Michelle Goldberg: OWS is Not Antisemitic, But Kooks Need to Be Shunned

The limitations of a leaderless movement
Politics • Views: 27,308

Here’s a good piece by Michelle Goldberg on the relentless attempt by the right wing hate machine to smear Occupy Wall Street as “antisemitic:” Occupy Wall Street Isn’t Anti-Semitic, But It’s Too Leaderless.

One of the curses of left-wing politics is the perennial presence of International ANSWER, a front group for the Stalinist Workers World Party, a tiny political sect with a perverse attraction to the world’s worst people. The party formed in the 1950s, after splitting off from the Socialist Workers Party over a disagreement about the Soviet invasion of Hungary, which the Workers World supported. Since then, the Workers World Party has thrown itself behind Slobodan Milosevic, Saddam Hussein, and Kim Jong-il; it backed the Chinese crackdown on the “counter-revolutionary rebellion” in Tiananmen Square. The Workers World Party is not just pro-Palestinian; it is pro-Hamas and pro-Hezbollah, devoted to the destruction of Israel. It’s fringe views would hardly be worth noticing if not for its members’ organizing skills. For example, by securing protest permits on significant dates far in advance, it was able to take a leading role in the early marches against the Iraq war, even though many progressives were mortified by its involvement. It has often made things uncomfortable for Jews, even those deeply opposed to the Israeli occupation.

“Clearly there’s been tension for the last couple of decades between Jews who identify as supporters of Israel and the radical left that views Zionism as an extension of American imperialism,” said Sieradski. But groups like ANSWER aren’t running things at Occupy Wall Street—no one is. For progressive Jews, that’s opened up new room for involvement. Thus Sieradski, who has been alienated from much of Jewish communal life, suddenly feels “on fire again” about the possibility of specifically Jewish activism. “After the service, I had a line of 100 people come up to me and say, ‘Thank you, that was the most meaningful Jewish experience of my entire life,’ ” he said.

The conservative Jewish magazine Commentary has noticed the ecstatic Jewish involvement in Occupy Wall Street. “The turnout the event generated, as well as the discussion it has so far provoked, are deeply troubling trends that all who care about the Jewish future would do well to take seriously,” Matthew Ackerman wrote on the magazine’s blog. Rarely, he wrote, “has a movement so radical in its aims been tied so explicitly to a religious tradition as was the case with this past Friday’s service.”

In some ways, it’s contradictory for Commentary to bemoan enthusiastic Jewish participation in the protests one moment and accuse them of anti-Semitism the next. But it’s also true that the extreme openness that allowed Sieradski to organize his Kol Nidre service is not always benign. Occupy Wall Street lacks tools for enforcing any sort of discipline, or ostracizing troublemakers. When someone at a Tea Party rally holds a particularly offensive sign, as many have, the movement can denounce them. But there is no one at Occupy Wall Street to do the denouncing.

At this point, I just have to note that in all the Tea Party demonstrations we’ve covered at LGF, I’ve never seen anyone in the movement denounce anything about them. The opposite is true; Tea Party leaders simply deny that there are racists or extremists involved, even when the evidence is right out in the open. In fact, the leaders of the Tea Party are often the worst offenders.

The occasional appearance of anti-Semites is probably the biggest sign of this problem so far, though it’s not the only one. There are small but telling tensions and conflicts around the edges of the encampment. The constant pounding of a drum circle, for example, located near the sleeping area, is driving both protesters and people in the neighborhood crazy, but efforts to quiet them even occasionally have had mixed results. The drummers have agreed to stop playing during the nightly general assembly meeting, but Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer’s attempt to get them to limit their drumming to two hours a day have gone nowhere. Last Friday morning, the de facto leader of the drummers, a man with greasy gray hair starting to dread and a wild look in his eyes, reacted with fury to suggestions that some people would appreciate a respite from all the banging. “This is a revolution!” he shouted. “It’s not about working with the same community we are protesting against.” When other protesters tried to argue, the drummers played harder to drown them out.

This inability to enforce some kind of order, or to even recognize a mechanism for doing so, could cause problems for Occupy Wall Street. Such issues have bedeviled left-wing movements before. In the early 1970s, Jo Freeman wrote an important essay about the self-sabotaging distrust of organization in the women’s movement, titled “The Tyranny of Structurelessness.” “Unstructured groups may be very effective in getting women to talk about their lives; they aren’t very good for getting things done,” she wrote. “It is when people get tired of ‘just talking’ and want to do something more that the groups flounder, unless they change the nature of their operation.” Such movements, she argued, awaken people’s energy without channeling it. “Some women just ‘do their own thing.’ This can lead to a great deal of individual creativity, much of which is useful for the movement, but it is not a viable alternative for most women and certainly does not foster a spirit of cooperative group effort.”

There are lessons here for Occupy Wall Street. The movement has been enormously successful at capturing people’s imaginations and giving them a place to gather, air deep and legitimate grievances, and be invigorated by the power of group solidarity. But coming together and creating a counterculture is ultimately not enough to effect real and lasting change. For that, leadership and structure are ultimately needed. Occupy Wall Street is not anti-Semitic, and the presence of a few odd Jew-haters is not the movement’s fault. Its inability to quickly shut them up, though, may augur problems for its future.

Jump to bottom

112 comments
1 Holidays are Family Fun Time  Tue, Oct 18, 2011 9:56:04am

Afternoon all!

2 Obdicut  Tue, Oct 18, 2011 9:59:30am

Oh man, the drummers are still going? They were annoying while I was there.

I agree with the author, especially as to how this massively communal stuff is good for protest, but not for any specific action. Maybe some subgroups can do some good, but if the whole community has to consent to the actions of the subgroups, then yeah, I don't see consensus ever actually occurring.

4 (I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was)  Tue, Oct 18, 2011 10:02:17am

re: #2 Obdicut

if the whole community has to consent to the actions of the subgroups, then yeah, I don't see consensus ever actually occurring.

Consent is for BDSM sessions, not political organizations.

5 Holidays are Family Fun Time  Tue, Oct 18, 2011 10:04:38am

After a morning of interruptions, I finally got to finish watching the video OOOG Posted in the Pages.

I agree this OWS phenom doesn't fit traditional the Left/Right Paradigm. I don't think we can wedge it into any known category. Crime was committed on Wall Street with Government compliance.

Blaming any large group, Jews, Bankers, or Congress only works to shield the criminals.

6 lawhawk  Tue, Oct 18, 2011 10:06:25am

re: #2 Obdicut

The drummers go at it for a couple of hours, take a break, and get right back at it. You can sometimes hear it above the din of work at 4WTC, which is diagonally across the street. The drummers usually form up on the west side of the park near Church, while the majority of sign protesters have stayed to the Broadway side of the park.

During the lunch hour, the drummers usually get a decent crowd of gawkers, particularly the construction workers who are trying to get around the area to the restaurants on Liberty.

I've got to believe that the businesses in One Liberty and the immediately adjoining blocks are driven nuts with that incessant banging, but then again, we've grown accustomed to the work at Ground Zero so it gets drowned out.

As for the issue of anti-Semitism, there are currents of it there, and it is a concern but if the "leaders" can push them out, they will do the OWS a great service.

What we don't see from the OWS is a condoning of such signs or ignoring that the problem is there. That's a far cry from the TP protest organizers, who claimed that it (or racism or other forms of bigotry) weren't there (or still aren't there) - when they're all too present.

7 _RememberTonyC  Tue, Oct 18, 2011 10:07:30am

The OWS movement hasn't captured much of my attention. Frankly, I think it is fine for people to have their say. But in my limited and cursory assessment of the movement, it appears to be economically naive in some ways. And it also appears to be the left's yin to the tea party's yang. That said, since the president has esssentially endorsed the concept of the OWS movement, there is some potential for it to backfire against him if he doesn't satisfy its demands. And he may not be able to do that.

8 (I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was)  Tue, Oct 18, 2011 10:09:52am

re: #7 _RememberTonyC

the president has esssentially endorsed the concept of the OWS movement

He did?

9 Holidays are Family Fun Time  Tue, Oct 18, 2011 10:10:46am

re: #7 _RememberTonyC

The OWS movement hasn't captured much of my attention. Frankly, I think it is fine for people to have their say. But in my limited and cursory assessment of the movement, it appears to be economically naive in some ways. And it also appears to be the left's yin to the tea party's yang. That said, since the president has esssentially endorsed the concept of the OWS movement, there is some potential for it to backfire against him if he doesn't satisfy its demands. And he may not be able to do that.

