Occupy Movement a valuable partner:'Idea' to build a united Canadian progressive movement that can have more clout

In its very beginning, the Occupy Movement inspired millions of people around the world with its slogan “We are the 99 per cent.” It changed the nature of public discussion, focused on the evils of greed, and emphasized the need for a truly democratic form of our tired, ineffective so-called democracy.

The success of the Occupy Movement – along with the continuing growth in power of right-wing forces in the country – are providing the inspiration for the possible creation of a large Canadian cooperative movement or coalition that would tackle major issues in the country.

A larger, stronger progressive force made up of hundreds of already-existing groups is needed in Canada.

Now that Stephen Harper has a majority in Parliament, he is slashing in all directions, and it’s only going to get worse. Unfortunately, right-wing forces are very strong. They control all the key levers of power – access to billions of dollars to promote their beliefs, control over our federal government, and ownership of the mainstream media propaganda machines.

The progressive community must learn it has to confront power with power – something we don’t do well in Canada. It seems enough to most Canadians to simply point out that something is wrong, and leave it to someone else to shoulder. This doesn’t cut it any more. We need to stop being nice, and start fighting harder!

By any account, there are possibly 10,000 progressive and liberal-minded organizations (including branch offices) in Canada, and many of them work in isolation of each other, sometimes even at cross purposes. This means that the 10,000 organizations might be fighting on, what, 300 or more different causes at any one time?

Individual groups do need to work on their own priorities, but when it comes to tackling major problems, or when a campaign needs to be mounted quickly, Canada needs to have one strong and effective vehicle: The creation of nationally coordinated movement that would work on the most pressing issues of our time.

Progressives in Canada – including the Occupy Movement as a tactical force – have the potential to establish a movement to be reckoned with. The way Canadians responded so positively to the Occupy Movement’s attack on the banks and the powerful is proof that tens-of-thousands of people out there are in need of leadership. And remember that more than 60 per cent of Canadians voted against the Conservatives in the May election.

While there is some excellent coordination among groups working in the same arena – such as environmental groups cooperating with other environmental groups – there appears to be very little cross sector coordination on common interest issues – such as environmentalists and anti-poverty advocates uniting on, say, the future of health care.

Campaigning on major issues could be greatly strengthened if a national coalition were to unite many different kinds of groups around key issues.

The Occupy Movement scared the hell out of many bankers just a few weeks ago. Imagine what a network of local Occupy groups coming together with, say, 200 or 500 other progressive groups, could do!

Many of those traditional 10,000 groups have staff members and financial resources, some of which could be allocated to work on key issues. Combine this with the energy and determination of the Occupiers, and it could become a very effective force. If some sort of process were developed, leaders and ideas for the creation of a strategy would emerge.

There are dozens of skilled and seasoned groups that could play a leadership role in bringing together a coalition or cooperative movement. An organization as large and as skilled as the Council of Canadians is not strong enough to win all of its battles on its own, but it has tremendous knowledge and resources that could be shared with others as part of an even larger and more powerful force – but not a new organization, but perhaps a cooperative venture with a small team of activity coordinators.

Many groups are weak when it comes to developing campaign strategies, but Greenpeace is among the best in the world at building hugely successful campaigns. Many groups work on income disparity, but it is unlikely that they think to seek out the person running the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives’ Growing Gap Project.

Such a movement would develop a set of broad, national objectives by identifying the right’s weak points and exploiting them. Hopefully, the coordinating process would be run by the same consensus mechanisms used by the Occupy Movement.

From my perspective, here are three major issues that a movement could unite around:

   1. Income disparity
The bulk of the wealth created in Canada in the past 22 years has accrued to the top one-fifth of the population, and one-third of that has gone to the top one per cent.

Because of its initial strong work in this area, perhaps the Occupy Movement could play a “front line” role on income disparity. After a strategy has been developed in cooperation with other groups, the Occupy Movement would go into action with disruptive protests, marches, office occupations, and other activities to expose the greed of wealthy Canadians.

At the same time, other organizations in the coalition would conduct research, issue reports, and demand that the media give this important issue the proper attention.

   2. Lobbying the NDP and Liberals

The next federal election is likely to be held in 2015. A coalition could explore all possible ways of defeating the Conservative so they will not be able to govern until 2019 or 2020.

With both the New Democrats and the Liberals selecting new national leaders during the next few months, a coordinated effort needs to be carried out to determine the positions of leading candidates on key issues – such as whether they pledge to tackle programs identified by the coalition, explain their economic and social policies, and indicate whether they support changes to the electoral system.

