Occupation : Jacques Rancière

 

Occupation : Jacques Rancière

Contributing to a lexicon of political terms normally supposes that you take for granted that politics exists per se as a well-established sphere of human activity, so that one should choose either a concept belonging to that sphere or a concept dealing with its foundations, be they ontological, theological, or other. My own contention, however, is that this existence per se is dubious, that the homogeneity of the multifarious practices, rules, and institutions subsumed under the notions of politics, policy, or the political is questionable. In my book Disagreement I proposed to conceive politics as an alteration of a normal order of things, which means a normal distribution of places and functions, identities and capacities.¹ I tried to show that politics is an activity that reframes the mode of visibility of the common. It is the configuration of a space and a form of temporality in which some affairs are seen as common affairs and subjects are given the capacity for dealing with those affairs. This also means that politics is a conflictual process in which the very meaning of the words is at issue. That’s why I am not interested in proposing a concept explaining what politics is. Instead I am interested in examining words whose meaning is at issue in situations where the identification of politics is itself at issue. From that point of view, words that are worth examining to rethink politics might be words that have two characteristics: first, they are not specific to politics but they designate alterations in the visibility of what is normally thought to be the stage of the political; second, they link the question of the common with matters of time and space.

This is precisely the case with “occupation.” It is not a notion that normally belongs to the political corpus. Until the last few years it seemed to concern politics only as a side issue, as something belonging to either the military sphere (as in the Israeli occupation of Palestine) or the social sphere (as in those strikes that were named in the US “sit-down strikes” and in France “grèves avec occupation”). It is only in recent movements that the word popped up on what is normally thought to be the political stage. And it popped up on this stage as something disturbing it: as an ephemeral upsurge of inefficient aspirations, deprived of any political program, for both our governments and our leftist strategists; as “real democracy” pitted against the lie of representative politics for those who took part in those movements. We can add that this aspect of exceptionality was marked by the privilege given in English to the verb “occupy” over the substantive “occupation.”

This first point is strictly connected with a second. Occupation deals with matters of space and time. But it deals with them in a way that evinces a tension between two uses of space and time. You may occupy a space in a normal way, as owner or tenant. But the notion takes on its full meaning when you take possession of a space which is not yours (in the case of military occupation) or when you use it in a way that is not its normal use: for instance, if you put your tent on a square that is made for urban circulation and make it a space for living and discussing. That matter of space becomes still more explicit if, as was the case in the occupation of Gezi Park in Istanbul, the conflict dwells on the very use of a space. Second, occupation deals with time. But it does so in a seemingly contradictory way. On one hand, the occupation of a space always appears to be something provisional: a military occupation is not an annexation. And the occupation of a park is an interruption of the normal course of time which is not intended to last forever. On the other hand, an occupation is the activity to which you devote your time, which means that it designates not only a specific job, but a normal use of time. The idea of occupation entails the idea of a regular activity taking place within a regular order of time and distribution of activities. In that sense an “occupy” movement might be defined as a movement interrupting the normal order of social occupations, as was condensed in the slogan of one protester in Zuccotti Park: “Lost my job, found an occupation.” My contention is that this interruption, and the very tension between two meanings and two connotations of the notion of occupation, may help us to think how politics is connected to or disconnected from a certain order of time and distribution of spaces.

To test this hypothesis I will approach the notion from two angles. First I will deal with the forms of spatialization and temporalization of politics at issue in the recent Occupy movements. Then I will make a short journey through the history of the notion in order to discern what kind of original knot between politics, time, and space may be inherent to that notion. Then I shall return to the present to think about the possible shifts in the meaning of the notion.