I think I see a certain amount of naivete too! It seems like kids complaining to their parents --I want, I want, I want.

Perhaps I just have a more bare bones view of reality.

So, what you were told (go to college, get a degree, get a job) was wrong. Yeah, that sucks. Find another way.

I know that seems heartless, but that is how I view reality.

10 Alexzander  Tue, Oct 18, 2011 10:13:33am

re: #8 000G

He did?

No not really. At most, to the same extent as Mitt Romney or Eric Erickson at Redstate.

11 _RememberTonyC  Tue, Oct 18, 2011 10:13:42am

re: #8 000G

He did?

I seem to recall him kind of winking towards them when he was asked about them a few weeks ago .... at least that is what I think I saw.

12 Obdicut  Tue, Oct 18, 2011 10:14:03am

re: #6 lawhawk

Yeah, and the guy with the asshole sign is important. I'm sending that to my friend Geoff Nunberg, the linguist, because he's writing a new book with that title.

Seriously, that pushback is heartening. As was the absence of anti-semitic stuff when I was there. There probably are plenty of people who are ignorant about Israel, but that's very different from actual racism. It's very different from dehumanizing language about illegal aliens or attempts to oust the Texas House Speaker for being Jewish.

I also feel that the people who are hunting for hints of antisemitism in stuff line the Yom Kippur sign should turn that scrutiny on themselves next time they get outraged about what Big Scary Liberal Jew Soros is doing.

13 Alexzander  Tue, Oct 18, 2011 10:14:24am

re: #11 _RememberTonyC

I seem to recall him kind of winking towards them when he was asked about them a few weeks ago ... at least that is what I think I saw.

Not sure if serious.

14 Killgore Trout  Tue, Oct 18, 2011 10:14:32am

re: #6 lawhawk

As for the issue of anti-Semitism, there are currents of it there, and it is a concern but if the "leaders" can push them out, they will do the OWS a great service.

I don't think that's going to happen. Adbusters has a history of antisemitism and they initiated the protests. Nobody's denouncing them. Individual protesters seem willing to confront antisemites and local leaders may push some people out because they're aware that it makes them look bad but it's going to continue to be problem. It's in many ways ingrained in the movement. It's just human nature that OWS opologists use the same techniques as the Tea Party did. They'll blame right wing infiltrators, point out that there are many more non offensive signs, generally deflect and obfuscate rather than directly address the core problem. It's just human nature.

15 (I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was)  Tue, Oct 18, 2011 10:15:25am

re: #11 _RememberTonyC

I seem to recall him kind of winking towards them when he was asked about them a few weeks ago ... at least that is what I think I saw.

If you mean this, then I think that was not an endorsement of the movement or the concept of the movement but just an acknowledgement that some of the issues raised by the movement are legit… which, yknow, they really are.

16 bratwurst  Tue, Oct 18, 2011 10:17:38am

The amount of concern trolling OWS has elicited from people who are not predisposed to support Obama in the first place is truly epic.

17 NJDhockeyfan  Tue, Oct 18, 2011 10:17:55am

re: #11 _RememberTonyC

I seem to recall him kind of winking towards them when he was asked about them a few weeks ago ... at least that is what I think I saw.

ABC says he's going to use the protests in his bus tour.

Obama to Channel ‘Occupy Wall Street’ Populism on Bus Tour

18 lawhawk  Tue, Oct 18, 2011 10:19:10am

re: #14 Killgore Trout

The Adbusters angle is an odd one, particularly because they're a Canadian outfit and got the money to seed the protests from a guy who used to be a big figure at the NY Merc.

Mr. Halper, the Wall Street supporter of Adbusters, said he felt swept up in something larger but remained ambivalent about the protests. He does not claim any role in starting the movement, though he calls Zuccotti Park “the coolest place in New York.”

Mr. Halper was raised in East New York, Brooklyn, and Woodmere on Long Island, and his parents owned a liquor store on the Lower East Side. He began his career as a floor trader in 1983, swapping oil futures and living in Manhattan. Since retiring in 2007, he has focused on philanthropy, donating roughly $100,000 a year to a variety of causes, mostly related to health care and the arts.

He recently gave $2,500 to Mitt Romney’s campaign for president, after meeting him at a neighbor’s fund-raiser. “My giving is a little A.D.D. — like me,” he said, referring to what he described as his hyperactivity and wandering attention.

He readily admits to being a member of the so-called One Percent — the top slice of American earners, who have been vilified by the protesters. “The fact that I made a lot of money, things just worked out for me,” he said. “There’s some issues where we’re all in it together.”

19 Alexzander  Tue, Oct 18, 2011 10:19:43am

In the weeks before Occupy WallSt began on Sept 17th, the only major 'celebrity' figure to back the movement was lupe Fiasco - hiphop artist and son of black panthers.

His 'anthem' of sorts specifically critiques Obama (for, of all things, not sufficiently standing up against Israel; ugh):

Limbaugh is a racist, Glenn Beck is a racist
Gaza strip was getting bombed, Obama didn’t say shit
That's why I ain't vote for him, next one either
I’ma part of the problem, my problem is I’m peaceful
And I believe in the people.

Lupe Fiasco - Words I Never Said ft. Skylar Grey

Now you can say it ain't our fault if we never heard it
But if we know better than we probably deserve it
Jihad is not a holy war, wheres that in the worship?
Murdering is not Islam!
And you are not observant
And you are not a muslim

Israel don’t take my side cause look how far you’ve pushed them
Walk with me into the ghetto, this where all the Kush went
Complain about the liquor store but what you drinking liquor for?
Complain about the gloom but when’d you pick a broom up?
Just listening to Pac ain't gone make it stop
A rebel in your thoughts, ain't gon make it halt
If you don’t become an actor you’ll never be a factor
Pills with million side effects
Take em when the pains felt
Wash them down with Diet soda!
Killin off your brain cells
Crooked banks around the World
Would gladly give a loan today
So if you ever miss a payment
They can take your home away!

20 makeitstop  Tue, Oct 18, 2011 10:20:25am

re: #16 bratwurst

The amount of concern trolling OWS has elicited from people who are not predisposed to support Obama in the first place is truly epic.

Yeah, pretty unbelievable - in every possible sense.

21 Obdicut  Tue, Oct 18, 2011 10:21:50am

re: #14 Killgore Trout

I'm denouncing Adbusters. And though about half the people there knew who Adbusters were, I doubt very many of them are aware of the antisemitic attacks that Adbusters made.

And I don't think anyone from Adbusters is actually there to get denounced for that.

It will definitely continue to be a problem; I can't imagine any scenario with a group that has relatively open membership where it wouldn't be. But as long as there is energetic confrontation of it, like that 'asshole' sign, it's a hell of a lot better, in my opinion.

22 Killgore Trout  Tue, Oct 18, 2011 10:22:10am

Like I did with the antiwar marches and the Tea Party, I've looked into the organizers, core groups, ideology, participants, signs, etc and the movement is not for me. Even if you can get past the communist groups I think the larger problem may end up being Anon. This week the DHS warned about attempts to attack power plants and energy infrastructure. Having them so involved in the movement is going to look really bad if they do something serious. Jullian Assamge and Bradley Manning may be tolerated my the radical left but it looks bad to the American public to have them associated with the movement. The Oath Keepers were really bad for the Tea Party but they were mostly talk. Anon is very involved with OWS and has greater potential to do something dangerously stupid.

23 (I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was)  Tue, Oct 18, 2011 10:22:25am

re: #9 ggt

So, what you were told (go to college, get a degree, get a job) was wrong. Yeah, that sucks. Find another way.

It's not just that it turned out to be wrong: it was made wrong. Adressing that and correcting it is essential to "finding another way".

There is no sense in telling the victims of the fraud that has been committed that they just need to bootstrap themselves out of the hole others dug them in to.

Demanding justice is not naive, it is the only way any civil society works. Dismissing that demand with "life's a bitch" is not realistic but merely cynical.

24 Killgore Trout  Tue, Oct 18, 2011 10:23:10am

re: #18 lawhawk

The Adbusters angle is an odd one, particularly because they're a Canadian outfit and got the money to seed the protests from a guy who used to be a big figure at the NY Merc.

I saw that earlier. Very strange indeed.

25 Alexzander  Tue, Oct 18, 2011 10:24:19am

re: #22 Killgore Trout

Out of curiosity, what groups/ideologies do you support?

26 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Oct 18, 2011 10:24:55am

re: #5 ggt

After a morning of interruptions, I finally got to finish watching the video OOOG Posted in the Pages.

