fyi<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">---------- Forwarded message ----------<br>From: <b class="gmail_sendername">Le Monde diplomatique</b> <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:english@mondediplo.net">english@mondediplo.net</a>></span><br>
<br>
<div style="background:#fff;margin:0;padding:0;text-align:center;font-size:12px;font-family:'Luxi sans','Lucida sans','Lucida Grande',Lucida,'Lucida Sans Unicode',sans-serif;color:#333">
<div style="margin:1px auto;text-align:left;width:600px;border:1px solid #ccc">
<div style="text-align:right;padding-right:20px;padding-bottom:5px;padding-top:10px;font-size:11px;color:#666666"> 7 January 2013</div>
<div style="background:#fff;margin-bottom:0px;min-height:50px;display:block">
<a rel="start" href="http://mondediplo.com/" target="_blank"> <img alt="Le Monde diplomatique" style="border:0"> </a>
</div>
<div style="margin-top:20px;padding:20px">
<div style="float:left;width:390px">
<div style="font-size:1.2em;font-variant:small-caps;font-weight:bold;margin:0 0 0.3em;padding:0">Occupy Wall Street and its evil twin, the Tea Party</div>
<h1 style="font-size:1.7em;padding-bottom:0.3em;margin:0;font-weight:bold"><a href="http://mondediplo.com/2013/01/06occupy" style="color:#92191c;text-decoration:none" target="_blank">Yes, but what are you for?</a></h1><div style="color:#666666;font-size:1em;font-weight:normal">
by Thomas Frank</div>
<div style="font-size:1.2em;font-weight:bold;line-height:1.3em;margin:20px 0 10px"> Reading all the accounts of Occupy Wall Street's theorising in Zuccotti Park can send you to sleep: all academic prose and no real world action or demands. They also make explicit Occupy's resemblance to its enemy, the Tea Party.</div>
<div style="font-family:'Times new roman',serif;font-size:1.2em;font-weight:normal;line-height:1.3em;margin:0 0 0.2em"> <p>There is a scene I always recall when I try to remember the exhilarating effect that Occupy Wall Street (OWS) had on me when it was first getting going. I was on a subway train in Washington, DC, reading an article about the protests in Zuccotti Park in Manhattan. It was three years after the Wall Street bailouts. It was two years after everyone I knew had given up hope in the creativity of Barack Obama. It was two months after the bankers' friends in the Republican Party had pushed the country right to the brink of default in order to underscore their hallucinatory economic theories. Like everyone else, I had had enough.</p>
<p>Anyhow, the subway car was boarded by some perfectly dressed, perfectly polished corporate executive, clearly on the way back from some trade show, carrying a tote bag that bore some jaunty slogan about maximising shareholder value or what a fine thing luxury is or how glorious it is to be a winner - the kind of sentiment that had been commonplace a short while before but that the American public had now turned bitterly against. The man was clearly uncomfortable with it on his person. And I considered the situation: once upon a time I would have been embarrassed to hold a copy of this magazine on a crowded subway, but now it was people like him who would have to conceal what they did.</p>
<p>A while later I happened to watch an online video of an Occupy panel discussion held at a bookstore in New York; at some point in the recording, a panellist objected to the way protesters had of saying they were "speaking for themselves" rather than acknowledging that they were part of a group. Another one of the panellists was moved to utter this riposte: "People can only speak for themselves, that the self would be under erasure there, in that the self is then held into question, as any poststructuralist thought leading through anarchism would push you towards... 'I can only speak for myself', the 'only' is operative there, and of course these spaces are being opened up."</p>
<h3 style="padding:0px;margin:1.5em 0 0.8em 0;font-size:1.2em;font-weight:bold;font-family:Lucida Sans,Lucida Sans Unicode,Lucida Grande,LucidaGrande,Lucida,Luxi sans,sans-serif">'Remember, carnivals come cheap'</h3>
<p>As soon as I heard this long, desperate stream of pseudointellectual gibberish, I knew instantly that this thing was doomed. <i>"</i>There is a danger," the Slovenian philosopher Slavoj Žižek warned the OWS encampment in Zuccotti Park last year: "Don't fall in love with yourselves. We have a nice time here. But remember, carnivals come cheap. What matters is the day after, when we will have to return to normal lives. Will there be any changes then?"</p>
<p>Žižek's remarks appear in <i>n</i>+1 magazine's <i>Occupy!: Scenes from Occupied America,</i> the first book to appear on the subject of last year's protests. That volume was eventually followed by numerous others (<a href="#13c1605e095b28e2_nb11-1" style="color:#92191c;text-decoration:none">1</a>).</p>
