oakland Police brutality vs. the city’s African-American community, or OO’s propensity for actions involving property destruction and violence? How important is it to defend “diversity of tactics”? And most importantly, who does OO hope to organize, empower and mobilize, and around what issues?

OO has effectively selected ending police brutality and oppression as its primary issue. I believe that is a mistake. I believe that Occupy organizations should select issues that grow out of the class and racial oppression of the 1%/ruling elite/class. Like the partially successful Occupy Bernal/SF ACCE/Occupy Noe campaign against mortgage foreclosures. Police brutality will never be a majority issue in Oakland. It does not directly impact a broad cross section of the city. Fighting foreclosures does.

Support for “diversity of tactics” is a juvenile, ultra-left canard, and counter to building broad-based organization/s rooted in organizing a cross-class, multi-ethnic movement to address both the immediate and systemic impact of capitalism on the people of the United States. It’s an immature mistake – I know, because me and mine made it repeatedly in the movement vs. the war in Southeast Asia. I trashed the windows of corporations paid to develop the techniques for the “pacification” of the people of SE Asia by carpet-bombing, deforestation, etc. “How can we stand by idly while the US pursues these genocidal tactics?” we moaned. Don’t be idle and make our mistakes – develop a strategy that aspires to building a mass, grass-roots movement rooted in the self-interest of most people. Vandalism and violence don’t work, because they don’t do that.

OO’s vandalism and violence vs. the police – and I would argue much of it was not even “in reaction” to police violence – was and is a self-fulfilling prophecy. They have made their “issue bed”, and as long as they lie in it, they will fail to realize the promise of their and our Occupy movement.

And of course, don’t dare to address the issue in the media – that the cops aren’t the primary issue, the banks are. Or that “diversity of tactics” makes it much more difficult for seniors, the disabled and families to participate in our actions. That would be “feeding into the corporate media’s lies about Occupy”. And of course, no one is permitted to address that or any other issue in the media because “we have no leaders.”

“… participate in OO actions on the basis that the imperative is to address the everyday structural and institutional violence that harms people living in Oakland. This goal is seen by many as more important and realistic than trying to control a handful of protestors who may try to break some bank windows.” I’ll bite – how many folks has OO saved from foreclosure property auction or eviction, and for how many have they helped win a permanent loan modification? If they have, then the “corporate media campaign” to “twist the truth about the Occupy/OO movememtn” has kept me from reading about it. Oh, and that’s another infantile mistake, one that I never made – that the papers conspire to keep misrepresenting our actions. Or that all elected officials are bought and owned by corporate power. Or that delegation or recallable authority necessarily leads to reification of power and replication of the capitalist model. Or that negotiating with power – the only way to win concrete victories – is the road to cooptation. Or that any issue that does not directly and immediately challenge capitalistism is the road to ruin. Life, organizing, building a movement for social change are a lot more complicated. I welcome dialogue on Occupy and these very important issues.

Buck Bagot, September 2012

KRISTY RESPONDS

My initial reaction to Buck Bagot’s response to a brief section of my writing on Occupy Oakland (OO) was twofold: 1) I would like to refer Mr. Bagot back to the pamphlet to read a bit more, as our intention was to address many of the questions he posed about OO; and 2) Mr. Bagot’s uninformed response reveals the degree to which the work of OO has been highly eschewed by a mainstream media that prefers to sensationalize infrequent instances of property destruction, while utterly ignoring the diverse array of OO actions (the majority of which have been 100% void of any violence and vandalism). The media issue is not terribly surprising given that the largely anti-capitalist vibe at OO may not be particularly attractive to journalists who rely on that system for survival. While I could address Mr. Bagot’s piece line-for-line, and begin a long list of the accomplishments of OO committees, I will not. My anthropological tendency is to take a couple steps back and attempt to show why the response from Mr. Bagot fails to address Occupy Oakland.