I agree this OWS phenom doesn't fit traditional the Left/Right Paradigm. I don't think we can wedge it into any known category. Crime was committed on Wall Street with Government compliance.

Blaming any large group, Jews, Bankers, or Congress only works to shield the criminals.

I would say that people taking to the streets with a primary agenda that people are not getting a fair economic shake has generally been considered a 'left' phenomenon.

27 Killgore Trout  Tue, Oct 18, 2011 10:25:29am

re: #21 Obdicut

I'm denouncing Adbusters. And though about half the people there knew who Adbusters were, I doubt very many of them are aware of the antisemitic attacks that Adbusters made.

And I don't think anyone from Adbusters is actually there to get denounced for that.

It will definitely continue to be a problem; I can't imagine any scenario with a group that has relatively open membership where it wouldn't be. But as long as there is energetic confrontation of it, like that 'asshole' sign, it's a hell of a lot better, in my opinion.

I think that's pretty standard. Most tea Partiers had never heard of the Birch Society, Americans for Prosperity, Cato, etc. Most people join these things because it seems like their kind of thing and don't research organizers.

28 Holidays are Family Fun Time  Tue, Oct 18, 2011 10:25:46am

re: #23 000G

It's not just that it turned out to be wrong: it was made wrong. Adressing that and correcting it is essential to "finding another way".

There is no sense in telling the victims of the fraud that has been committed that they just need to bootstrap themselves out of the hole others dug them in to.

Demanding justice is not naive, it is the only way any civil society works. Dismissing that demand with "life's a bitch" is not realistic but merely cynical.

You are right about demanding Justice. I'm just not sure the protestors view of Justice and the Legal definition or what will end-up being Justice is what they think it is.

29 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Tue, Oct 18, 2011 10:26:00am

The problem with the wingnut criticisms of OWS as antisemitic is, first and foremost, lack of evidence. I actually half-expected there to be significant strains of antisemitism, considering who the organizers are, as well as the open nature of the protests.

But a few scattered signs and rants do not even qualify as strains. More as spots. To be strains this phenomenon needs to be systemic. To compare this to the Tea Party criticism or to call it "apologetics" is quite ridiculous - the statistics are simply not there. I mean, if it could be shown that even 1% of the signs are antisemitic, that would already constitute a huge problem. But there were maybe a dozen such incidents, among thousands of signs/speeches. In fact, from what I see, there was a lot more antisemitic activity (by white supremacists and some others) at the TPs, but I would be first to say that claims about TP's antisemitism are bogus.

30 Holidays are Family Fun Time  Tue, Oct 18, 2011 10:27:15am

re: #29 Sergey Romanov

The problem with the wingnut criticisms of OWS as antisemitic is, first and foremost, lack of evidence. I actually half-expected there to be significant strains of antisemitism, considering who the organizers are, as well as the open nature of the protests.

But a few scattered signs and rants do not even qualify as strains. More as spots. To be strains this phenomenon needs to be systemic. To compare this to the Tea Party criticism or to call it "apologetics" is quite ridiculous - the statistics are simply not there. I mean, if it could be shown that even 1% of the signs are antisemitic, that would already constitute a huge problem. But there were maybe a dozen such incidents, among thousands of signs/speeches. In fact, from what I see, there was a lot more antisemitic activity (by white supremacists and some others) at the TPs, but I would be first to say that claims about TP's antisemitism are bogus.

The Tea Party is xenophobic to the extreme, IMHO.

31 makeitstop  Tue, Oct 18, 2011 10:27:17am

re: #28 ggt

You are right about demanding Justice. I'm just not sure the protestors view of Justice and the Legal definition or what will end-up being Justice is what they think it is.

You gotta start somewhere, and OWS has put the discussion front and center. That's a hell of a lot further along than we were a month ago, IMO.

32 Obdicut  Tue, Oct 18, 2011 10:28:14am

re: #22 Killgore Trout

I'm not sure to what extent Anon and the OWS are going to be connected in people's minds. I think Anon kind of exists in the public mind as a bunch of shadowy hackers, while the protesters at OWS are in the actual physical world, standing around in a park.

But I completely agree that one of the risks of OWS is the hardcore anti-war left, which are pretty hardcore anti-Obama at this point as well. They're heavily engaged, and they're the sort of ideological non-voters who help to spread voter apathy, as ABL was talking about. I don't think that anti-semitism is going to be the main problem, I think the ideological non-voters who consider those who vote part of the problem are going to be-- hell, are-- the problem.

But I don't think it's inevitable they'll come out on top, not by any means.

33 Killgore Trout  Tue, Oct 18, 2011 10:28:19am

re: #25 Alexzander

Out of curiosity, what groups/ideologies do you support?

I like Obama. The Dems are ok, but they're pretty hamstrung by obstructionist Republicans. I'm a classical liberal, atheist who practices some Zen, heroes are Thoreau, Twain, etc

34 Kronocide  Tue, Oct 18, 2011 10:29:04am

re: #30 ggt

The Tea Party is xenophobic to the extreme, IMHO.

The key difference between the two: the TP 'leaders' and key contributors were the nutter fringe, racist and xenophobic.

In the OWS, the nutters truly are fringe. And there's no clear leaders.

35 Holidays are Family Fun Time  Tue, Oct 18, 2011 10:29:26am

re: #31 makeitstop

You gotta start somewhere, and OWS has put the discussion front and center. That's a hell of a lot further along than we were a month ago, IMO.

I agree.

I think I'm leery because I don't see it as a Political issue, but as a Criminal Issue. It will be played as a political issue because of the coming election (there is always a coming election).

I'd LOVE to see Justice done, but I am cynical that it will be given the political capital it seems to be generating.

36 Obdicut  Tue, Oct 18, 2011 10:29:55am

re: #27 Killgore Trout

I think that's pretty standard. Most tea Partiers had never heard of the Birch Society, Americans for Prosperity, Cato, etc. Most people join these things because it seems like their kind of thing and don't research organizers.

Well, I'd say a big, big difference is that Adbusters is staying very low profile, to the extent that nearly half the people there at a protest they 'organized' didn't know they existed. So it's really not a very direct connection, control, or organization.

The Birchers, Cato, the rest all slap their brand proud and loud and declare themselves openly. They also happily are open about their extremist positions.

37 _RememberTonyC  Tue, Oct 18, 2011 10:31:37am

re: #17 NJDhockeyfan

ABC says he's going to use the protests in his bus tour.

Obama to Channel ‘Occupy Wall Street’ Populism on Bus Tour

and the Washington Post says it will be a central theme in his 2012 campaign ... so I think it is fair to say he is embracing the movement on certain levels:

[Link: www.washingtonpost.com...]

But since Wall Street political donors gave Dems 62% of their campaign money in 2012, Obama needs to walk a fine line between endorsing the OWS types and alienating the people who might give him big bucks for his campaign. However, as an incumbent, he needs that Wall Street cash less than he needs votes from the masses.

38 Obdicut  Tue, Oct 18, 2011 10:32:26am

re: #37 _RememberTonyC

and the Washington Post says it will be a central theme in his 2012 campaign ... so I think it is fair to say he is embracing the movement on certain levels:

No. What was said was that the anger against Wall Street will be part of his theme. As it should be.

The people at OWS are a tiny, tiny, tiny fraction of those who are pissed at Wall Street.

39 NJDhockeyfan  Tue, Oct 18, 2011 10:32:33am

The ADL issued a statement yesterday about this very subject.

ADL Calls On 'Occupy Wall Street' Organizers To Condemn Anti-Semitic Remarks Made At Rallies

New York, NY, October 17, 2011 … The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) today called on organizers, participants and supporters of the worldwide "Occupy Wall Street" movement to condemn anti-Semitic signs and comments that have appeared at some of the protest rallies across the country and around the world.

Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director, issued the following statement:

We are seeing some individuals holding anti-Semitic signs at the "Occupy Wall Street" rallies, and some videos posted on YouTube from the rallies have shown individuals expressing classic anti-Semitic beliefs such as "Jews control the banks" and "Jews control Wall Street." While we believe that these expressions are not representative of the larger views of the OWS movement, it is still critical for organizers, participants and supporters of these rallies to condemn such bigoted statements clearly and forcefully.

There is no evidence that these anti-Semitic conspiracy theories are representative of the larger movement or that they are gaining traction with other participants. However, history demonstrates time and again how economic downturns can embolden anti-Semites to spread malicious conspiracy theories and promote stereotypes about Jews and money. As a consequence, these statements must not be left unchallenged.

The League continues to monitor the tenor and messages at the demonstrations to ensure that they do not get hijacked by extremists or anti-Semitic elements.