I will first examine some aspects of the use of the notions of “occupying” and “occupation” in the recent movements and notably in “Occupy Wall Street.” Most of the narratives about Occupy Wall Street begin the story with the decision to change the sense of a political demonstration by changing its use of the space. Protesting in the streets of a city always entails that you use a space devoted to circulation as a metaphor of the “public space” of citizenship. In normal protests, however, this metaphorical use is associated with the notion of movement. Protesters take to the streets and go over them to both make their demands visible and embody the dynamic of their protest. This is a diversion from the normal use of the streets, but this diversion is still in keeping with this normal use (moving), which also means that it remains faithful to a certain distribution of the roles and the places, opposing the walkers who circulate their demands to the sitting authorities to whom those demands are addressed. A deviation from that normal diversion thus consisted in the decision to break with that material and symbolic distribution of roles. It was the decision to stay instead of to keep moving, and discuss among themselves instead of shouting their demands to the authorities. This shift involved two forms of structuration of the space: the assembly and the tent. The assembly is the canonical form of identification between the material configuration of a space and the symbolic configuration of a community. It is par excellence the “common place” or the “place of the common.” Making an assembly instead of marching in the streets thus means reconfiguring the common, setting aside the existing configuration of the relation between the power and the protesters by transforming the latter into a sort of constituent assembly that decides to ignore the existing authorities and discuss the very sense of politics or the very essence of a political community. Making an assembly in a park meant beginning politics again, reinventing a public space out of the very disposition of bodies on a ground and the mode of their speech. That’s why, in the Occupy movements, the circular structure of the assembly was completed by another spatial feature: horizontality. The new assembly is an assembly wherein all individuals are sitting on the common ground, at the same level, without presidents, leaders, or professional orators.

My point is not about the validity of the representation of the political community that animated the Occupy movements. It is about its significance. From this point of view, what was significant in the questionable idea of consensus that prevailed in those assemblies was not the fact that the decision should be unanimous (which obviously had always been the case in the authoritarian practices of so-called “democratic centralism”) but the fact that it could be blocked by the disagreement of one person. Horizontality thus works as a complement and a correction of the circle, a way to constitute a public space wherein the collective implementation of equality is based on the direct manifestation of the equal capacity of each speaking being. It works as the affirmation of an anti-hierarchical subversion which questions the usual distance between individual capability and collective power, and, by the same token, the boundaries separating the time of political life and the time of private and everyday life. This is how the assembly connects with the tent. The tent is a multifarious symbol, combining the militant—if not military—occupation, the friendly youth party, and the refusal of a mainstream form of life. The tent is a symbol of both a provisional settlement and a global contestation of the normal way of “dwelling” in society. “Occupation” then seems to connect a reconfiguration of the political space with a wider reconfiguration of the way in which life in general is “occupied,” in which time is divided into various spheres of activity requiring appropriate individual capacities and appropriate forms of relations between individuals. This connection is also made perceptible through the strange extensions of the use of the verb “occupy” that made it the signifier of a global conversion to another way of inhabiting the world: “Occupy language,” “Occupy imagination,” “Occupy love,” and eventually “Occupy everything,” which seems to mean: change your way of dealing with everything and with all existing forms of social relationships. The Occupy movements have thus revealed, in an exemplary way, how the existence or inexistence of politics is embedded in forms of spatialization and temporalization and in uses of space and time; it rests on a distribution of activities and capacities which is also a distribution of the common, the public and the private. They have evinced a conflict between two distributions of the sensible.

We can move forward in the understanding of this conflict by briefly tracing the history of the word “occupation” and of the tension between its meanings. If we look at dictionaries, we cannot but be struck by the difficulty they have finding the right order of derivation for the various meanings of the words “occupy” and “occupation.” What is the exact relation between the exceptional military occupation of a foreign country and the usual job or way of life of an individual? Between the fact that you reside in a place and the fact that your time is occupied in this or that way? Between the act of occupying and the fact of occupation? In the Oxford English Dictionary the first definition given for “occupy” is “reside in,” whereas the first definition for “occupation” is “what occupies one; a means of passing one’s time.” It is not so easy to go from this “pastime” to “the act of taking possession of a place by military force.” We can ask the French language (from which the English word was borrowed) the reason for that ambiguity. But there we meet new problems: the Thesaurus of the French Language (Trésor de la langue française) first defines the verb “occuper” as “to fill a space,” and derives from this the fact of “holding a job” as well as that of taking over a territory. Then it moves to a second meaning which is “to absorb, to fill,” meaning by this that something is the concern in which one is absorbed. As for occupation, it is defined first as the act of occupying a space, then as the act of devoting one’s time to something, then as the action to which one devotes one’s time, and finally, “by metonymy,” as “the thing to which one devotes one’s time.” This “metonymy” is obviously a strange derivation since the historical examples collected by the same Thesaurus show exactly the contrary: the first meaning of the word in the history of French language is “the thing which is your concern, the thing to which you devote your activity,” a meaning which, as is confirmed by Wartburg’s Etymological Dictionary, existed two or three centuries before the military sense of the word.² It seems then that occupation as the “thing to which you devote your time” is a category much prior to and possibly independent of any idea of “seizing hold of.”

