I begin by saluting my brothers and sisters whose vigilance and witness at Occupation sites around the nation are awakening us all to a new set of possibilities.
Having said that, however, the shockingly naïve and arrogant actions of the Atlanta Occupation in turning away an opportunity to hear from a hero of the Civil Rights movement and a lifelong champion of democratic justice, John Lewis, signal a serious warning that immaturity, too-cute-by-half dogmatic proceduralism, and smarty-pants leadership of the ‘democratic collective’ may corrupt the movement’s genuine purpose to express the rage of the working class and effectively ignite a revolutionary movement for substantive economic justice.
As virtually everyone paying attention now knows, on October 7, the mostly white activists pretending not to be running the ‘democratic assembly’ deeply embarrassed themselves and the Atlanta Occupation when they turned away John Lewis who had come to speak as a show of solidarity. Though viewing the video of this fiasco is like watching a parody of everything dumb about the left, the more disturbing aspect of the event is the rigid and confused reasoning of those who moved to disallow Lewis from addressing the assembly.
In the course of the world’s dumbest procedure for ‘considering’ the proposal to allow Lewis (who had come to the occupation site of his own accord in a limited space of time he had available between appointments) to speak, an earnest, spectacled college kid named ‘Joe’ made the requisite blocking signal to indicate his objection to the proposal.
After a cursory acknowledgement of the ‘invaluable work’ of Congressman Lewis (who still suffers from the effects of the beatings he took during civil rights protests of the 1960s, including during the March across the Edmond Pettus Bridge), Joe made his argument: “The point of this general assembly is to kick-start a democratic process in which no singular [sic] human being is inherently more valuable than any other human being. Thank you.”
This idiotic spewage received general approval from the assembly as indicated by the wiggling of the fingers of their raised hands (apparently clapping violates the egalitarian ethos of the ‘democratic process’ preferred by the Atlanta Assembly…).
The issue that had Joe and the other Atlanta children all afret was that Lewis was seeking time that had already been scheduled for ‘assembly business’; thus, allowing Lewis to speak would have been a special exception from the regular order of the planned agenda.
Now no one, least of all Lewis, would suggest that the Congressman is ‘inherently more valuable’ than anyone else, nor would hearing him speak at the time of his appearance have carried any such inference.
But more importantly, while Lewis is clearly not ‘inherently’ more valuable than, say, Joe, I would be willing to bet my Rosa Luxemburg coffee mug that his experience and expertise in leading an effective movement for justice is FAR more valuable than anything Joe or the kids had to say during the ensuing time they spent on their original agenda. That’s right Joe, egalitarianism means that when distributing the benefits and burdens of social life no one is entitled to a greater share than anyone else, but it doesn’t mean that the opinion of a PhD in political theory is as good as the opinion of a plumber when the issue is how to stop a water leak.
And, just as a point of clarification for Johnny Democracy, note that the whole debate over whether to allow Lewis to speak was overseen and managed by ‘facilitator’ Isa Ray, part of a four-person ‘facilitation team’ that functions as the de facto leadership of the Assembly, who stands above the group, wields the megaphone, and selects speakers seeking recognition from among the crowd. Seemingly a pretty privileged position. What makes Isa a ‘singular person’ (whatever the fuck that’s supposed to mean)? Who set the facilitation team up to be ‘more inherently valuable’ than everyone else assembled? What’s that, Joe? Giving Isa the bullhorn and allowing him to maintain and orderly process doesn’t make him singular? He and the other facilitators received training that gave them special expertise to carry out a special role? Interesting…
As defined in the French Revolution’s Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen: All citizens, being equal in [the eyes of the law], shall be equally eligible to all high offices, public positions and employments, according to their ability, and without other distinction than that of their virtues and talents. [My emphasis]
No one in that Atlanta assembly has anywhere near the expertise in egalitarian social movements, the struggle for just and humane policy, or organized resistance as John Lewis. Lewis merits a podium or bullhorn at any Occupation site he visits not because of his ‘invaluable contributions’ (Joe, you insufferable puke) but because of his wisdom and courageous cunning as a veteran activist.