40 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Tue, Oct 18, 2011 10:33:59am

re: #39 NJDhockeyfan

A good statement.

41 makeitstop  Tue, Oct 18, 2011 10:34:26am

re: #35 ggt

I agree.

I think I'm leery because I don't see it as a Political issue, but as a Criminal Issue. It will be played as a political issue because of the coming election (there is always a coming election).

I'd LOVE to see Justice done, but I am cynical that it will be given the political capital it seems to be generating.

And I agree with you - it'll be a damned rough row to hoe. Wall St. and politicians, lobbyists and media are so entangled and bent on reinforcing each other's mutual interests that this all may amount to nothing but a footnote in the list of failed movements that tried to stop irreparable damage to the American way of life as we know (knew?) it.

I get a glint of optimism from the fact that this is a conversation that nobody on the 1% side wanted to have, and the conversation is taking place in spite of them.

42 _RememberTonyC  Tue, Oct 18, 2011 10:35:20am

re: #38 Obdicut

No. What was said was that the anger against Wall Street will be part of his theme. As it should be.

The people at OWS are a tiny, tiny, tiny fraction of those who are pissed at Wall Street.

Once again, our view of a situation is seen through different lenses ...

43 Holidays are Family Fun Time  Tue, Oct 18, 2011 10:36:26am

re: #38 Obdicut

No. What was said was that the anger against Wall Street will be part of his theme. As it should be.

The people at OWS are a tiny, tiny, tiny fraction of those who are pissed at Wall Street.

Frankly, I"m not pissed at Wall Street. I'm pissed at our Elected Officialsl who seem to have not been doing their jobs. It will be interesting to see who has acted in bad faith (and who has profited).

Wall Street is what it is. It's our elected officials job to enact regulations and enforce them.

44 mikec6666  Tue, Oct 18, 2011 10:36:33am

I find it ironic that every movement, now, no matter the content, has to be measured by the degree of anti-semitism it contains. The right wing, in their bid to secure votes, has now made anti-semitism completely unacceptable on both sides of the political spectrum (it has been in the Democratic party for some time). Jews should rejoice, this means everything is now measured by how innocuous it is to their interests. That's a nice change from the historically bad treatment they received.

I guess things do change :0

45 Killgore Trout  Tue, Oct 18, 2011 10:36:34am

re: #39 NJDhockeyfan

The ADL issued a statement yesterday about this very subject.

ADL Calls On 'Occupy Wall Street' Organizers To Condemn Anti-Semitic Remarks Made At Rallies

New York, NY, October 17, 2011 … The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) today called on organizers, participants and supporters of the worldwide "Occupy Wall Street" movement to condemn anti-Semitic signs and comments that have appeared at some of the protest rallies across the country and around the world.

Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director, issued the following statement:

The League continues to monitor the tenor and messages at the demonstrations to ensure that they do not get hijacked by extremists or anti-Semitic elements.

Good news. I was hoping they'd say something.

46 Obdicut  Tue, Oct 18, 2011 10:39:32am

re: #42 _RememberTonyC

Once again, our view of a situation is seen through different lenses ...

That's nice. But really, people are, and should be, pissed off at the state of the financial industry, and it should be Obama's role to take action on it. The financial industry needs regulation and better ethics.

47 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Oct 18, 2011 10:40:12am

re: #14 Killgore Trout

I don't think that's going to happen. Adbusters has a history of antisemitism and they initiated the protests. Nobody's denouncing them. Individual protesters seem willing to confront antisemites and local leaders may push some people out because they're aware that it makes them look bad but it's going to continue to be problem. It's in many ways ingrained in the movement. It's just human nature that OWS opologists use the same techniques as the Tea Party did. They'll blame right wing infiltrators, point out that there are many more non offensive signs, generally deflect and obfuscate rather than directly address the core problem. It's just human nature.

At this point, I am fairly neutral. Adbusters, certainly, are fucking anti-Semites. So are a number of other organizations working hard on this, excited about it, and turning out people for it. They are not going away, they have an agenda, and they haven't 'changed'. Nor has the left ever seriously discussed or challenged what hideous anti-Semitism they have allowed to creep into their tents under the guise of 'peace activism'.

So far, they have not made a move to overtly link this movement to their Israel issues. That doesn't mean they won't, but it does not appear to be their strategy at this time.

As long as we maintain this status quo, I am willing to observe the demos with a sort of benign lack of interest. I not willing to go anywhere near them--odds are good that I will never show up for a generalized left-wing political demonstration ever again in my life. But I am willing to accept for now that the usual suspects are not pushing their luck on this one.

48 Feline Fearless Leader  Tue, Oct 18, 2011 10:40:48am

re: #28 ggt

You are right about demanding Justice. I'm just not sure the protestors view of Justice and the Legal definition or what will end-up being Justice is what they think it is.

Justice and Law are two different things. Laws (generally) try to create a just environment, and it is collectively called a "justice system", but a definition of "justice" in law terms is not necessarily Justice in the philosophical sense.

49 Holidays are Family Fun Time  Tue, Oct 18, 2011 10:42:01am

re: #48 oaktree

Justice and Law are two different things. Laws (generally) try to create a just environment, and it is collectively called a "justice system", but a definition of "justice" in law terms is not necessarily Justice in the philosophical sense.

Exactly.

50 Feline Fearless Leader  Tue, Oct 18, 2011 10:44:22am

re: #46 Obdicut

That's nice. But really, people are, and should be, pissed off at the state of the financial industry, and it should be Obama's role to take action on it. The financial industry needs regulation and better ethics.

Though it should be noted that Obama cannot pass regulations controlling the financial industry unless you think it would be constitutional to do so with a set of Executive Orders. This sounds like a job for another branch of the Federal government...

51 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Oct 18, 2011 10:45:10am

re: #22 Killgore Trout

Like I did with the antiwar marches and the Tea Party, I've looked into the organizers, core groups, ideology, participants, signs, etc and the movement is not for me. Even if you can get past the communist groups I think the larger problem may end up being Anon. This week the DHS warned about attempts to attack power plants and energy infrastructure. Having them so involved in the movement is going to look really bad if they do something serious. Jullian Assamge and Bradley Manning may be tolerated my the radical left but it looks bad to the American public to have them associated with the movement. The Oath Keepers were really bad for the Tea Party but they were mostly talk. Anon is very involved with OWS and has greater potential to do something dangerously stupid.

What most of these attachments tell me is that either a plucky band of moderate, voting, normal-type people are going to create some sort of leadership and a functioning agenda, or this won't go anywhere. What Assange and Manning and the Marxists and all tells me is that this won't get organized in any functional political direction that has anything to do with getting a fairer shake for the middle class. These guys can't do that, and don't want to do that.

52 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Oct 18, 2011 10:48:52am

re: #29 Sergey Romanov

The problem with the wingnut criticisms of OWS as antisemitic is, first and foremost, lack of evidence. I actually half-expected there to be significant strains of antisemitism, considering who the organizers are, as well as the open nature of the protests.

But a few scattered signs and rants do not even qualify as strains. More as spots. To be strains this phenomenon needs to be systemic. To compare this to the Tea Party criticism or to call it "apologetics" is quite ridiculous - the statistics are simply not there. I mean, if it could be shown that even 1% of the signs are antisemitic, that would already constitute a huge problem. But there were maybe a dozen such incidents, among thousands of signs/speeches. In fact, from what I see, there was a lot more antisemitic activity (by white supremacists and some others) at the TPs, but I would be first to say that claims about TP's antisemitism are bogus.

The wingnuts are building huge fantasies on minimal evidence.

However, in response to that, I'm also seeing all the usual trappings that the left tends to use to not examine issues of anti-Semitism or racism in their organizations starting to come out.

We had a supercool Kol Nidre service at the event! We love Jews!

We only didn't let the elderly black man who's actually been part of a successful social movement talk to us because we're all equal, and we've got jack to learn from some old guy!

53 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Tue, Oct 18, 2011 10:56:52am

re: #52 SanFranciscoZionist

On one hand I do think it's fair to use Kol Nidre and such on the media field, to offset the counter-PR. Visuals v. visuals. Not the left made these rules.

Of course, when we analyze it on the next day with a cool head, it should, indeed, be understood, that participation of some Jews doesn't (by itself) mean lack of strains antisemitism. Not to compare anyone to anyone, but presence of Neturei Karta, who are true blue Jews, didn't make the Tehran conference any less antisemitic (and maybe more so, in fact).