We can try to test this hypothesis by continuing our journey into the past. As it turns out, we perceive a similar discordance in the Latin language, from which the French word comes. While “occupare” clearly conveys the meaning of “seizing hold” or “taking over,” “occupation” mainly designates the thing to which the activity of a person is dedicated or the concern occupying his mind. This relation between the activity of a person and the kind of concern occupying his or her mind can be made more explicit if we move to Greek and examine a word whose root is different but whose use is quite close. This Greek word is epitèdeuma, often used in the plural: epitèdeumata: the activities of the mind and the body, the concrete ways of being and doing whose acquisition, according to Plato, is part of the education of individuals and citizens, along with the disciplines of the abstract sciences (mathèmata). An epitèdeuma—allow me to translate this as “occupation”—means both the way in which an individual passes his time, the kind of activity that he exerts, but also the way in which he exercises his mind and his body to make them apt to the exercise of that activity—which means that it is not simply the fact of doing something but the fact of doing it as the thing for which you are made. In fact, the substantive epitèdeuma comes from the adjective epitèdès which means “appropriate.” According to some dictionaries, epitèdès is made of the preposition epi and the demonstrative tèdé. Being epitèdès would thus mean being “for that.” An occupation is a demonstration of appropriateness, the demonstration that you are made for the activity that you perform just as it is made for you. Such is the principle that rules Plato’s Republic. This is how the education of the guardians of the city firstly implies the selection of those whose nature is appropriate (epitèdès) for that occupation (epitèdeuma).³ On the opposite side, the exclusion of poetic mimesis is based on a principle that reads as follows: “everybody should be occupied by one sole occupation.”⁴ This is also why the artisans must stay all the time in their workshop and do only the job for which they have the appropriate capacity.⁵ The point is not the number of hours required for doing the work or for acquiring the skill for doing it. A capacity is more than a skill: it is a destination. And time is not a duration. It is a location. Plato’s statement locates the artisans in the time of an eternal everyday, a time of immediate material needs incompatible with the time of common affairs. The only way in which the shoemaker takes part in the common of the city is the private activity that consists in making shoes. Such is the principle of police, the principle of a hierarchical distribution of the sensible: an occupation is a way of being in time and of being at the place where the rightness of your being-there is endlessly demonstrated by the exercise of your activity. This “demonstration” might be a rough translation of what is euphemized in a famous sentence by Hannah Arendt, commenting on the diverse forms of the vita activa in The Human Condition: “Each human activity points to its proper location in the world.”⁶

This matter of “location” makes it possible to substantiate my hypothesis that sees in the recent “occupy” movements the pitting of one form of “occupation” against another. Occupation is a notion that can take on opposite meanings, which means that it signals a conflict of two distributions of the sensible. It points to the connection between “activity” and “location” that defines either the order of police—as the fact of doing the activity “suitable” to your place—or the possibility of a political disruption—as the use of a place in a way that disrupts the normal use of that place. The occupation of a place disrupts the distribution of the spheres of activity. This is something that we can also understand in relation to the distinctions made by Hannah Arendt to sustain her division of human activities. As is well known, she denounced the rise of the social which, she thought, was predicated on the confusion between the public and the private. Such a rise for her blurred the specificity of the political. For my part, I argue that politics happens precisely when the normal distribution of roles between the private and the public is thrown into question, which means that the “social” is a privileged place for observing how politics happens. And it happens precisely as a dis-location of activities or a disruption of the normal set of relations defining the time and space of an activity, along with the kind of capacity or virtue that it sets to work. “Occupying” and “occupation” appeared on the public stage with the occupation of the factories which took on the character of a mass practice during the general strike of 1936 in France. From the point of view of those who dwell on the separation of the spheres, it is just a weapon in a social struggle, opposing the interests of the workers to those of their bosses. I took an exactly opposite view of it: this kind of strike is the climax of a long historical process through which matters of work and employment—which were supposed to be private or domestic affairs—were transformed into a public affair. This process entailed that its actors distance themselves from their “occupation”—meaning their way of fitting the work that fitted them. It entailed that they become participants in the construction of a common stage which was built as “common” through dissensus itself. The occupied factory was not simply the takeover of the space and the machines of the enemy, as an economic weapon in the struggle. Nor was it simply an affirmation that that space and those machines belonged to the workers. It was the transformation of this space into a public space. This becoming public did not happen, in the Arendtian way, by clearly separating the domain of public action and public “excellence” from the space of domestic life. On the contrary, it happened by the fact that the role given to a space was blurred. A place made for working became a place for living: for eating, sleeping, or organizing friendly parties. The process of occupation is not simply the takeover of a space: it is a takeover which changes the very use of this space in the distribution of social occupations and social spheres. The “occupation” of the workplace was part of a whole reconfiguration of the public space: the latter was no longer beside the spheres of domestic life, economic negotiation, etc. Instead it was built by disrupting this distribution of spaces and competences.