It’s problematic to speak of OO, or any Occupy iteration, as if “it” is a unified and bounded mass of activists who share the same political perspective, strategies or tactical persuasions. While some support property destruction as a tactic, many are openly against it (see Occupy Oakland: Actions and Strategies for more info).  So, the question for many is: should this difference in opinion and belief lead people to walk away from activism in Oakland because folks from the other side of the debate might participate? This has not been a simple question for people to grapple with, as a sense of moral duty is often the very reason we participate in activism in the first place. The reality is that actions organized by Occupiers in large cities are bound to attract a diversity of participants and tactics. Individuals, who had no part in organizing the action, as well as those who may not identify themselves as Occupiers, may participate. In the area of outreach and movement building, attracting as many participants as possible is often desired, and Occupy has a stake in being inclusive. Given this diversity and the lack of borders when it comes to participation, any broad assumption about “Occupy Oakland” is likely to be inherently unfounded from the outset.


Tactics have been an ongoing debate for activists within Oakland and at many points this has led to inaction. As a result, many people at opposing ends of the tactics continuum have distanced themselves from the Occupy moniker, but continue to organize actions based on the strategies and tactics they believe are right. Others, such as the Nonviolent Caucus of Occupy Oakland, have chosen to situate themselves within the movement based on a more nuanced understanding of the local activist scene and the limits of control over other people’s tactics: The Nonviolent Caucus is “a network of individuals and affinity groups (including study groups, work groups, committees, and organizations) who self identify as being part of the Occupy/Decolonize movement, and who seek to engage with others in “nonviolent”* education, training, support, and direct actions.” The goal of this group at the outset was to organize “nonviolent” actions with the understanding that not all activists will embrace “nonviolence” but that the Caucus can specifically ask activists who participate in their actions to use only nonviolent civil disobedience. For many, it is more advantageous to create the spaces for strategy and tactics that they prefer to practice than to walk away from the local movement entirely.



It is unrealistic to assume that even if Occupy Oakland’s General Assembly did decide to support only “nonviolent” civil disobedience that property destruction, as a tactic, would simply end in Oakland. It wouldn’t.  To be clear, there was never any decision that Occupy Oakland supports property destruction, but unfortunately many refer to the movement as if it has.  Additionally, as has been evidenced by several recent “Fuck the Police” actions that were organized outside of Occupy Oakland, the mainstream media will continue to refer to any action or group of activists as “Occupy Oakland.”

The Occupy movement, organized initially by those who have a deep understanding of individual autonomy in activism, cannot be seen as a movement that panders to one tactical position because we cannot control what individual activists do, nor do I think most people want to. As May Day 2012 approached in Oakland, the Coalition for Dignity and Resistance came to the Occupy Oakland General Assembly and asked for distance in “time and space” between any confrontational actions that might ignite heavy police repression, and their march, which welcomed the attendance of undocumented workers who are particularly vulnerable to arrest and incarceration. While the GA overwhelmingly voted to honor this request, one Occupier took the stage simply to remind those organizing the march that while those in attendance would gladly stand by this agreement, the reality of public action is that many participate from outside the organizing group and we cannot guarantee they won’t employ more confrontational tactics (i.e. we have no literal control over other protestors).



What is most important to recognize is that equating property destruction with Occupy Oakland sensationalizes the actions of a few individuals, while erasing the efforts of the many. It undermines the extraordinary actions that have been organized by Occupiers and/or supported by Occupy Oakland participants in collaboration with other entities and individuals within local communities. In recent months these include Occupy the Farm, the People’s School at Lakeview Elementary, and Biblioteca Popular Victor Martinez. These direct actions have been extremely effective in garnering community support and participation, and have inspired similar actions in other cities. While such actions do not confront the big banks outright, they provide opportunities for building community support and self-sufficiency outside the control of banks and the government by feeding and educating the people for free.