<p>Nearly all of these books wander more or less directly into the "danger" Žižek warned against. They are deeply, hopelessly in love with this protest. Each one takes for granted that the Occupy campaign was world-shaking and awe-inspiring - indeed, this attitude is often asserted in the book's very title: <i><a href="http://www.yesmagazine.org/people-power/this-changes-everything-how-the-99-woke-up" style="color:#92191c;text-decoration:none" target="_blank">This Changes Everything: Occupy Wall Street and the 99% Movement</a></i> (<a href="#13c1605e095b28e2_nb11-2" style="color:#92191c;text-decoration:none">2</a>). The superlatives are heaped up without restraint or caution. "The 99% has awakened. The American political landscape will never again be the same," says the editor of <i>Voices From the 99 Percent: an Oral History of the Occupy Wall Street Movement</i> (Red and Black, 2011). But that is nothing when compared to the enthusiasm of former <i>New York Times</i> re
porter Chris Hedges. In <i>Days of Destruction, Days of Revolt</i> (Nation Books, 2011), he compares Occupy to the 1989 revolutions in East Germany, Czechoslovakia, and Romania. The protesters in New York, he writes, "were disorganised at first, unsure of what to do, not even convinced they had achieved anything worthwhile, but they had unwittingly triggered a global movement of resistance that would reverberate across the country and in the capitals of Europe. The uneasy status quo, effectively imposed for decades by the elites, was shattered. Another narrative of power took shape. The revolution began."</p>
<p>With a few exceptions, these books are amazingly, soporifically <i>the same</i>. They tell the same anecdotes. They quote the same "communiqués". They dwell on the same details. They even adopt, one after another, the same historical interpretations.</p>
<p>The details of that carnival are the subject matter of nearly all the books reviewed here - details that are described with loving, granular singularity. Should readers be interested, they can now learn as much about what happened in Zuccotti Park in New York City during those magical 60 days of OWS as they can from other books about the inner workings of the Obama Administration, or the decision-making of Congress. Indeed, measured by words published per square foot of setting, Zuccotti Park may well be the most intensely scrutinised landscape in recent journalistic history.</p>
<h3 style="padding:0px;margin:1.5em 0 0.8em 0;font-size:1.2em;font-weight:bold;font-family:Lucida Sans,Lucida Sans Unicode,Lucida Grande,LucidaGrande,Lucida,Luxi sans,sans-serif">Why did this effort fail?</h3>
<p>Yet, Occupy itself is pretty much gone, evicted from Zuccotti Park about two months after it began. With the exception of some residual groups here and there, populated by the usual activist types, OWS has pretty much fizzled out. The media storm that once surrounded it has blown off to other quarters. Pause for a moment and compare this record of accomplishment to that of Occupy's evil twin, the Tea Party movement, and the larger rightwing revival of which it is a part. Well, under the urging of this trumped-up protest movement, the Republican Party proceeded to win a majority in the US House of Representatives; in the state legislatures of the nation it took some 600 seats from the Democrats; it has even succeeded in having one of its own, Paul Ryan, named as the GOP's vice-presidential candidate.</p>
<p>The question that the books under consideration seek to answer is: What is the magic formula that made OWS so successful? But it's exactly the wrong question. What we need to be asking about Occupy Wall Street is; Why did this effort fail? How did OWS blow all the promise of its early days? Why do even the most popular efforts of the left come to be mired in a gluey swamp of academic talk and pointless anti-hierarchical posturing?</p>
<p>The action certainly started with a bang. When the occupation of Zuccotti Park began, in September 2011, the OWS cause was overwhelmingly popular; indeed, as Todd Gitlin points out, hating Wall Street may well have been the most popular leftwing cause since the 1930s. Inequality had reached obscene levels, and it was no longer the act of a radical to say so. The bank bailouts of the preceding years had made it obvious that government was captured by organised money. Just about everyone resented Wall Street in those days; just about everyone was happy to see someone finally put our fury in those crooks' overpaid faces. People flocked to the OWS standard. Cash donations poured in; so did food and books. Celebrities made appearances in Zuccotti, and the media began covering the proceedings with an attentiveness it rarely gives to leftist actions.</p>
<p>But these accounts mostly misread that overwhelming approval of Occupy's <i>cause</i> as an approval of the movement's mechanics: the camping out in the park, the way food was procured for an army of protesters, the endless search for consensus, the showdowns with the cops, the twinkles. These things, almost every writer separately assumes, are what the Occupy phenomenon was <i>really</i> about. These are the details the public hungers to know.</p>