When a writer for Salon caught up with Joe (who it turns out is Joseph Diaz, 24; a Ph.D. philosophy student at Emory University who is seeking a career in ‘political theology’—oh for the love of god!) to find out why exactly he blocked Lewis from addressing the assembly, Joe explained:
My block of Rep. Lewis had more to do with the “form” of the event rather than the content. The Occupy movement was initiated because many of those in attendance feel that rules in our current system have been unjustly bent towards (or created for the sake of the welfare of) politicians and bankers. I felt that bending the rules of the GA towards a politician was contradictory to the spirit of the gathering. Yes he put his life on the line for people’s rights. Yes he should be honored for that. But there are construction workers, firefighters, coal miners, etc., who in a very real way put their lives on the line when asked, and we would not have bent the rules for them.
How precious. This kind of rigid, dogmatic stupidity is why no one trusts us leftists to run any actual social institutions. Dopes like Joe, who clearly relished his little moment of attention and his power to stop Lewis from having the ‘rules’ bent for him, quack ceaselessly about procedures while indulging their luxury not to care whether any concrete, practical justice emerges from their endless rounds of agenda meetings. Joe speaks of the equivalent risks and sacrifices of construction workers, firefighters, and coal miners but Joe isn’t any of those people–people who put their lives on the line ‘in a very real way’ (you know, similar to the way a PhD student of philosophy puts his sense of intellectual self-contentment on the line ‘in a very real way’ when defending his dissertation before a really harsh committee); Joe may not have noticed that the people waving their little fingers in exuberant support of his faux egalitarian exhortation didn’t look much like construction workers, firefighters, or coal miners any more than Joe does. Hmmmm…why is that?
Nonsense like the self-indulgent procedures practiced by the Atlanta assembly will never win over the workers in whose name the movement claims to act. No workers, no legitimacy; no legitimate action, no workers. Perhaps someone should invite the leaders of the Tahrir Square uprising over to talk about the decision-making process in the Cairo movement (at a time, of course, when their remarks would not conflict with other important items on the General Assembly’s agenda–and in a way that won’t make people like Joe feel diminished by someone else’s singularity…)
This isn’t some anti-hippy rant. I fully recognize and endorse the crucial significance of refashioning the old rules of discourse that have a way of codifying and reinforcing already existing dominance structures. Moreover, I joyously say sing, chant, bang on drums, do all the things needed to build energy and solidarity. But never mistake discourse- and consensus-processes for action. Never mistake the punctual completion of all items on your agenda for a substantive achievement. Revolutionary consensus must be built through substantive action not by counting up fingers waving in response to vocalized egothrobs of attention-starved post-graduate students.
For the record, John Lewis later told reporters he wasn’t insulted and that the Occupy Atlanta protesters’ consensus-oriented process was “grassroots democracy at its best.”
Once Joe has started working his shifts at the Political Theology plant we can hope that the toil of labor will teach him the gracious humility manifested in Congressman Lewis’ reaction to being rejected by the smarty-pants kids of Occupy Atlanta.
Meanwhile, the struggle remains more important than the gaff.
The modern proletarian class doesn’t carry out its struggle according to a plan set out in some book or theory; the modern workers’ struggle is a part of history, a part of social progress, and in the middle of history, in the middle of progress, in the middle of the fight, we learn how we must fight…
~Rosa Luxemburg
Back to the Root 
One response to “Occupation Endangered by Dogmatic Nonsense”
[…] why Dr. King got himself arrested repeatedly. That is how and why John Lewis (who, by the way, was foolishly denied and opportunity to speak at Occupy Atlanta) got his head busted repeatedly: To call witness both to the injustice and to the impulse to […]
LikeLike