We know how important this idea of the “occupied space” became in the movements of the 1960s, notably with the occupation of the universities. The occupation of the Sorbonne in 1968 claimed to transform an instrument of reproduction of the elites into its opposite, a forum open to everybody for discussion and for the invention of a non-hierarchical form of society. This view however entailed a split in the idea of occupation that was illustrated by one of the most famous episodes in Paris, May 1968, when the occupants of the Sorbonne decided to join the workers occupying the emblematic Renault factory and found the gates closed. Two forms of occupation then were colliding: the student’s forum and the workers’ fortress.

This tension can help us think about the specificity of the recent Occupy movements. They are both the heirs of the workers’ occupations and their antithesis. The new “occupation” takes up the principle of transforming the function of a space. But this space is no more an inside space, a space defined within the distribution of economic and social activities. It is no more the inner space of work, as a space of concrete struggle between capital and labor. It is the space outside: in front of the offices of the financial power which destroys jobs and relocates factories; in the streets of the towns where the leaders of an invisible global power meet and make their decisions; against the cranes and excavators that a State power sends to change the destination of a park; or against an electoral process of reproduction of the ruling elite. As the locating power has increasingly become a power situated nowhere that dislocates the “inside” places wherein the order of times and spaces, activities and capacities could be challenged, the place that remains to be occupied is the “public space” that still lends itself to a multiplicity of various and possibly antagonistic activities: the streets, destined for the circulation of individuals and commodities, which busy persons cross and where unemployed persons remain; and the parks that symbolize the common possession of a space whose use is indeterminate. Such places lend themselves to symbolizing a common space opposed both to the economic dislocation of the common spaces and to the abstract representation of the common in the State buildings. The occupying process no longer takes place inside buildings destined for a specific activity, as a subversion of that destination by its normal occupants. It happens in this “public space” of the streets and parks which is at the same time the space without specification that everybody crosses for various reasons and the symbolic space of public demonstrations. And it is no more the action of people that the capitalist process has gathered. On the contrary, it is the action of people that this process has scattered into a multiplicity of forms of employment, unemployment, and part-time employment, a multiplicity of connections and disconnections between the time and space of education, the time and space of the job market, and the time and space of art. This means that the occupying process is no longer about transforming a given manner of being in common in a place. It is about transforming separation into community. It is about creating a place for the common. In a sense, the assembly and the tent are the fragments of a lost totality. But this loss also accounts for the strong emphasis on the assembly as a form of being-in-common and this aspiration to consensus, which has so strongly struck all those—including myself—for whom such forms of action are understandable as forms of dissensus. It can be said that the consensus among the participants is one thing, the dissensual aspect of their practice with respect to the normal order of things is another. Nevertheless, it sounds as a division in the idea of occupation, as if the desire for community or the desire for a new life exceeded the specific operation of conversion of a space, as if the desire for politics exceeded politics. Occupation, then, might be this strange word that marks the paradoxical status of politics, the status of an activity which is always beside itself.

*

Jacques Rancière is a Professor of Philosophy at European Graduate School in Saas-Fee and Emeritus Professor of Philosophy at the University of Paris VIII: Vincennes—Saint-Denis.