While we can debate the “nonviolence” versus “diversity of tactics” issue until our faces turn blue, we also have to understand that what Occupy has become in many areas is heavily local — actions address local injustices, and many feel that until we can spark local awareness of those injustices, mobilizing the community to tackle the big banks is difficult — this is particularly true in Oakland where many people are more concerned with safety and security on a daily basis than which bank holds their money.  At the same time, Occupy Oakland activists HAVE been fighting the big banks: the Oakland Coalition to Stop Goldman Saks has won over the City Council in the fight against predatory rate-swap service payments; bank actions are ongoing; and the Foreclosure Defense Group, like Occupy Bernal, has had success with stopping foreclosure auctions and evictions, winning loan modifications and they too have collaborated with a coalition of organizations such as ACCE. In fact, some Occupy Oaklanders have even housed the homeless. But, this is really only a fraction of what OO has achieved and worked towards. 



Occupy Oakland has also been visited by Occupiers from around the US, Canada, Mexico, and Europe, who want to learn about why and how Occupy Oakland has been so effective while other Occupies have been derailed due to harsh divisions over tactics, resulting in activist impotence.  Not to say that Occupy Oakland hasn’t experienced this to some degree, however, the reality of everyday poverty and violence in Oakland really does evoke urgency among activists to keep addressing everyday violence despite tactical differences.  In a city with a deep history of police brutality, the police are a concern to many residents. The Oakland Police Department remains under threat of Federal Receivership from the Oakland Riders scandal of 2000, and will spend nearly a million dollars on outside consultants to assess their more recent misconduct, while the family of Alan Blueford is still left waiting for answers regarding the death of their son.

While Mr. Bagot may be correct in asserting that many Oakland citizens are not affected personally by police brutality, we cannot simply assume that Oakland residents don’t see the issue as something to fight against. To overlook the most egregious offenses experienced by Oakland’s citizens in order to develop a platform that panders to the middle class (who have a lot less to fight for) would be an immoral disservice to those who are most disproportionately affected by economic, social and political violence in Oakland. While many in OO see this oppression stemming from capitalism, patriarchy, the increasingly privatized government, and corporate banks, many citizens most immediately experience these power dynamics at the hands of the local police that regulate low-income people-of-color communities.



It could be argued that the preoccupation over tactics trivializes the extent of structural violence waged against those most oppressed in our society, and it certainly blurs the efforts of Oakland activists to confront those gross injustices and spread awareness to middle and upper class citizens who also now have reason participate in the struggle. Thinking globally and acting locally has been a successful strategy for the Occupy movement, and this is evidenced by the use of localized actions in different parts of the world alongside efforts of global solidarity that link local struggles. 

The real issue here is not that property destruction or the emphasis on Kpolice in Oakland is misguided; it is that some want to create a movement that mobilizes masses of Americans based on a unified grievance, such as Big Banks, that will lead to reform for the middle class, while others feel the immediate need lies in confronting and undermining local systems of oppression through community support and capacity building.  These do not have to be mutually exclusive goals, and they will coexist whether people want them to or not. If this debate reveals anything, it is that “Occupy” is not a tactic or strategy: it is an idea that activists evoke in myriad ways to achieve very diverse and sometimes oppositional goals.

*I use quotes around “nonviolence” because in these conversations “nonviolence” is essentially equated with “lack-of-property-destruction,” and I do not personally see the concepts as congruent. To suggest that Occupy Oakland is not “nonviolent” is to argue that it is violent and this is a dangerous dichotomy that serves to vilify diverse movements in a public arena where people are unaware that “violence” in this respect refers to property destruction. Vandalism is not necessarily violence in the sense most people imagine it. When I hear someone refer to “violence” it certainly does not evoke images or thoughts of property destruction. I see “violence” as a serious term that should not be used lightly because it suggests intentional bodily injury, and I have yet to meet an activist who supports anything I would call “violence.”

Kristy Keller, September 2012

Share this:

Facebook

Twitter

Linkedin

Email