54 OhNoZombies!  Tue, Oct 18, 2011 11:00:24am

re: #52 SanFranciscoZionist

I agree. In order for them to gain more legitimacy, they need to sit down, shut up, and listen to some grown-ups for once.

55 Talking Point Detective  Tue, Oct 18, 2011 11:01:27am

re: #22 Killgore Trout

Like I did with the antiwar marches and the Tea Party, I've looked into the organizers, core groups, ideology, participants, signs, etc and the movement is not for me.

I haven't followed everything you've been doing WRT OWS, but I did witness you get it completely wrong in your posts about the Occupy Atlanta situation with John Lewis. So - unless you made similar mistakes WRT the antiwar marches and the Tea Party, it seems to me that there's something more to your views on OWS than simply "concern" about certain extremist groups involved.

56 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Tue, Oct 18, 2011 11:08:20am

re: #55 Talking Point Detective

I haven't followed everything you've been doing WRT OWS, but I did witness you get it completely wrong in your posts about the Occupy Atlanta situation with John Lewis. So - unless you made similar mistakes WRT the antiwar marches and the Tea Party, it seems to me that there's something more to your views on OWS than simply "concern" about certain extremist groups involved.

There was also: enjoyment of and gloating at unprovoked macing of young women; a "wishful hearing" of a protester saying "Jew" (actually "you"); misinterpretation of facial reactions of a woman who claimed to have been hit by a baton as "smiling and looking at the cop", while it was clear that she was not smiling, but grimacing and crying. The bias is too evident.

57 Talking Point Detective  Tue, Oct 18, 2011 11:10:58am

re: #56 Sergey Romanov

There was also: enjoyment of and gloating at unprovoked macing of young women; a "wishful hearing" of a protester saying "Jew" (actually "you"); misinterpretation of facial reactions of a woman who claimed to have been hit by a baton as "smiling and looking at the cop", while it was clear that she was not smiling, but grimacing and crying. The bias is too evident.

I can't speak to all of that, but based on past posts of yours that I've read, I'm inclined to take your observations on face value.

58 Decatur Deb  Tue, Oct 18, 2011 11:15:50am

re: #54 OhNoZombies!

I agree. In order for them to gain more legitimacy, they need to sit down, shut up, and listen to some grown-ups for once.

Frances Piven.

59 Talking Point Detective  Tue, Oct 18, 2011 11:15:55am

re: #52 SanFranciscoZionist

We only didn't let the elderly black man who's actually been part of a successful social movement talk to us because we're all equal, and we've got jack to learn from some old guy!

Did you actually watch the clip? The person who spoke up in objection to hearing Lewis speak first praised Lewis' work. The question at hand was whether to change a pre-existing agenda. The condition for doing so was a consensus opinion. Although it seemed that a large % wanted to hear Lewis speak, there was not a consensus.

Lewis spoke afterwards about his respect for the consensus process.

At what point did you hear anyone say that there's nothing to learn from "some old guy? And why did you introduce the element of Lewis' race - given that when the one guy spoke about Lewis' contributions, there was a loud cheer from the group?

60 celticdragon  Tue, Oct 18, 2011 11:16:48am

re: #9 ggt

I think I see a certain amount of naivete too! It seems like kids complaining to their parents --I want, I want, I want.

Perhaps I just have a more bare bones view of reality.

So, what you were told (go to college, get a degree, get a job) was wrong. Yeah, that sucks. Find another way.

I know that seems heartless, but that is how I view reality.

Being 60 grand in debt with no job a year after graduation needs an adjective or verb a little more powerful than "sucks".

Now add in watching your parents retirement accounts being looted by the Wall Street grifters while they try to forclose on the family home.

61 (I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was)  Tue, Oct 18, 2011 11:18:50am

re: #44 mikec6666

I find it ironic that every movement, now, no matter the content, has to be measured by the degree of anti-semitism it contains. The right wing, in their bid to secure votes, has now made anti-semitism completely unacceptable on both sides of the political spectrum (it has been in the Democratic party for some time). Jews should rejoice, this means everything is now measured by how innocuous it is to their interests. That's a nice change from the historically bad treatment they received.

I guess things do change :0

I don't know what's supposed to be "ironic" about this (maybe you need to look up that word's meaning i a dictionary). And I don't know that "the right wing made it completely unacceptable": It is still aceptable on the Right (mostly in the form of Christian Supremacism), and "the Right" has no influence on how "the Left" treats it, really.

Furthermore, it's really not a thing of protecting "Jewish interests". It is about maintaining a civil society that does not villify minorities with batshit insane conspiracy theories and racist or theocratic resentments.

62 Talking Point Detective  Tue, Oct 18, 2011 11:21:36am

re: #52 SanFranciscoZionist

BTW - based on what I've seen about people involved in the OWS movement, there were likely other members of the Occupy Atlanta group that have connections to the civil rights movement. To suggest that Lewis was the only person there who might have had valuable insight from that movement to lend to the OWS movement is probably counterfactual.

The object to him speaking - on the basis of "equality," was probably, IMO - related to the fact that Lewis is a politician, and should not be accorded special rights within the group based on that attribute. Saying that a significant % of the people in the group didn't respect his insight gained from civil rights activism seems highly unlikely to me (again, as evidenced by the cheering when Lewis' name and accomplishments were mentioned).

63 OhNoZombies!  Tue, Oct 18, 2011 11:22:26am

Isn't the thing about kooks is the thing that makes you notice thekooky is that they are loud and that they try to co-opt movements?
What's important is if and how they are marginalized.

64 Killgore Trout  Tue, Oct 18, 2011 11:22:35am

re: #55 Talking Point Detective

I haven't followed everything you've been doing WRT OWS, but I did witness you get it completely wrong in your posts about the Occupy Atlanta situation with John Lewis. So - unless you made similar mistakes WRT the antiwar marches and the Tea Party, it seems to me that there's something more to your views on OWS than simply "concern" about certain extremist groups involved.

My assessment was the crowd didn't really understand what they were doing by blockig him. I didn't really understand why they did block him. Either way it wasn't an important event to me, didn't effect my opinion of the movement one way or the other.

65 (I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was)  Tue, Oct 18, 2011 11:22:42am

re: #47 SanFranciscoZionist

Nor has the left ever seriously discussed or challenged what hideous anti-Semitism they have allowed to creep into their tents under the guise of 'peace activism'.

Denial about anti-semitism in its ranks, coupled with bold assertions of "the real Left" not even being capable of anti-semitism and the charge of anti-semitism when coming from established institutions even worn as some sort of badge of honor has been a major problem of the Left for decades. Recognizing and adressing this has been one of the few good things that came out of the Anti-German movement Sergey asked me about a couple of days ago.

66 Talking Point Detective  Tue, Oct 18, 2011 11:27:01am

re: #64 Killgore Trout

My assessment was the crowd didn't really understand what they were doing by blockig him. I didn't really understand why they did block him. Either way it wasn't an important event to me, didn't effect my opinion of the movement one way or the other.

Well - all I can say is that it seemed pretty obvious to me what was going on from watching the clip. The reasons for blocking him were clearly stated. You seem like a pretty smart fella. It seems to me that your inability to correctly assess what was going on was because you have a predisposition in your viewpoint of OWS - of a type that leads to such errors. I understand a predisposition to be distrustful of movements like OWS - it makes sense to me. But I'd suggest that you might want to take a look at controlling for biases caused by that predisposition.

67 Sol Berdinowitz  Tue, Oct 18, 2011 11:29:17am

OWS is not a party or even a movement. It is a bunch of people out protesting Wall Street's policies and business practices. Any attempt to portray it as anything else is patently false and opens the door for any sort of distortion one seeks to impose on it.

68 wrenchwench  Tue, Oct 18, 2011 11:31:07am

re: #66 Talking Point Detective

Well - all I can say is that it seemed pretty obvious to me what was going on from watching the clip. The reasons for blocking him were clearly stated. You seem like a pretty smart fella. It seems to me that your inability to correctly assess what was going on was because you have a predisposition in your viewpoint of OWS - of a type that leads to such errors. I understand a predisposition to be distrustful of movements like OWS - it makes sense to me. But I'd suggest that you might want to take a look at controlling for biases caused by that predisposition.

I've seen John Lewis speak. I don't care what their reasons were; they made a mistake. Their loss.

69 OhNoZombies!  Tue, Oct 18, 2011 11:32:40am

re: #58 Decatur Deb

Absolutely !!!

70 Talking Point Detective  Tue, Oct 18, 2011 11:33:54am

re: #67 ralphieboy

OWS is not a party or even a movement. It is a bunch of people out protesting Wall Street's policies and business practices. Any attempt to portray it as anything else is patently false and opens the door for any sort of distortion one seeks to impose on it.