   3. Poverty and unemployment

Research shows that about 17 per cent of the population at the bottom of the income ladder are pretty well firmly lodged there. While government figures show the unemployment rate at 7.3 per cent, the real figure is likely closer to 12 per cent when those unemployed that are no longer seeking work are included. The situation for native peoples is much worse.

A full and ongoing strategy needs to be developed for campaigning around these three issues, as well as others.

* * *

If the idea appeals to you, please indicate your interest by putting a comment at the end of my blog post. Perhaps you would like to add additional suggestions. And maybe you could raise the issue on Facebook and Twitter.

Updates will appear on my blog as warranted.

In addition to his work as a journalist, Nick Fillmore’s main organizational experience involved leading the creation of the now 95-member International Freedom of Expression eXchange (IFEX). He also has helped organize campaigns against repressive regimes in many under-developed countries, and was one of the main organizers of the Catch 22, aimed at defeating Conservative candidates in the last election.

Please subscribe to my blog to receive future articles.

Crisis in the encampments: Can the Occupy movement be saved from itself?

Millions of Americans are as mad as hell, and they’re not going to take it anymore!

In the largest action of defiance since the 2008 economic collapse, an estimated 650,000 angry citizens moved their bank accounts from corporate banks to local citizen-controlled credit unions in just one month.

The transfers, which amounted to about $4.5-billion, were made mostly during October in response to the much-vilified Bank of America unveiling its now-rescinded monthly $5 debit card fee. Fearful there might be a run on their resources, some big banks refused to allow customers to close their accounts. Following clashes with bank employees, some customers were detained or arrested.

This kind of action by the bankers is one of the main factors that led to the creation of the upstart Occupy Wall Street movement. 

The movement has been an inspiration for millions of people in the U.S., Canada, Europe and elsewhere who want to fight back against the greedy banks, powerful corporations, and manipulative and ineffective governments that have damaged their lives.

The early successes won strong praise from many prominent people, including leading leftists. Canadian author and activist Naomi Klein wrote on October 6: “Let’s treat this beautiful movement as if it is the most important thing in the world. Because it is.”

But that was then. People are still angry at the banks and the rich, but many are disappointed – and some upset – with the Occupy movement.

Looking back just a few short weeks ago, the movement’s greatest achievement was the way it sparked heated discussion on fundamental issues such as greed, the failure of western democracy, and the need for an entirely new way of tackling the greatest problems of our time. Topics previously banned by the corporate media were discussed everywhere.

Creation of the expression, “We are the 99 per cent, while the super rich are the 1 per cent,” was a stroke of genius – the envy of any ad executive. It is an amazingly successful rallying slogan.

During its first few weeks, the gentle, Woodstock-like environment and consensus process practiced by the dozens of occupations won the respect of millions of people.

But opinions are changing.

The most damaging development – certainly in the eyes of the general public – was the death at the Vancouver Occupy site of a 23-year-old woman, likely from a drug overdose.

The death led to a Globe and Mail front page article by columnist Gary Mason who wrote: “The (occupy) camp is now a rabble of homeless youth and others drawn to the free accommodation, food, clothing and other supplies that can be enjoyed at the site. People presenting with serious mental illnesses are also said to be arriving at the grounds of the Vancouver Art Gallery.”

For many people, the face of the movement are the TV images of police dragging screaming, placard-carrying, bearded protesters from encampments in several locations as winter closes in. The most violence occurred in Oakland, California, where anarchist hangers-on clashed with police.
 
An opinion poll conducted in the U.S. in late October by the Pew Research Centre indicated that only 39 per cent of Americans supported the movement.  A Canadian poll carried out before the death in Vancouver showed that 58 per cent of Canadians supported the protesters.

The question now is whether the Occupy movement can survive as an effective force for political and social action.

Sadly, to some extent, the movement has to be saved from itself.

The decision made some time ago to set up permanent encampments is turning out to be a disaster and is taking attention away from other more productive activist events. If there was any chance that a few hundred struggling, but highly dedicated mostly young people could change the world by holding their ground in their communities, I would be among the first to support them.

If the “non-organizing organizers” would suspend the encampments until spring they would be doing themselves a favour in the public arena.  This would allow them to forego a lot of negative publicity, avoid the costly and tiring job of keeping small groups of protesters from freezing, and give them time to develop their strategy. 

Both Canada and the United States need radical social and political movements that could scare the hell out of the establishment and force change in ways that traditional left and liberal forces have failed to do.

A number of local protests are being carried out in the U.S. For instance, a small group from the New York camp is walking 240 miles to Washington to request that tax cuts to the rich be rescinded so the money could be used to pay for social programs. In Canada, attention seems to be focused on problems at the encampments.

In the U.S., Occupy members have twice helped people stop their homes from being seized, once in New York and again in California. This kind of activity is useful, inspiring and could be turned into a full campaign in some parts of the country.