<p>The actual sins of Wall Street, by contrast, are far less visible. For example, when you read <i>Occupying Wall Street,</i> the work of a team of writers who participated in the protests, you first hear about the subject of predatory lending when a sympathetic policeman mentions it in the course of a bust. The authors themselves never bring it up.</p>
<p>And if you want to know how the people in Zuccotti intended to block the banks' agenda - how they intended to stop predatory lending, for example - you have truly come to the wrong place. Not because it's hard to figure out how to stop predatory lending, but because the way the Occupy campaign is depicted in these books, it seems to have had no intention of doing anything except building "communities" in public spaces and inspiring mankind with its noble refusal to have leaders.</p>
<h3 style="padding:0px;margin:1.5em 0 0.8em 0;font-size:1.2em;font-weight:bold;font-family:Lucida Sans,Lucida Sans Unicode,Lucida Grande,LucidaGrande,Lucida,Luxi sans,sans-serif">The process is the message</h3>
<p>Unfortunately, that's not enough. Building a democratic movement culture is essential for movements on the left, but it's also just a starting point. Occupy never evolved beyond it. It didn't lead a strike (a real one, that is) or a sit-in or a blockade of a recruitment centre, or a takeover of the dean's office. For Occupy, the horizontal culture was everything. "The process is the message," as the protesters used to say.</p>
<p>Whether or not to have demands was something that Occupy protesters debated hotly among themselves in the days when Occupy actually occupied something. A year later, that debate seems to have been consensed out of existence. Virtually none of the authors reviewed here will say forthrightly that the failure to generate demands was a tactical mistake. On the contrary: the quasi-official account of the episode (<i>Occupying Wall Street</i>) laughs off demands as a fetish object of literal-minded media types who stupidly crave hierarchy and chains of command. Chris Hedges tells us that demands were something required only by "the elites, and their mouthpieces in the media." Enlightened people are supposed to know better; demands imply the legitimacy of the adversary, meaning the US government and its friends, the banks. Launching a protest with no formal demands is thought to be a great accomplishment, a gesture of surpassing democratic virtue.</p>
<p>And here we come to the basic contradiction of the campaign. To protest against Wall Street in 2011 was to protest, obviously, against the outrageous financial misbehaviour that gave us the Great Recession; against the political power of money, which gave us the bailouts; against the runaway compensation practices that have turned our society's productive labour into bonuses for the 1%. All three of these catastrophes were brought on by deregulation and tax-cutting - <i>by a philosophy of liberation as anarchic in its rhetoric as Occupy was in reality</i>. Check your premises, Rand-fans: it was the bankers' own uprising against the hated state that wrecked the American way of life.</p>
<p>Nor does it require "poststructuralism leading through anarchism" to understand how to reverse these developments. You do it by rebuilding a powerful and competent regulatory state. You do it by rebuilding the labour movement. <i>You do it with bureaucracy</i>. Occupiers often seemed aware of this. Recall what you heard so frequently from protesters' lips back in the days of September 2011: restore the old Glass-Steagall law separating investment and commercial banks, they insisted. Bring back big government! Bring back safety! Bring back boredom!</p>
<h3 style="padding:0px;margin:1.5em 0 0.8em 0;font-size:1.2em;font-weight:bold;font-family:Lucida Sans,Lucida Sans Unicode,Lucida Grande,LucidaGrande,Lucida,Luxi sans,sans-serif">Cult of participation</h3>
<p>But that's no way to fire the imagination of the world. So, how do you maintain the carnival while secretly lusting for the CPAs? By indefinitely suspending the obvious next step. By having no demands. Demands would have signalled that humourless, doctrinaire adults "were back in charge and that the fun was over. This was an inspired way to play the situation in the beginning, and for a time it was a great success. But it also put a clear expiration date on the protests. As long as demands and the rest of the logocentric requirements were postponed, Occupy could never graduate to the next level. It would remain captive to what Christopher Lasch criticised - back in 1973 - as the "cult of participation," in which the experience of protesting is what protesting is all about.</p>
<p>The rhetoric in Zuccotti Park was also, of course, loudly majoritarian. But in practice, to judge by these books, OWS tasted overwhelmingly of one monotonous flavour: academia, with a subtle bouquet of career activism. Protestors are not always identified by occupation in these books, but when they are, they usually turn out to be college students, or recent graduates, or graduate students, or professors.</p>