I tend to agree. The people I've talked to that have participated in Philly are there because they feel that there is too much economic injustice in our society. They tend to believe in a pretty diverse set of ideologies.

The Tea Party has an explicit political/electoral orientation. Although I personally hope that OWS will create a political/electoral momentum that will mitigate that of the Tea Party - from what I've seen there isn't nearly the same degree of political ideology as an organizing focus.

71 Talking Point Detective  Tue, Oct 18, 2011 11:36:07am

re: #68 wrenchwench

I've seen John Lewis speak. I don't care what their reasons were; they made a mistake. Their loss.

I think that the majority in the crowd agrees with you that not hearing him speak was a loss. That doesn't change that they committed to a process of consensus and stuck with it. There could have been a larger loss to throwing aside a fundamental organizing principle for the benefit gained from hearing him speak.

72 Obdicut  Tue, Oct 18, 2011 11:39:50am

re: #71 Talking Point Detective

Throwing out that group organizing principle would be a good thing. It results in no action.

73 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Oct 18, 2011 11:42:49am

re: #59 Talking Point Detective

Did you actually watch the clip? The person who spoke up in objection to hearing Lewis speak first praised Lewis' work. The question at hand was whether to change a pre-existing agenda. The condition for doing so was a consensus opinion. Although it seemed that a large % wanted to hear Lewis speak, there was not a consensus.

Lewis spoke afterwards about his respect for the consensus process.

At what point did you hear anyone say that there's nothing to learn from "some old guy? And why did you introduce the element of Lewis' race - given that when the one guy spoke about Lewis' contributions, there was a loud cheer from the group?

I understand their consensus process. I thought they made a poor choice, and I do see it as racially charged.

The first person to speak against having him speak then brought up not creating a hierarchy. Perhaps I misspoke. They didn't think there was nothing to learn from some old guy, they just didn't feel like deferring to someone with significant and relevent experience.

What I saw was a group of mostly young, mostly white people, deciding they didn't need John Lewis just then.

Did they have the right to go on with their scheduled program? Sure. Did they look moronic? Yes. Did it have distinct racial overtones to me? Yes. Did they mean it to? Hell no.

74 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Oct 18, 2011 11:43:01am

re: #59 Talking Point Detective

Did you actually watch the clip? The person who spoke up in objection to hearing Lewis speak first praised Lewis' work. The question at hand was whether to change a pre-existing agenda. The condition for doing so was a consensus opinion. Although it seemed that a large % wanted to hear Lewis speak, there was not a consensus.

Lewis spoke afterwards about his respect for the consensus process.

At what point did you hear anyone say that there's nothing to learn from "some old guy? And why did you introduce the element of Lewis' race - given that when the one guy spoke about Lewis' contributions, there was a loud cheer from the group?

And yes, I watched the fucking clip.

75 Talking Point Detective  Tue, Oct 18, 2011 11:43:41am

re: #72 Obdicut

Throwing out that group organizing principle would be a good thing. It results in no action.

It didn't result in "no action." It resulted in them sticking to their original agenda - because they previously agreed that a pre-existing agenda could only be overturned by consensus. It isn't dissimilar to another group meeting and only changing a pre-existing agenda through a majority vote.

It seems that they are accomplishing some goals, but that the "consensus" component of their process presents logistical problems. However, having witnessed the benefits of consensus processes in other settings, I'm not willing to pass absolute judgement of its effectiveness in this context. All things considered, I think there's something to be said for what they have accomplished. Time will tell what the long-term assessment will be.

76 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Oct 18, 2011 11:43:46am

re: #62 Talking Point Detective

BTW - based on what I've seen about people involved in the OWS movement, there were likely other members of the Occupy Atlanta group that have connections to the civil rights movement. To suggest that Lewis was the only person there who might have had valuable insight from that movement to lend to the OWS movement is probably counterfactual.

The object to him speaking - on the basis of "equality," was probably, IMO - related to the fact that Lewis is a politician, and should not be accorded special rights within the group based on that attribute. Saying that a significant % of the people in the group didn't respect his insight gained from civil rights activism seems highly unlikely to me (again, as evidenced by the cheering when Lewis' name and accomplishments were mentioned).

You think more highly of them than I do.

77 Obdicut  Tue, Oct 18, 2011 11:46:13am

re: #75 Talking Point Detective

I'm not talking about the specific case, but in general.

In what context have you seen the consensus process work?

78 wrenchwench  Tue, Oct 18, 2011 11:51:18am

re: #75 Talking Point Detective

It seems that they are accomplishing some goals, but that the "consensus" component of their process presents logistical problems. However, having witnessed the benefits of consensus processes in other settings, I'm not willing to pass absolute judgement of its effectiveness in this context. All things considered, I think there's something to be said for what they have accomplished. Time will tell what the long-term assessment will be.

I commented a few days ago about how ridiculous I think it is to try to operate under consensus, especially in a large group of people who don't know each other very well.

79 Talking Point Detective  Tue, Oct 18, 2011 11:51:41am

re: #73 SanFranciscoZionist

I understand their consensus process. I thought they made a poor choice, and I do see it as racially charged.

The first person to speak against having him speak then brought up not creating a hierarchy. Perhaps I misspoke. They didn't think there was nothing to learn from some old guy, they just didn't feel like deferring to someone with significant and relevent experience.

What I saw was a group of mostly young, mostly white people, deciding they didn't need John Lewis just then.

Did they have the right to go on with their scheduled program? Sure. Did they look moronic? Yes. Did it have distinct racial overtones to me? Yes. Did they mean it to? Hell no.

Judging it as "moronic" is subjective. Lewis himself indicated that he was quite supportive of their process.

Again - I think that saying that "they just didn't feel like deferring to someone with significant and relevant experience," is not necessarily accurate. Some who spoke directly contradicted that assessment. Others may simply have felt that his significant and relevant experience wasn't outweighed by the importance of not according Lewis - with a relevant attribution of being a politician - special status. I can certainly understand that, and if I were at a meeting where there was an existing agenda, and a politician arrived and some wanted him to speak, I would be inclined to feel similarly as some did in the crowd. Agreed, Lewis' special attributes as a civil rights leader are important - but they are not his only attributes.

Again - you are characterizing the entire group as one way, when it seemed that a significant # of the people in the group wanted to hear him speak. It wasn't a consensus, however, and they were committed to a consensus process. I don't have a problem with questioning the wisdom of a consensus process - but I do have a problem with characterizing the group in a number of ways - in particular suggesting that there was an element of racism - because they stuck with their consensus process. From what I say - the majority in the group wanted to hear him speak - which would make characterizing the entire group in a contradictory way seem unfounded.

80 Killgore Trout  Tue, Oct 18, 2011 11:51:46am

re: #77 Obdicut

I'm not talking about the specific case, but in general.

In what context have you seen the consensus process work?

It's been a frustration for a lot of people. Somebody on Dkos wrote about attending the rally here in Portland. The posters decided to block off a portion of Main Street down town with bales of straw, blocking traffic. The protesters held a 4 hour meeting to create a consensus to allow ambulances and emergency vehicles through their barricade. It's pretty absurd.

81 Decatur Deb  Tue, Oct 18, 2011 11:53:27am

re: #78 wrenchwench

I commented a few days ago about how ridiculous I think it is to try to operate under consensus, especially in a large group of people who don't know each other very well.

They're piss-poor commies if they can't manage political commissars and a CHEKA.

82 Talking Point Detective  Tue, Oct 18, 2011 11:54:04am

re: #77 Obdicut

I'm not talking about the specific case, but in general.

In what context have you seen the consensus process work?

Quaker meetings, in particular (I"m Jewish, but I have taught at a Quaker college and attended Quaker meetings on occasion). Other smaller group decision-making processes where we agreed to make decisions based on consensus. There are, IMO, some real advantages in that you can diminish the extent to which group processes result in "winners" and "losers."

I have conducted classes where decisions were made on consensus process, to a very good effect.

83 Talking Point Detective  Tue, Oct 18, 2011 11:55:32am

re: #80 Killgore Trout

It's been a frustration for a lot of people. Somebody on Dkos wrote about attending the rally here in Portland. The posters decided to block off a portion of Main Street down town with bales of straw, blocking traffic. The protesters held a 4 hour meeting to create a consensus to allow ambulances and emergency vehicles through their barricade. It's pretty absurd.

There are disadvantages to a majority-vote decision-making process also. To say that there are frustrations/disadvantages to a consensus process is not particularly profound.