A well-planned campaign to challenge the banks and other financial institutions – perhaps with quickly organized rotating occupations as well as the closing of more accounts – would win the support of hundreds-of-thousands of Americans. Canadian groups should be protesting income disparity.

The Occupy concept is ideally suited to take on other specific tasks, some of which could entail acts of civil disobedience. A particular company or government violating the best interests of the public could be challenged by sit-ins carried out at appropriate times or by a handful of young people using the Internet effectively.

People involved with the movement have so far ridiculed the U.S. political system as being ineffective. Indications are that they will not support either President Obama or Democratic candidates in the election next November.

While it is impossible to tell what tactics other groups might adopt, one group says it will occupy and try to shut down some key elements of the U.S. presidential campaign. Iowa activists are planning to “shut down” campaign offices of all presidential contenders in the week leading up to the January 3 caucuses. The Occupy group hopes that hundreds of journalists covering the first Republican Party primary will cover their issues – the debate on income inequality, money in politics, and the needs of the “99 per cent.”

But if the movement decided to soften its approach and support President Obama, the President might be able to bring the still out-of-control financial sector under greater control, reverse some of the tax cuts given the rich and corporations over the past few years, and reduce the amount of funding the rich can put into the U.S. federal election process.  In Canada, local groups could work hand-in-hand with existing, seasoned radical groups that have experience and financial resources.

At this point in time, the Occupy movement is still very much a wild card.  I am hopeful that the struggle will mature, that it will survive a difficult winter and emerge in the spring with well-thought-out plans of action backed by thousands of supporters to carry the struggle forward. 

-30-

JABS AND LEFT HOOKS: It is shocking how the mainstream media refuses to put the half-truth claims of James Flaherty, the man in charge of stealing from ordinary Canadians, into context. Flaherty is whining again about how difficult it is going to be to get the deficit down – after he and Harper have purposely bankrupted their own government by giving billions in tax breaks to the rich and corporations . . . . Margaret Wente and her CBC Radio panelists were discussing the CBC the other day, and she had the audacity to say that the Mother Corp. hasn’t been getting much good publicity in the mainstream media lately. Could this be because just about any journalist who likes the CBC has been fired from the corporate media?

Globe and Mail’s RoB shocks by questioning our economic system

The Globe and Mail – the Canadian media’s strongest supporter of neoliberalism and uncontrolled capitalism – has published a news story that questions whether the economists, business owners and governments that dictate the economic policies of Western society might have it all wrong.

Barrie McKenna’s article, “Time for a rethink of modern economics”, quotes a research paper by two Canadian economists who have identified a series of anomalies that, as they say, “call into question the basic understanding of economics that underpins policy formulation today.”
 
Even though it’s only one story, this is a remarkable development. The Globe, as well as other mainstream corporate media, has unwaveringly endorsed supply-side economic policies during most of the past 30 turbulent and destructive years.

The research paper, written by economists Dan Ciuriak and John Curtis, says that three decades of supply-side policies have produced the same economic problems they were supposed to fix, including stagnant growth, high unemployment, deflationary pressures and piles of public sector debt.

While the paper was published April 1, the Globe reported on it only this week as the Western world’s economic model appears to be self-destructing.

As many as four European countries are on verge of collapse. In Greece, some people who lived a normal life a year ago are eating from garbage cans. In many countries, the rich and corporations pay less in taxes than an office secretary. In the United States, there is not enough money to run the country and the economy is collapsing because the rich won’t pay taxes.

McKenna’s Globe article does not say that the Harper government is also guilty of using supply-side economics. The corporate-dominated Harper government has given billions in tax breaks to corporations and the wealthy on the pretext that jobs will be created. This has given the Conservatives the opportunity to slash government services that Canadians need. Soon they will be officially saying we can’t afford universal healthcare.

Supply-side economics was denounced by progressive economists when they were adopted by U.S. President Ronald Regan in the 1980s. Dozens of books and hundreds and hundreds of articles have been published documenting the damage caused by supply-side economics, but few of these articles have ever made it into mainstream media. This 1984 article from TIME magazine discusses how supply-side economics contribute to poverty.

Meanwhile, small but apparently determined protests are taking place or are planned for Europe, the United States and Canada.

While the European unrest over government cuts and the loss of jobs is seldom reported in Canada, protests are occurring in at least nine countries.

In New York, the Occupy Wall Street protest is growing day by day – a report in The Wall Street Journal, no less, and the protests have spread to as many as a dozen other U.S. cities.

Protests in at least eight communities are now planned for across Canada. Again, another business publication: International Business Times.

Could it be that the “Captains of Industry” and the “Moguls of Wall Street” are getting nervous?

 -30-