<p>There's nothing wrong with college students and grad students taking to the streets, of course. Society needs to hear from them. When tuition prices hit stratospheric levels, when recent grads routinely carry a hundred grand in debt, and when people studying for a PhD are exploited shamelessly, they damn well <i>ought</i> to be protesting. They should be shutting the system down. They should be screaming for price controls. Just look at what happened earlier this year in Quebec, where a huge part of the population came out in support of student groups demanding affordable higher education: <i>the protesters actually won</i>. They got what they wanted. Social protest secured academic opportunity.</p>
<p>What I object to is the opposite: high-powered academic disputation as a model for social protest. Why does the subject of Occupy so often inspire its admirers to reach for their most elevated jargonese? Why would certain Occupiers break from the action to participate in panel discussions? Why did others choose to share their protest recollections in the pages of <i>American Ethnologist</i> or the <i>Journal of Critical Globalisation Studies</i>? Why would a pamphlet clearly intended as a sort of<i> Common Sense</i> for the age of Occupy be filled with declarations such as this: "Our point of attack here is the dominant forms of subjectivity produced in the context of the current social and political crisis. We engage four primary subjective figures - the indebted, the mediatised, the securitised and the represented - all of which are impoverished and their powers for social action are masked or mystified. Movements of revolt and rebellion, we
find, provide us the means not only to refuse the repressive regimes under which these subjective figures suffer but also to invert these subjectivities in figures of power" (<a href="#13c1605e095b28e2_nb11-3" style="color:#92191c;text-decoration:none">3</a>).</p>
<p>And dear god <i>why,</i> after only a few months of occupying Zuccotti Park, did Occupiers feel they needed to <i>launch their own journal of academic theory, Occupy Theory,</i> which then proceeded to fill its pages with impenetrable essays seemingly written to demonstrate, one more time, the Arctic futility of theory-speak? Is this how you build a mass movement? By persistently choosing the opposite of plain speech?</p>
<p>I know the answer: for a protest to become a broader social movement it must analyse and strategise and theorise. Well, this one did enough theorizing for all the protests of the last 40 years, and yet it somehow never managed to make the grade.</p>
<p>Occupy did lots of things right: It had a great slogan and a perfect enemy and it captured the public imagination. It built a democratic movement culture. It reached out to organised labour, a crucial step in the right direction. It talked a lot about solidarity, the basic virtue of the left. But in practice, academic requirements often seemed to come first. OWS was taken as a proving ground for theory. Its ranks weren't just filled with professionals and professionals-to-be; far too often the campaign itself appeared to be an arena for professional credentialing.</p>
<p>Actually, that's an optimistic way of putting it. The pessimistic way is to open Michael Kazin's recent book, <i>American Dreamers,</i> and take sober note of the fact that, with the partial exception of the anti-apartheid campaign of the 80s, no movement of the left has caught on with the broad American public since the Civil Rights/Vietnam War era. Oh, there have been plenty of leftists during this period, of course - especially in academia. Studying "resistance" is a well-worn career path, if not the very definition of certain sub-disciplines. But for all its intellectual attainments, the left keeps losing. It simply cannot make common cause with ordinary American people anymore.</p>
<p>Maybe this has happened because the left has come to be dominated by a single profession whose mode of operating is deliberately abstruse, ultra-hierarchical, argumentative, and judgmental - handing down As and Fs is its daily chore - and is thus the exact opposite of majoritarian. Maybe it has happened because the left really is a place of Puritanical contempt for average people, almost all of whom can be shown to have sinned in some imperialist way or other. Maybe it is because the collapse of large-scale manufacturing makes social movements obsolete. We do not know. And none of the accounts on OWS under review here get us any closer to an answer.</p>
<p>Occupy people don't like Tea Party people; this is another point of unanimous agreement. Indeed, in the mind of Occupy, Tea Party people apparently aren't really people at all; different biological principles apply to them. Consider a recent essay in Occupy's theory journal by Judith Butler, a professor at Columbia University, who writes with revulsion about a Tea Party gathering where people reportedly cheered for the coming deaths of sick persons who weren't insured. "Under what economic and political conditions do such joyous forms of cruelty emerge?" she asks.</p>
