Occupy America Social Network
Occupy America Social Network
About
Tea-Party and Occupy: Tactical Conceptualization
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
(Picture courtesy of: http://www.occupythegame.com)
In military terms, how one observes the ‘field’ of conflict is referred to as ‘conceptualization of the battlespace,’ and is particularly sensitive to the multiple theories and examples throughout history that challenge contemporary 
thought on the matter. Hitherto, warfare was an extreme end of the political spectrum, used only with caution and under extreme scrutiny, but with the emergence of asymmetric warfare the lines of restraint have become blurred. To mark why Tactical and Strategic concepts are as important to broad-protest movements as to the elements of warfare I will redefine warfare as: any conflict where two or more sides battle for supremacy, either physically or psychologically. Wait a minute, psychologically? So now warfare encompasses civil disobedience. This definition isn’t far from examples used in certain dictionaries.[i]
It’s important to note because, although many think of warfare as tanks and missiles, people can die just as easily in protests – and most of the maneuvering and foundational elements of a war are present in such a charged political atmosphere. You are conducting warfare, in a different fashion, that could result in similar consequences. With this in mind it is very important to consider the consequences of any expression of a political nature because: a) if the expression fails you are inevitably leverage against what you were fighting for and b) you are risking your personal security, future, and potentially those who associate with you if affairs escalate beyond expectation.
If you have been to a powerful protest: Tea Party, Occupy, or otherwise, you have probably noticed that some of the aforementioned concerns crossed your mind or were mentioned in assembly.[ii] This is natural because certain concerns must be addressed, such as safety. How were those concerns handled, by who, and why? Someone had to take a stand and I’m sure someone else had no clue how the matter was being handled. All of this implies a hierarchy, which many try to claim is against the foundational elements of either movement. This is incorrect, and to foster such belief is to resign to the fact that you are actually against what you say you support. Herein lays the difference between sophistication and self-contradicting emotions.
In any type of conflict: military, social, or political, there are goals and reasons that the goals exist. Victors are generally those who consider their goals and the avenues to achieve them carefully. Concerning protests: they generally start as emotional upheavals due to a list of grievances – such grievances are how America came to be – and slowly these protests transform into proper and intelligently guided processes (ours ended with a Nation of States). Well, those which succeed, that is. A good example to the contrary, a warning of what mindless emotions may result, resides in the Arab Spring movement.[iii]
In the Revolutionary War we have multiple examples that support this claim. Emotions, and their resulting actions, by the likes of protestors outraged at their lot and position in life gave way to logical thinkers and those of reasonable intellectual caliber that inevitably transformed an emotional upheaval into debate over “enlightened” issues. This emotion-to-reason transition is observable in both the American and French Revolutionary Wars.[iv] The results of which can be observed in the US Constitution and the debates which led to its enactment.[v][vi][vii][viii]
Both movements fail to achieve this status because they fail to: organize, plan, and execute the agenda of whatever particular grievances they have listed. It’s not particularly important, at the moment, because the primary concepts that put each movement into play are still in existence. Thus, the first layer of incompetence can be remedied quite easily: organization.
For those savvy individuals in the commercial industry, what I’m referring to is the simplified version of many military theorems that have led to management concepts – which are the five general phases of Project Management. They are: Initiation, Planning, Execution, Control, and Closing (or achieving a result and reviewing how it came about)[ix]. The initiation phase worked out well for both grassroots movements as they discussed amongst themselves their grievances which resulted in execution on a large scale. Neither group assessed core grievances shared by those aligned, organized their hierarchy, or planned actions or re-actions to certain stimuli. The most “planning” that occurred was the planning of the execution phase – unfortunate, if you are one that truly holds grievances against the current establishment. Obviously there is no control phase as neither got far enough or were organized enough to initiate this phase.