84 Killgore Trout  Tue, Oct 18, 2011 11:56:26am

For those who missed it last night here's an interesting link...
Intellectual Roots of Wall St. Protest Lie in Academe
Movement's principles arise from scholarship on anarchy

But Occupy Wall Street's most defining characteristics—its decentralized nature and its intensive process of participatory, consensus-based decision-making—are rooted in other precincts of academe and activism: in the scholarship of anarchism and, specifically, in an ethnography of central Madagascar.

It was on this island nation off the coast of Africa that David Graeber, one of the movement's early organizers, who has been called one of its main intellectual sources, spent 20 months between 1989 and 1991. He studied the people of Betafo, a community of descendants of nobles and of slaves, for his 2007 book, Lost People.

85 Killgore Trout  Tue, Oct 18, 2011 11:57:02am

re: #83 Talking Point Detective

To say that there are frustrations/disadvantages to a consensus process is not particularly profound.

Thanks.

86 Talking Point Detective  Tue, Oct 18, 2011 11:58:29am

re: #85 Killgore Trout

Thanks.

I would never suggest otherwise.

87 Talking Point Detective  Tue, Oct 18, 2011 12:02:19pm

re: #76 SanFranciscoZionist

You think more highly of them than I do.

What do you think is incorrect about my observations? They cheered Lewis and lauded his accomplishments. A large % wanted to hear him speak.

Do you think that despite that, it is valid to characterize the event as "racially charged." What does that mean, exactly? That for some, the question of a mostly white group not allowing a black civil rights leader to speak touched upon issues of race? No matter what the results of the process had been, race would have been an element in what took place. Would you be less inclined to assume an aspect of being "racially charged" had the group over-turned their previously agreed-to process in order to hear him speak?

88 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Oct 18, 2011 12:03:27pm

re: #78 wrenchwench

I commented a few days ago about how ridiculous I think it is to try to operate under consensus, especially in a large group of people who don't know each other very well.

My thought about extremely structured consensus procedures is that they end up with results that are either coerced by the leadership, or just not functional results, because there was no leadership.

89 Obdicut  Tue, Oct 18, 2011 12:04:53pm

re: #82 Talking Point Detective

Quaker meetings, in particular (I"m Jewish, but I have taught at a Quaker college and attended Quaker meetings on occasion). Other smaller group decision-making processes where we agreed to make decisions based on consensus. There are, IMO, some real advantages in that you can diminish the extent to which group processes result in "winners" and "losers."

I have conducted classes where decisions were made on consensus process, to a very good effect.

Yeah, smaller groups I've seen it work with. Any sort of large group? Cannot possibly see how it could work in any timely fashion. And Friends are raised in the environment of consensus-building, so that's a strong social bond there to make it work.

I've used it in corporations, but only with highly-skilled and dedicated professionals who could keep their egos in check.

I don't think it's suited for a large group of people with only a loose bond. Even if it does work, it'll take an onerous amount of time.

I don't really have any other solution; my main feeling is that there are strong divisions inside the protesters that reveal themselves whenever the group attempts action. The difference between the group that's still politically engaged and the group that sees even participating in the political system as being part of the problem.

Daniel posted in one of his pages on Occupy LA that there was a woman there who was helping the process a lot; I think that individuals matter a hell of a lot in this sort of thing and the right or wrong person could change a lot.

90 Talking Point Detective  Tue, Oct 18, 2011 12:07:25pm

re: #87 Talking Point Detective

And BTW - I think the single biggest factor in terms of the effectiveness of this group will be whether or not it incorporates a diverse group of participants.

My hope is that this group will have an electoral impact. I don't see that as happening unless it has a significant minority involvement. I have suggested to people heavily involved in Philly that they rally at the Fox Business School and/or Wharton - both of which are located in minority communities (and both of which train financial hacks to leverage investments in the very way that brought the economy down).

None of that changes my perspective on the Occupy Atlanta event, and my observation that people are approaching what happened with Lewis with a predisposition to read into it what they want rather than draw conclusions from an open observation. Of course, I would include myself in that category also - which is why it is important to discuss what the evidence really was.

91 Talking Point Detective  Tue, Oct 18, 2011 12:13:49pm

re: #89 Obdicut

Yeah, smaller groups I've seen it work with. Any sort of large group? Cannot possibly see how it could work in any timely fashion. And Friends are raised in the environment of consensus-building, so that's a strong social bond there to make it work.

I've used it in corporations, but only with highly-skilled and dedicated professionals who could keep their egos in check.

I don't think it's suited for a large group of people with only a loose bond. Even if it does work, it'll take an onerous amount of time.

I don't really have any other solution; my main feeling is that there are strong divisions inside the protesters that reveal themselves whenever the group attempts action. The difference between the group that's still politically engaged and the group that sees even participating in the political system as being part of the problem.

Daniel posted in one of his pages on Occupy LA that there was a woman there who was helping the process a lot; I think that individuals matter a hell of a lot in this sort of thing and the right or wrong person could change a lot.

I think I agree with most of that. I've seen the process work overall in large groups at Haverford College, but certainly it wasn't problem-free there either. Certainly, the familiarity of Quakers with the process helps, but the vast majority of students at Haverford are non-Quakers with no familiarity with consensus processes when the enter the school.

I also see balancing benefits to the logistical problems. In the end, it will be interesting to see if they stick with it (groups that try consensus processes frequently don't), and if they do, what the ultimate outcome will be. Again, thus far I think they have accomplished more than I would have predicted, and more than has been accomplished on "the left" for years. In particular, I think that when you're trying to include people who would largely be excluded from decision-making processes - such as homeless people who are participating in the events here in Philly - there is a larger context for evaluating pluses and minuses than a simple measurement of a limited set of outcomes. If the consensus process has an impact of changing how people view each other, and connecting people to "the other" in ways that they've never had previous contact, there is something to be gained besides what can be measured through specifically political metrics.

92 Talking Point Detective  Tue, Oct 18, 2011 12:19:20pm

re: #88 SanFranciscoZionist

My thought about extremely structured consensus procedures is that they end up with results that are either coerced by the leadership, or just not functional results, because there was no leadership.

Leaders who are committed to a consensus process ≠ "leaderless."

Reaching decisions that are "coerced" by leaders is certainly not a feature I would ascribe to consensus process as compared to other democratic decision-making processes.

93 Obdicut  Tue, Oct 18, 2011 12:19:59pm

re: #91 Talking Point Detective

Um, explain how they've accomplished far more than 'the left' has accomplished in decades.

Last year, I worked with a group that got a labor bill passed in the New York Assembly, and we're pretty close to getting it through in the Senate. Before that, they managed to kill an unincorporated business tax that benefited the big industries at the cost of small independent businessmen and contractors. Saved the average freelancer a few thousand a year.

What have these guys achieved so far?

94 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Oct 18, 2011 12:24:21pm

re: #79 Talking Point Detective

Judging it as "moronic" is subjective. Lewis himself indicated that he was quite supportive of their process.

Yes. It's a subjective judgement, which I am making. And I think it's nice that Lewis was supportive of them, although at the time, I think he looked, as someone put it, as though he were waiting for Alan Funt to leap out from behind the shrubbery.

95 Talking Point Detective  Tue, Oct 18, 2011 12:27:58pm

re: #93 Obdicut

Um, explain how they've accomplished far more than 'the left' has accomplished in decades.

Last year, I worked with a group that got a labor bill passed in the New York Assembly, and we're pretty close to getting it through in the Senate. Before that, they managed to kill an unincorporated business tax that benefited the big industries at the cost of small independent businessmen and contractors. Saved the average freelancer a few thousand a year.

What have these guys achieved so far?

Good point. I've worked with groups that have achieved concrete goals as well, that I would describe as being more impactful than what OWS has achieved so far.

My thinking is more along the lines of "the left" as a larger entity rather than particular groups that are oriented towards a specific goal. Thus far, this group has, I believe, had an influence on making a focus on corporate greed more palatable to the larger electorate - when it seemed that the Republicans were making headway going in the other direction on that issue. I think that issue is a huge issue, so even moderate progress can have a significant impact.

But you're right - I went too far with my previous statement.

96 Talking Point Detective  Tue, Oct 18, 2011 12:32:00pm

re: #94 SanFranciscoZionist

Yes. It's a subjective judgement, which I am making. And I think it's nice that Lewis was supportive of them, although at the time, I think he looked, as someone put it, as though he were waiting for Alan Funt to leap out from behind the shrubbery.

I didn't see that at all. During part of the discussion about not letting him speak, Lewis actually seemed to be shaking his head in agreement.