<p>It's a good question. Two paragraphs later, however, the subject has inevitably changed to Occupy and its glamorous refusal to make demands, and Butler has theorised herself into a very different understanding of protesters-in-crowds: they are inherently liberationist. "When bodies gather as they do to express their indignation and to enact their plural existence in public space, they are also making broader demands," she writes. "They are demanding to be recognized and to be valued; they are exercising a right to appear and to exercise freedom; they are calling for a liveable life" (<a href="#13c1605e095b28e2_nb11-4" style="color:#92191c;text-decoration:none">4</a>). This is automatically what indignant people do, just by showing up and enacting their existence with their bodies - except, apparently, when they are the people described two paragraphs before. When the indignant ones are Tea Partiers, I guess, their bodies carry a negative charge or something so that when <i>the
y</i> gather, what they demand is that the lives of others be stripped from them.</p>
<h3 style="padding:0px;margin:1.5em 0 0.8em 0;font-size:1.2em;font-weight:bold;font-family:Lucida Sans,Lucida Sans Unicode,Lucida Grande,LucidaGrande,Lucida,Luxi sans,sans-serif">Similar cultures</h3>
<p>However, the two movements are superficially similar. Both are almost obsessively concerned with the bailouts of 2008. Participants in both describe the bailouts as "crony capitalism." Both make their displeasure known by occupying public spaces, and both forms of protest cherish stories about the lengths to which their cadres have gone to keep those public spaces clean. Both Tea and Occupy gave Ron Paul followers prominent roles, and you could hear calls to "End the Fed" in Zuccotti Park as well as at the big Glenn Beck rallies. Then there were those Anonymous masks, popular with both groups.</p>
<p>The movement cultures are similar, too. Tea Partiers as well as Occupiers deliberately kept their demands vague, the better to rope in a wide cross section of the discontented. And both groups fetishised their persecution. For the Occupiers it's the cops, pepper-spraying the defenceless and rounding up the righteous in scenes that each of these books dwells on at length. Will Bunch's <i>October 1, 2011: the Battle of the Brooklyn Bridge</i> (Kindle Singles) is a 45-page account of how a single Occupy march ended in a mass arrest. For the Tea Party, it's the liberal media calling them "racist," a bit of cruelty that rightwing authors reiterate as obsessively as the Occupiers do the cruelty of the NYPD (<a href="#13c1605e095b28e2_nb11-5" style="color:#92191c;text-decoration:none">5</a>).</p>
<p>Leaderlessness is another virtue claimed by <i>indignados</i> on the right as well as left. In fact, there's even a chapter in the 2010 "Tea Party manifesto" written by Dick Armey, entitled "We are a Movement of Ideas, Not Leaders". The reasoning, though, is the same here as it is with Occupy. As Armey puts it, "If they knew who was in charge, they could attack him or her. They could crush the inconvenient dissent of the Tea Party."</p>
<p>If you look closely enough at Tea Party culture, you can even find traces of the Occupiers' refusal to make explicit demands. Consider movement inamorata Ayn Rand (a philosopher every bit as prolix as Judith Butler) and her 1957 magnum opus <i>Atlas Shrugged,</i> where "demands" are something that government makes on behalf of its lazy and unproductive constituents. Businessmen, by contrast, deal in contracts; they act only via the supposedly consensual relations of the market. As John Galt, the leader of the book's capital strike, explains in a lengthy speech to the American people Rand clearly loathed: "We have no demands to present to you, no terms to bargain about, no compromise to reach. You have nothing to offer us. <i>We do not need you.</i>"</p>
<p>A strike with no demands? Why not? Because demands would imply the legitimacy of their enemy, the state. Rand's fake-sophisticated term for this is "the sanction of the victim." In the course of actualizing himself, the business tycoon - the "victim," in Rand's distorted worldview - is supposed to learn to withhold his blessing from the society that exploits him via taxes and regulations. Once enlightened, this billionaire is to have nothing to do with the looters and moochers of the liberal world; it is to be adversarial proceedings only.</p>
<h3 style="padding:0px;margin:1.5em 0 0.8em 0;font-size:1.2em;font-weight:bold;font-family:Lucida Sans,Lucida Sans Unicode,Lucida Grande,LucidaGrande,Lucida,Luxi sans,sans-serif">Rising up against 'the state'</h3>