So strategically, at this point, we have ascertained prior weaknesses and why they’re being called such. Protesting against the State for one reason or another is fine for venting emotions, but if the grievances are serious and one wishes to actually be “heard” it is imperative that certain facts are recognized: The State has in its employ intelligent and sophisticated individuals who use equally sophisticated concepts to deal with a wide range of problems. In order to approach the State on a serious level, without looking like a bunch of childish fools, a level of organization and sophistication are required. Each issue will be addressed, but first we must address the basics.
Logistics
The power of any movement resides in numbers. Beyond that we observe the leadership, organization, flexibility, and resolve. The numbers of both the Tea Party and Occupy movements were enough to receive an immediate reaction from the government (comparatively to how ‘quickly’ the government usually reacts to things). The Tea Party, because of their lack of organization and sophistication, allowed themselves to be absorbed by those which they have grievances. Occupy, because of their lack of organization and sophistication, were blatantly ignored, mistreated and tagged/absorbed by those which they have grievances. The mistreatment piece can be used as leverage, as will be explained later on, but at this point both movements are a gross disappointment. No flair, no maneuverability, because they didn’t apply their power.
Power, such as a large number of individuals, requires a focus to have any meaning. Unfocused, the core explodes in a thousand directions, people talk about it for a few months, and then it’s forgotten because it didn’t really do anything – although it was cool to watch. Unfocused the movements are easy to manipulate, easy to associate (with already existing influences) – and as we have all witnessed – easy to silence. Of course, I’m assuming that wasn’t the intended result. I’m assuming people were standing out in the rain with signs because they actually wanted to achieve something. I’m assuming we’re smart enough to include ‘focus’ somewhere in the equation.
The true power comes from the observation that both movements are essentially the same thing expressed by different ideologies. We are angry because we are broke. We are angry because Uncle Sam seems to be encroaching on our rights. We are angry because of wars. We are angry because of corruption, the obvious slant and control of the media, of the desecration of the Constitution, etc. Most are pissed at both political parties. (The point is: we’re pissed off for a variety of reasons). Most of the anger originates from the economic hardships we’ve been experiencing. If you’re good at number crunching then I’m sure you know that this is nothing compared to what’s on its way. In essence, economically, the world is up sh!t creek without a paddle.
So prudence dictates that the best approach to securing a future with less corruption, that will not include one form of despotism or another, is to take advantage of the foundations we have already laid out for ourselves. The power base exists and there are A LOT of people who are a part of that base – so now it is a matter of delivering the right message and organizing the people to achieve the results demanded by the list of grievances. (If the two groups end up working together the list will be much smaller, of course, but they’d be far more likely to have them met. Everything is a trade-off at one point or another, pick your poison).
Introduce: Organization
There are platforms available for communication and social networking media is how many of the protests were ‘spontaneously’ organized. There are websites already in existence, blogs with people itching for things to write about, phone lists, e-mail lists, etc. The framework is set for a powerful organization because both the Tea Party and Occupy are loosely organized – the network is pre-established. They already have resources and knowledgeable people who are a part of their ranks. The failure is in the lack of hierarchy and true organization: Structure, Goals, and the application of both toward a useful end. What they need is what they fear: leadership. They fear it because they’re protesting on the grounds that the current leadership has failed. Simple. The government usurped them by implying or acting as if they have leadership and then supplying them with the leaders they ‘ought’ to have. Childs-play.
Without leadership, maneuverability and complex methods of approach are nil because a ‘group’ will never make decisions fast enough to respond to sudden developments. So it’s very important that a caste of leadership is selected that do NOT hold the attributes and ambitions of those already in power. Our governing leaderships psychological tendencies are part of the problem that we should be attempting to correct, or at least take into consideration, so picking those same attributes will probably lead to similar problems. At the heart, all goals, directives, and grievances should be voted upon – the leadership caste is merely an instrument to have those ends met.
So here are two immediate objectives:
1) Bring both the Tea Party and Occupy movements together and see if there are ANY grievances that can be agreed upon, because those will surely be addressed.
2) If that fails – each group should elect what it represents as a whole and scratch anything that comes up as controversial. The grievances that survive can then be submitted to the State.