I think it is more than "nice," I think it is an extraordinary example of what a class act he is, and a recognition that he linked what he witnessed to his work as a civil rights activist. He stated such explicitly.

In terms of his reaction, I think his statement carries more weight than either your or my interpretation of his facial expressions and/or body language.

97 CuriousLurker  Tue, Oct 18, 2011 12:34:40pm

Antisemitism seems to be ubiquitous, or nearly so, therefore I have to wonder what the chances are that any large, diverse group won't be infected by it to some degree. I'm not saying that my observation* excuses it, only that I wonder...does anyone know of such a group where antisemitism is 100% absent?

* It's an observation that just dawned on me, and it's a disheartening one.

98 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Oct 18, 2011 12:35:56pm

re: #87 Talking Point Detective

What do you think is incorrect about my observations? They cheered Lewis and lauded his accomplishments. A large % wanted to hear him speak.

Do you think that despite that, it is valid to characterize the event as "racially charged." What does that mean, exactly? That for some, the question of a mostly white group not allowing a black civil rights leader to speak touched upon issues of race? No matter what the results of the process had been, race would have been an element in what took place. Would you be less inclined to assume an aspect of being "racially charged" had the group over-turned their previously agreed-to process in order to hear him speak?

I've told you what I saw. You see it differently.

Yes, race would have been an aspect regardless. That doesn't mean that I don't see something I don't much care for--layers of it--in how the situation was actually handled. And I don't have any interest in, or reverence for, their process, so that part doesn't actually hold water with me.

I saw a degree of acting on racial privilege and ignorance that I did not like. I think that some of the black Occupistas were also bothered by it, judging from body language and some murmuring in the crowd. Call me crazy, call me scarred for life from a liberal arts education in the 1990s, call it what you will. I'm not calling these folks bad people--but they seemed a touch clueless to me in that moment.

99 Sol Berdinowitz  Tue, Oct 18, 2011 12:37:03pm

re: #97 CuriousLurker

Antisemitism seems to be ubiquitous, or nearly so, therefore I have to wonder what the chances are that any large, diverse group won't be infected by it to some degree. I'm not saying that my observation* excuses it, only that I wonder...does anyone know of such a group where antisemitism is 100% absent?

* It's an observation that just dawned on me, and it's a disheartening one.

Probably only in isolated Amazonian tribes who have never heard of Jewish people..

100 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Oct 18, 2011 12:37:41pm

re: #92 Talking Point Detective

Leaders who are committed to a consensus process ≠ "leaderless."

Reaching decisions that are "coerced" by leaders is certainly not a feature I would ascribe to consensus process as compared to other democratic decision-making processes.

How nice.

101 OhNoZombies!  Tue, Oct 18, 2011 12:38:21pm

It seems like Lewis recognizes that these protests are in their infancy, and points to the fact that the consensus process was used in the early days of the Civil Rights movement.
I have to find my source, but the present view of the Civil Rights movement is a bit romanticized. My understanding is that it initially wasn't very organized, and that the establishment tried to delegitimize the movement and Dr. King by saying things like he was a troublemaker & only wanted blacks and whites to be able to marry etc.
If it weren't for specific events, like The murder of Emmet Till, or church bombings ,etc., that galvanized disparate groups with varying goals, the entire movement could have been derailed.

102 CuriousLurker  Tue, Oct 18, 2011 12:38:58pm

re: #99 ralphieboy

Probably only in isolated Amazonian tribes who have never heard of Jewish people..

You're probably right. *sigh*

103 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Oct 18, 2011 12:39:01pm

re: #97 CuriousLurker

Antisemitism seems to be ubiquitous, or nearly so, therefore I have to wonder what the chances are that any large, diverse group won't be infected by it to some degree. I'm not saying that my observation* excuses it, only that I wonder...does anyone know of such a group where antisemitism is 100% absent?

* It's an observation that just dawned on me, and it's a disheartening one.

Not really. As I've said, my biggest concern with this is the ugly track record of some organizations that will drawn to this as a moth to flame, and bringing their own issues with them.

104 CuriousLurker  Tue, Oct 18, 2011 12:41:04pm

re: #103 SanFranciscoZionist

Not really. As I've said, my biggest concern with this is the ugly track record of some organizations that will drawn to this as a moth to flame, and bringing their own issues with them.

I hear you and I agree. I'm just kind of bummed out by by little epiphany.

105 Sol Berdinowitz  Tue, Oct 18, 2011 12:41:21pm

re: #103 SanFranciscoZionist

Not really. As I've said, my biggest concern with this is the ugly track record of some organizations that will drawn to this as a moth to flame, and bringing their own issues with them.

Wherever banks are being protested, it is bound to to bring out the "Jewish bankers run the world" meme, and big-time.

106 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Oct 18, 2011 12:42:56pm

re: #103 SanFranciscoZionist

Not really. As I've said, my biggest concern with this is the ugly track record of some organizations that will drawn to this as a moth to flame, and bringing their own issues with them.

Which is to say, the signs and interviews we've seen so far don't worry me much. They're not the people I'm worried about.

107 OhNoZombies!  Tue, Oct 18, 2011 12:42:59pm

Economic hardship can bring out the worst in people.

108 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Oct 18, 2011 12:46:53pm

re: #105 ralphieboy

Wherever banks are being protested, it is bound to to bring out the "Jewish bankers run the world" meme, and big-time.

Type in 'who runs the world' into Google, and you get three video links to Beyonce, and the first page hit is rense dot com.

We can combine this.

Who run the world? Jews! x4
Who run this motha? Jews! x4
Who run the world? Jews! x4

To continue, I'd have to use language my mother doesn't approve of, because "Gentiles" does not scan.

109 Talking Point Detective  Tue, Oct 18, 2011 12:47:52pm

re: #98 SanFranciscoZionist

I've told you what I saw. You see it differently.

Yes, race would have been an aspect regardless. That doesn't mean that I don't see something I don't much care for--layers of it--in how the situation was actually handled. And I don't have any interest in, or reverence for, their process, so that part doesn't actually hold water with me.

I saw a degree of acting on racial privilege and ignorance that I did not like. I think that some of the black Occupistas were also bothered by it, judging from body language and some murmuring in the crowd. Call me crazy, call me scarred for life from a liberal arts education in the 1990s, call it what you will. I'm not calling these folks bad people--but they seemed a touch clueless to me in that moment.

Ok. It looked to me like Lewis was nodding his head in confirmation when someone spoke about no one person being allocated special privilege in the group. His statement later seemed to confirm my observation.

I would have been equally suspicious of the "racial charge" to the event had they simply overturned an agreed-upon process because Lewis is a civil rights leader. That could easily be, to me, an example of lip service to the civil rights movement I've often seen that doesn't move forward when majority-white liberal groups have to make important decisions to prioritize a focus on racial inequities.

In the end, I will judge this groups "racial charge" on two metrics: (1) the level of minority involvement and, (2) the level of specifically-focused effort it makes to involve minorities. From what I've seen so far (in Philly, which has a large % of minorities), they have made limited progress on both of those metrics so far.

I didn't see anything in the Occupy Atlanta video to be very instructive in that regard. To each his/her own.

110 OhNoZombies!  Tue, Oct 18, 2011 12:52:00pm
111 Talking Point Detective  Tue, Oct 18, 2011 1:00:00pm

re: #101 OhNoZombies!

I have to find my source, but the present view of the Civil Rights movement is a bit romanticized. My understanding is that it initially wasn't very organized, and that the establishment tried to delegitimize the movement and Dr. King by saying things like he was a troublemaker & only wanted blacks and whites to be able to marry etc.

The "outside agitator" meme was quite often used against King. Read his letter from a Birmingham jail, and you'll get a nice run-down of many of the methods that were used to legitimize his role in the movement - including those of more radical black activists.

In point of fact, I don't see that as being an entirely different animal than attempts, of some, to legitimize the OWS movement (or, for that matter, the Tea Partiers). There is nothing surprising that people hold up fringe elements of a movement to characterize the movement in general.

112 OhNoZombies!  Tue, Oct 18, 2011 1:10:35pm

re: #111 Talking Point Detective

Exactly. That's why I think it's too early to write OWS off at this point.


This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT
LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal
Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh
Texas County at Center of Border Fight Is Overwhelmed by Migrant Deaths EAGLE PASS, Tex. - The undertaker lighted a cigarette and held it between his latex-gloved fingers as he stood over the bloated body bag lying in the bed of his battered pickup truck. The woman had been fished out ...
Cheechako
4 weeks ago
Views: 441 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1