<p>So how do Rand's precursors of the downtrodden 1% plan to prevai<i>l? By building a model community in the shell of the old, exactly as Occupy intended to do. </i>Instead of holding assemblies in the park, however, her persecuted billionaires retreat to an uncharted valley in Colorado where they practice perfect non-coercive capitalism, complete with a homemade gold standard.</p>
<p>One last similarity. The distinctive ideological move of the Tea Party was, of course, to redirect the public's fury away from Wall Street and toward government. And Occupy did it too, in a more abstract and theoretical way. Consider, for example, the words anthropologist Jeffrey Juris chooses when telling us why occupying parks was the thing to do: "The occupations contested the sovereign power of the state to regulate and control the distribution of bodies in space ... in part, by appropriating and resignifying particular urban spaces such as public parks and squares as arenas for public assembly and democratic expression" (<a href="#13c1605e095b28e2_nb11-6" style="color:#92191c;text-decoration:none">6</a>). This kind of rhetoric is entirely typical of both Occupy and the academic left - always fighting "the state" and its infernal power to "regulate and control" - but it doesn't take a very close reading of the text to notice that this language, with a little tweaking, could als
o pass as a libertarian protest against zoning.</p>
<p>Since none of the books described here take seriously the many obvious parallels between the two protests, none of them offers a theory for why the two were so strikingly similar. Allow me, then, to advance my own.</p>
<p>The reason Occupy and the Tea Party were such uncanny replicas of one another is because they both drew on the lazy, reflexive libertarianism that suffuses our idea of protest these days, all the way from Disney Channel teens longing to be themselves to punk rock teens vandalising a Starbucks. From Chris Hedges to Paul Ryan, every dissenter imagines that they are rising up against "the state." It's in the cultural DNA of our times, it seems.</p>
<p>But here's the rub: only the right manages to profit from it. As things developed, the Tea Party didn't really mean any of its horizontalist talk; that was just there to make the movement attractive to potential joiners. The Tea Party had no poststructuralist thinkers, but it did have money, organisation and a huge TV network (Fox News) at its back. It quickly developed leaders, and demands, and an alignment with the Republican Party. Occupy Wall Street never made that turn. It took its horizontality seriously. It grew explosively in the early days. But after the crackdown came, there was almost nothing to show for it.</p>
<p>Today the 2012 election is over, Barack Obama is still in the White House, Paul Ryan is still in the House of Representatives, the war on workers still goes on in places like Michigan, and Wall Street is still running the world. Yes, the plutocracy failed in its grand effort to persuade the public that it was our best friend. But the old order grinds on the same as before. It is obvious to me that the neoliberal era will only be brought to a close through some kind of mass social movement of the left - something like what I originally thought Occupy to be.</p>
</div>
<div style="color:#666666;font-size:1em;font-weight:normal;margin-bottom:0;text-align:right;font-style:italic;line-height:1.4em">Original text in English</div>
<div style="font-size:0.9em;font-weight:normal;margin:20px 0 0px 0;padding-top:10px;text-align:left;border-top:1px solid #ccc"><p>Thomas Frank is a journalist with <i>Harper's Magazine </i>and founder of <i>The Baffler </i>in which this article was first published (no 21, November-December 2012); he is the author of <i>Pity the Billionaire: the Hard-Times Swindle and the Unlikely Comeback of the Right, </i>Metropolitan Books, 2012</p>
<p>(<a href="#13c1605e095b28e2_nh11-1" style="color:#92191c;text-decoration:none">1</a>) For instance, Todd Gitlin's <i>Occupy Nation: the Roots, the Spirit, and the Promise of Occupy Wall Street,</i> HarperCollins, 2012, and the collective memoirs of participants, <i>Occupying Wall Street: The Inside Story of an Action that Changed America,</i> Haymarket, 2012.</p>
<p>(<a href="#13c1605e095b28e2_nh11-2" style="color:#92191c;text-decoration:none">2</a>) By Sarah Van Gelder and the team from <i>Yes Magazine,</i> Berrett-Koehler, 2012.</p>
<p>(<a href="#13c1605e095b28e2_nh11-3" style="color:#92191c;text-decoration:none">3</a>) Antonio Negri and Michael Hardt, "<a href="http://jacobinmag.com/2012/05/take-up-the-baton/" style="color:#92191c;text-decoration:none" target="_blank">Take up the baton</a>", Jacobin, May 2012</p>
<p>(<a href="#13c1605e095b28e2_nh11-4" style="color:#92191c;text-decoration:none">4</a>) Judith Butler, <i><a href="http://occupytheory.org/read/from-and-against-precarity.html" style="color:#92191c;text-decoration:none" target="_blank">From and Against Precarity</a>,</i> December 2011</p>
<p>(<a href="#13c1605e095b28e2_nh11-5" style="color:#92191c;text-decoration:none">5</a>) See, for example, Michael Graham's 2010 book, <i>That's No Angry Mob, That's My Mom: Team Obama's Assault on Tea-Party, Talk-Radio Americans,</i> which is concerned almost exclusively with cataloguing liberal insults directed at Tea people.</p>