Once an accord is reached:
1) Organize the groups into a more conducive and decisive mechanism. Be sure to avoid all current political entanglements. If politicians invite themselves to your party, that’s fine, just don’t let them open their gums in front of the assembly – they’re part of the problem, NOT the solution. They don’t have the right to usurp private meetings – or meetings that are conducted in a rented area that clearly states no elected officials are invited.
Strategic Execution
(Picture courtesy of: http://www.enotes.com/organizational-structure-reference/organizati...)
The organizational hierarchy and its specific design should be agreed upon by each movement to properly express their concerns, but strategic execution and interfacing should always contain these three elements: Depth, Power, and Surprise. Each one concerns itself with the overall ‘big picture’ of the movement. Strategy is merely the planning to coordinate available resources to achieve a particular end. Tactics is generally the execution of this plan and how it’s handled on the ground. As things usually never go as planned – both variables are key components to being effective. Effectiveness, in this case, refers to having your grievances addressed.
Depth is considered as ‘the depth of organization,’ which is why certain business structures are designed the way they are, to eliminate or reduce Conflicts of Interest. Conflicts of Interest can occur many ways – where intended meetings cost too much and produce a stalemate between those who worry over the finances and those who are intent on the message, where a particular line of responsibilities counter-act another by design, and should be isolated from each other, or even to help control multiple different versions or loyalties within a group structure. Overall the Depth parameter is required to increase effectiveness, and by attempting to push against a juggernaut like the State in such a way to gain influence, maximum effectiveness is required. This also helps others involved to know who to contact if ever there is need. It also opens up opportunities for regional divisions and ‘masking’ the upper echelon of representation once agreement on their status is reached. Also, by being divided into specialties, it creates an environment suitable for maneuverability where multi-pronged efforts increase exposure and influence.
Power can be divided into two sub-sections: the Power of numbers, and the Power of leverage. The Power of Numbers is a simple concept – the more people you have the less they can afford to ignore you. Another way to look at it: the greater your numbers the greater a threat you represent. Always, in a movement, the intent is to increase your numbers so the State Framework understands the importance and far-reaching implications of the underlining grievances. If it were four guys enraged outside of a shopping center – you’d be lucky if anyone but the local cops even hear about it. If you are four million marching on D.C. – something is going to happen.
The Power of Leverage is based on your grievances and arguments. It also includes the Power of Numbers, because, by definition, the greater your influence the more leverage you have. The grievances should be solid core arguments about the current status quo to remove the potential of sarcastic mockery (the whole point is to be taken seriously). Other arguments of leverage can include the State’s abuses and usurpations OTHER THAN the initially listed grievances. This step is very importantboth strategically and tactically because it can further support by alienating the opposition and accentuating their weaknesses.
I mentioned in the first paragraph of Logistics, that the mistreatment upon the protesters nation-wide can be leveraged. Indeed, it already has been in many forms, as pictures from those events are famous world-wide, and international bodies have criticized our government’s stance. It is the job of the United States Government to protect people in those situations, not have them beat-up and tossed around like heaps of garbage. These events were the single most-powerful agent in supporting the Occupy movement since its inception. It would have gained considerable ground except for the fact that they had no organized construct or a set list of grievances to use as a foundation for that additional leverage.
Tactical Considerations
The United States government, since the grievances are all aligned toward that end, is observable as a top-heavy entity inundated with the diseconomies of scale.[x] There are efficiencies involved in government work, for sure, but overall the design and implementation is far from streamlined. The heavier the government becomes the heavier their responses because a more sense of “self” the entity has. Tactically this is their primary weakness, which the inefficiency of the government should be listed on someone’s grievance list, and can be exploited by merely expressing your opinion. To do this is to do what Occupy had done and organize mass protests at certain locations to get their attention. Too many of these and the governing bodies will feel it necessary to respond. More than likely, their response will be heavy-handed. That response can be used as leverage to further the agenda of having the grievances heard. Such responses can be included in campaign material to further the Power of Numbers and used as a scalpel against State Representatives to achieve maximum effect.
Conclusion
We could deny what protesting is, indeed, because the hatred for warfare and those who fear applying any sort of similarity between the two, but the facts are the facts. You are attempting to use leverage and momentum for a political and social agenda. Sometimes it becomes violent, sometimes it does not, but regardless you are in a state of maneuver to achieve a particular result and should accept responsibility for the potential outcome. The point is avoiding all of the childish excuses to the contrary, focusing on what the problem is, and then setting about solving the problem by means of common consensus. Just because the State can become violent doesn’t mean you must, as well, and the peaceful response to that violence is further support for your agenda.
You want to be heard? Then earn respect by organizing, focusing on your goals, out-maneuvering, and out-smarting your opponent. All the variables are in play that can work in your favor: the current policies and disposition of the government to the emotional and fractured status of the US social framework. If you really want change, America, you’d best get your priorities straight, be serious about it, and approach it intelligently. Otherwise you’re just wasting your time with philosophical dribble that’s been debated and overturned many times through-out history. The least we can do is learn from our history and not implement the same failed notions that were shot down repeatedly by intelligent communities.
So how about a more organized and focused round 2?
Carpe Diem
[i] (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/war) Definition 2b: a struggle or competition between opposing forces or for a particular end. (Broad)
[ii] (http://www.michigandaily.com/news/occupy-ann-arbor-holds-third-meet...) Winter, numbers, and safety...
[iv] (http://www.articlemyriad.com/comparison-french-american-revolution/) or any other of the ‘myriad’ of articles one could research on the subject.
[ix] (http://www.brighthub.com/office/project-management/articles/1907.aspx) “The Project Management Life Cycle,” Michele McDonough (2011)
-
Comment by Terry Bain on March 14, 2012 at 7:20pm
-
This is a superb analysis - if Delphi techniques are defeated by local Occupy Movement General Assemblies, nationwide, some form of confederation will be the next logical step. We are a movement without leaders, by design, but that does not mean that we are a movement without leadership.
-
Comment by Achilles Asheelz on March 14, 2012 at 7:34pm
-
Indeed ;) - I just like offering up my two-cents on things to consider. "It also opens up opportunities for regional divisions and ‘masking’ the upper echelon of representation once agreement on their status is reached," was referring to exactly what you just mentioned. There is a difference between having leaders and having leadership - which is all on the control and dissemination of momentum. I didn't want to go into the decentralized methods of social momentum, fearing that there is a word limit on these blogs :P
-
-
The thing is you cannot combat Delphi techniques in a political movement – because numbers and momentum are a requirement and it always comes down to the base question: “Who can you trust?”
Once that question starts rolling people become paranoid and start viewing each other askance, and THAT leads to fragmentation. Small sects will pull toward those with similar ideological foundations, assembly is shattered, and essentially small, isolated groups of political ‘extremists’ are born who refuse to even acknowledge partial wisdom of other viewpoints. The second the doors are closed on accepting alternative viewpoints is the second the reason of having General Assembly dies, or any assembly at all, and the 'heart' of the movement dies with it.
My primary point was the ineffectiveness of General Assemblies and why using them in this case is just asking for all of the problems now being faced, not to mention what happened in the Middle East. The movement will be manipulated, hijacked, and destroyed because of the lack of sophistication. It’s rather simple. The thing is to FIRST agree on your loose confederation, which is, to agree on certain grievances to approach. Failure to do so will result in failure, period. There have been enough examples recently to drive the point home.
It's like watching a skinny, small five year old boy challenge Muhammad Ali to a boxing match. His survival depends on Ali's compassion, and in this case, it's not looking very good for the boy.
-
-
OK - those are good points. If more than three people had been able to hear our guest on the ill-fated OASN radio show, Episode 3 (Long story, I screwed up and didn't get it archived) they would have heard pretty much the same thing. It was a really good show, though. You'll just have to trust me on this.
Comment
© 2024 Created by Anon1.
Powered by
You need to be a member of Occupy America Social Network to add comments!
Join Occupy America Social Network