<p>(<a href="#13c1605e095b28e2_nh11-6" style="color:#92191c;text-decoration:none">6</a>) Jeffrey S Juris, "<a href="http://www.americanethnologist.org/2012/reflections-occupy-everywhere-social-media/" style="color:#92191c;text-decoration:none" target="_blank">Reflections on #Occupy Everywhere: social media, public space and emerging logic of aggregation</a>", <i>American Ethnologist,</i> vol 39, no 2, May 2012.</p>
</div>
<div style="clear:both"></div>
</div>
<div style="float:right;width:150px">
<div>
<a href="http://mondediplo.com/2013/01/" style="color:#92191c;text-decoration:none" target="_blank"><img alt="" width="140" height="140" style="border:1px solid #ccc;margin:0px 0px 0px 0px;padding:5px 5px 9px 5px"></a>
<div style="font-size:1.2em;font-weight:bold;margin:0px 0 15px 0;padding-top:10px;text-align:center"><a href="http://mondediplo.com/2013/01/" style="color:#92191c;text-decoration:none" target="_blank">
January 2013</a>
</div>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom:20px">
<h2 style="color:#333333;font-family:Georgia,'Times new roman',serif;font-size:1.3em;font-weight:normal;margin:5px 0 8px 0;padding:5px 0 0 0;text-align:center;border-top:3px solid #ccc">Diplomatic channels</h2>
<div style="background:#e2e2d3;padding:15px">
<div style="margin:0 0 20px 0">
<div>
<h2 style="border-bottom:1px solid #cccccc;font-size:1.1em;margin:0 0 3px 0;padding:0 0 3px 0;text-align:center;text-transform:uppercase;color:#333333"><a style="color:#333333;text-decoration:none" href="http://mondediplo.com/tag/open-access" target="_blank">Articles & blog</a></h2>
<ul style="margin:0;padding:0">
<li style="font-size:0.9em;list-style-position:inside;list-style-type:square;margin:0;padding:0"><a href="http://mondediplo.com/blogs/aleppo-s-cold-winter" style="color:#707070;text-decoration:none" target="_blank">Aleppo's cold winter</a>
<span style="font-size:0.8em;line-height:0.7em">(2013/01)</span></li>
<li style="font-size:0.9em;list-style-position:inside;list-style-type:square;margin:0;padding:0"><a href="http://mondediplo.com/blogs/ireland-urgent-need-for-change" style="color:#707070;text-decoration:none" target="_blank">Ireland, urgent need for change</a>
<span style="font-size:0.8em;line-height:0.7em">(2012/12)</span></li>
<li style="font-size:0.9em;list-style-position:inside;list-style-type:square;margin:0;padding:0"><a href="http://mondediplo.com/blogs/sandy-hook-america-s-culture-of-violence" style="color:#707070;text-decoration:none" target="_blank">Sandy Hook: America's culture of violence</a>
<span style="font-size:0.8em;line-height:0.7em">(2012/12)</span></li>
</ul>
</div>
<div style="clear:left"></div>
</div>
<div style="margin:0 0 20px 0">
<div>
<h2 style="border-bottom:1px solid #cccccc;font-size:1.1em;margin:0 0 3px 0;padding:0 0 3px 0;text-align:center;text-transform:uppercase;color:#333333"><a style="color:#333333;text-decoration:none" href="http://mondediplo.com/maps/" target="_blank">Maps</a></h2>
<ul style="margin:0;padding:0"><li style="font-size:0.9em;list-style-position:inside;list-style-type:square;margin:0;padding:0"><a href="http://mondediplo.com/maps/chinasea" style="color:#707070;text-decoration:none" target="_blank">Fighting for a couple of rocks</a><span style="font-size:0.8em;line-height:0.7em">
(2012/12)</span></li>
<li style="font-size:0.9em;list-style-position:inside;list-style-type:square;margin:0;padding:0"><a href="http://mondediplo.com/maps/margins" style="color:#707070;text-decoration:none" target="_blank">Africa without its margins</a><span style="font-size:0.8em;line-height:0.7em">
(2012/11)</span></li>
<li style="font-size:0.9em;list-style-position:inside;list-style-type:square;margin:0;padding:0"><a href="http://mondediplo.com/maps/space" style="color:#707070;text-decoration:none" target="_blank">From Earth to Mars</a><span style="font-size:0.8em;line-height:0.7em">
(2012/07)</span></li>
</ul>
</div>
<div style="clear:left"></div>
</div>
<div style="margin:0 0 20px 0">
<div>
<h2 style="border-bottom:1px solid #cccccc;font-size:1.1em;margin:0 0 3px 0;padding:0 0 3px 0;text-align:center;text-transform:uppercase;color:#333333"><a style="color:#333333;text-decoration:none" href="http://mondediplo.com/tag/podcasts" target="_blank">Podcasts</a></h2>
<ul style="margin:0;padding:0"><li style="font-size:0.9em;list-style-position:inside;list-style-type:square;margin:0;padding:0"><a href="http://mondediplo.com/2012/10/03zpodcast" style="color:#707070;text-decoration:none" target="_blank">Chase Madar on America's ever-growing state security apparatus</a><span style="font-size:0.8em;line-height:0.7em">
(2012/10)</span></li>
<li style="font-size:0.9em;list-style-position:inside;list-style-type:square;margin:0;padding:0"><a href="http://mondediplo.com/2012/09/06podcast" style="color:#707070;text-decoration:none" target="_blank">Michael Klare on China's resource hunger</a><span style="font-size:0.8em;line-height:0.7em">
(2012/09)</span></li>
<li style="font-size:0.9em;list-style-position:inside;list-style-type:square;margin:0;padding:0"><a href="http://mondediplo.com/2011/12/03podcast" style="color:#707070;text-decoration:none" target="_blank">The dismantling of Greece</a><span style="font-size:0.8em;line-height:0.7em">
(2011/12)</span></li>
</ul>
</div>
<div style="clear:left"></div>
</div>
<div style="margin:0 0 20px 0">
<div>
<h2 style="border-bottom:1px solid #cccccc;font-size:1.1em;margin:0 0 3px 0;padding:0 0 3px 0;text-align:center;text-transform:uppercase;color:#333333"><a style="color:#333333;text-decoration:none" href="http://mondediplo.com/tag/Images" target="_blank">Images</a></h2>
<ul style="margin:0;padding:0"><li style="font-size:0.9em;list-style-position:inside;list-style-type:square;margin:0;padding:0"><a href="http://mondediplo.com/blogs/profession-maid-a-photographic-film" style="color:#707070;text-decoration:none" target="_blank">Profession, maid: a photographic film</a><span style="font-size:0.8em;line-height:0.7em">
(2012/12)</span></li>
<li style="font-size:0.9em;list-style-position:inside;list-style-type:square;margin:0;padding:0"><a href="http://mondediplo.com/blogs/the-day-burma-began-to-change" style="color:#707070;text-decoration:none" target="_blank">The day Burma began to change</a><span style="font-size:0.8em;line-height:0.7em">
(2012/06)</span></li>
<li style="font-size:0.9em;list-style-position:inside;list-style-type:square;margin:0;padding:0"><a href="http://mondediplo.com/blogs/ganbaro-keep-fighting-on" style="color:#707070;text-decoration:none" target="_blank">'Ganbaro', keep fighting on</a><span style="font-size:0.8em;line-height:0.7em">
(2011/09)</span></li>
</ul>
</div>
<div style="clear:left"></div>
</div>
<div style="margin:0 0 20px 0">
<div>
<h2 style="border-bottom:1px solid #cccccc;font-size:1.1em;margin:0 0 3px 0;padding:0 0 3px 0;text-align:center;text-transform:uppercase;color:#333333"><a style="color:#333333;text-decoration:none" href="http://mondediplo.com/openpage/" target="_blank">Open page</a></h2>
<ul style="margin:0;padding:0"><li style="font-size:0.9em;list-style-position:inside;list-style-type:square;margin:0;padding:0"><a href="http://mondediplo.com/openpage/the-u-s-intelligence-community-s-new-year-s-wish" style="color:#707070;text-decoration:none" target="_blank">The U.S. intelligence community's new year's wish</a><span style="font-size:0.8em;line-height:0.7em">
(2013/01)</span></li>
<li style="font-size:0.9em;list-style-position:inside;list-style-type:square;margin:0;padding:0"><a href="http://mondediplo.com/openpage/the-visible-government" style="color:#707070;text-decoration:none" target="_blank">The Visible Government</a><span style="font-size:0.8em;line-height:0.7em">
(2012/12)</span></li>
<li style="font-size:0.9em;list-style-position:inside;list-style-type:square;margin:0;padding:0"><a href="http://mondediplo.com/openpage/picking-up-a-170-billion-tab" style="color:#707070;text-decoration:none" target="_blank">Picking up a $170 billion tab</a><span style="font-size:0.8em;line-height:0.7em">
(2012/12)</span></li>
</ul>
</div>
<div style="clear:left"></div>
</div>
</div> </div>
</div>
<div style="clear:both"></div>
</div>
<div style="text-align:center;padding:10px;margin:0px 20px;border-top:1px solid #ccc"> <img alt="© Le Monde diplomatique - all right reserved"></div>
</div>
</div>
</div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div><div><b>Enfield Faith and Community School</b></div>FB<a href="http://www.facebook.com/NorthLondonFreeSchool" target="_blank"><b> http://www.facebook.com/NorthLondonFreeSchool</b></a>
<div>Follow on Twitter<br>
<a href="https://twitter.com/enfieldfaith" target="_blank">https://twitter.com/enfieldfaith</a> <b>@enfieldfaith</b></div><div><a href="http://thefaithandcommunityschool.wordpress.com/" target="_blank"><b>http://thefaithandcommunityschool.wordpress.com/</b></a></div>
</div><div><b></b> </div><div><b>Local</b><u><font color="#0066cc"></font></u></div><div><u><font color="#0066cc"><a href="http://www.meetup.com/Enfield-Network21" target="_blank">http://www.meetup.com/Enfield-Network21</a></font></u></div>
<div><a href="http://fbpeopleslibrary.co.uk/" target="_blank">http://fbpeopleslibrary.co.uk/</a></div><div><u><font color="#0066cc"></font></u> </div><div><b>UK-wide</b></div><div><a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/democracy2015/" target="_blank">http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/democracy2015/</a></div>
<div> </div><div><b>London / World</b></div><div><a href="http://www.meetup.com/21stCenturyNetwork/" target="_blank">http://www.meetup.com/21stCenturyNetwork/</a></div><div><a href="http://www.globalnet21.org/" target="_blank">http://www.globalnet21.org/</a></div>
<div><a href="http://occupylondon.org.uk/" target="_blank">http://occupylondon.org.uk/</a></div><div><a href="http://www.peoplesassemblies.org" target="_blank">http://www.peoplesassemblies.org</a></div>