*

Published on December 25, 2016

---

^{1. Jacques Rancière, Disagreement: Politics and Philosophy, trans. Julie Rose (Minneapolis: U of Minnesota Press, 1999).↩}

^{2. Walther von Wartburg, Französisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch: Eine darstellung des galloromanischen sprachschatzes, Vol. 7 (Basel: R. G. Zbinden & Co., 1955), 300-302.↩}

^{3. Plato, Republic, III, 394e.↩}

^{4. Plato, Republic, II, 374c.↩}

^{5. Plato, Republic, II, 370b-c.↩}

^{6. Hannah Arendt, The Human Condition (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1958), 73.↩}

Sarau do Escritório

VozeRio

 

Desde 2010, integrantes de um grupo de teatro sem sede marcavam suas reuniões nas mesas do Bar da Cachaça, tradicional ponto de encontro de artistas e produtores no bairro da Lapa, região central do Rio de Janeiro. Das conversas no escritório, como o pequeno botequim é conhecido, viram pipocar movimentos como a Primavera Árabe, o 15M, e o Occupy Wall Street, que só estimulavam suas inquietudes.

Vindos de diferentes regiões como Nilópolis, Leblon, Tijuca, Olaria, Senador Camará, Vidigal, São João de Meriti e Glória, pulavam os muros de dois Cieps em Bangu para ensaiar, em meio a usuários de crack, e crianças que surgiam para acompanhar as encenações. Apresentavam espetáculos em praças da Favela Jardim Batan, e criavam metodologias na Cidade das Crianças, no Aterro do Flamengo. Entretanto, ainda faltava uma ocupação definitiva.

Logo após as Jornadas de Junho, decidiram que não poderiam mais viver da mesma forma, reclamando do poder público, do sistema, ou da ausência de espaços para trabalhar com arte, e resolveram arregaçar as mangas.

Surgia assim, em novembro de 2013, o Sarau do Escritório, um espaço de experimentação artística na Praça João Pessoa – a esquina do Bar da Cachaça -, que abre caminho para o encontro de atores e agentes culturais de vários territórios.

Em dois anos de atividades, o evento já recebeu mais de 800 artistas. Gente das artes visuais, da música, poesia, cinema, circo, teatro, intervenção e performance. De um chinês cantando folk em mandarim, a um músico de Recife que faz um som com influências latinas, passando por uma moradora do Centro portadora do Mal de Alzheimer, e que não recitava suas poesias em público há 50 anos. Tudo cabe no maior espaço de co-working artístico do Rio.

O projeto idealizado pelo Coletivo Peneira, é realizado pela Mufa Produções, um coletivo de jovens artistas-produtores que trabalham com pouco ou nenhum recurso financeiro, investindo do próprio bolso, e apostando em lógicas co-produtivas para transformar seus sonhos em realidade.

A saga de quem faz cultura nas ruas do Rio

Realizamos todo mês o Sarau do Escritório com produção de guerrilha: sem patrocínio, sem financiamento, sem nada. E com muita burocracia: precisamos passar por 11 fases e perder várias vidas até chegar ao chefão — o Cartório da Prefeitura — e zerar o jogo, conseguindo o Alvará Transitório.

Realizar um evento cultural em espaço público no Rio é dureza!
Antes de tudo, é preciso ter paciência de Jó, perseverança, engolir vários sapos, ter disponibilidade de tempo e grana.
Desde novembro de 2013, realizamos o Sarau do Escritório na pracinha João Pessoa, aquela da esquina do Bar da Cachaça, na Lapa. O sarau é um espaço de experimentação artística pelo qual já passaram mais de mil artistas. Gente das artes visuais, da música, poesia, cinema, circo, teatro, intervenção e performance. De um chinês cantando folk em mandarim a um músico de Recife que faz um som com influências latinas, passando por uma moradora do Centro portadora de Alzheimer que não recitava suas poesias em público há cinquenta anos.
Tudo isso é feito com uma produção de guerrilha. Sem patrocínio, sem financiamento, sem nada. E com muita burocracia: precisamos passar por 11 fases e perder várias vidas até chegar ao chefão — o Cartório da Prefeitura — e zerar o jogo, conseguindo o Alvará Transitório.
A peregrinação começa um mês antes da realização do evento, que, no nosso caso é mensal — o sarau ocorre na última quinta-feira do mês.
1ª fase: Subprefeitura do Centro e Centro Histórico (rua da Constituição, 34). Lugar onde damos entrada na Consulta Prévia de Eventos. Em tese, vencer essa etapa levaria três dias úteis. Em tese... Porque na real o lance é bem diferente, e esse trâmite (um carimbo e uma assinatura) pode levar mais de vinte dias.
Mas, se fosse só isso, estava suave. Muitas vezes, somos desrespeitados por servidores públicos. Já ouvimos de funcionários as seguintes barbaridades:

• “Conseguir essa autorização em dez dias é a mesma coisa que querer tirar leite dos meus peitos. Impossível! Não vai rolar.”

• "Você não está me vendo aqui, eu sou um holograma, e estou de férias!"

• "Tá achando o atendimento ruim? Mande um e-mail para o subprefeito e reclame!" — sendo que a responsável pelo tal e-mail é a mesma pessoa que sugeriu a queixa.

O mais comum, contudo, tem sido a seguinte frase (e suas variantes): “Ainda não está assinado, volte amanhã.”
Aí você volta amanhã, e pedem para retornar na semana seguinte. Na semana seguinte você volta, e informam que só com o Fulano de Tal, mas o Fulano está na rua. Você aguarda, e ele não volta... E por aí vai.
2ª fase: Com o formulário carimbado, partimos para a Fundação Parques e Jardins (Campo de Santana). O prazo também é de até três dias úteis para a entrega do “nada a opor”. Geralmente eles cumprem o prazo.
3ª fase: Na 5ª DP (Gomes Freire), solicitamos o “nada a opor” do Lapa Presente, aquela polícia “especial” do bairro. Isso leva uns cinco dias.
4ª fase: Não podemos esquecer a Policia Militar, então temos de ir até o 5° Batalhão (Praça da Harmonia) para dar entrada em mais um documento. O prazo também é de cinco dias, mas às vezes demora quinze.
5ª fase: Depois de passar pelas autoridades policiais, vamos até o Corpo de Bombeiros (rua do Senado, 122, 2º pavimento, Centro). Eles levam uma semana para entregar a autorização, mas para isso solicitam uma série de documentos (os mesmos pedidos para grandes eventos):

• Dois jogos de plantas com “layout” do evento, em escala ou cotada, no padrão ABNT, devidamente assinada por engenheiro ou arquiteto habilitado, para análise e aplicação de medidas de segurança contra incêndio;

• Pagamento do emolumento DAEM (R$60) em uma agência da rede Itaú;

• Duas cópias do emolumento DAEM pago;

• Formulário de requerimento padrão, devidamente preenchido;

• Xerox da identidade do responsável pelo evento;

• Xerox do comprovante de residência do responsável pelo evento;

• Questionário padrão para eventos (a ser retirado na SST/4º GBM), devidamente respondido e assinado pelo responsável;

• ART (Anotação de Responsabilidade Técnica) do serviço de elétrica assinado por um engenheiro responsável;

• Cópia da carteira do CREA/RJ do responsável pela emissão das ARTs que compõem o processo;

• Certidão de registro emitida pelo CREA/RJ certificando que o profissional encontra-se registrado e com as contribuições junto a CREA/RJ em dia;

• Nota fiscal de compra ou aluguel de extintores.

Para atender a essas exigências, temos de pagar um engenheiro responsável e alugar os extintores.
6ª fase: Não, ainda não acabou! Ainda falta o “nada a opor” da Secretaria de Ordem Pública (SEOP), que fica no Piranhão (o Centro Administrativo da Prefeitura, na avenida Presidente Vargas).
7ª fase: Solicitamos o ponto de luz à Rioluz (rua Voluntários da Pátria, em Botafogo). Para tal, pagamos uma taxa de instalação de R$ 100 (por ponto), juntamente com a apresentação do ART do engenheiro elétrico.
8ª fase: Pagamos a taxa de consumo de luz na Light (Centro). Geralmente algo em torno de R$ 30.
9ª fase: Para deixar a Pracinha João Pessoa limpa (já que só há duas papeleiras em quatro esquinas) vamos à Comlurb (munidos de uma cartinha + Consulta Prévia), em São Cristóvão, e solicitamos algumas caçambas de lixo e garis para o final do evento.
10ª fase: Inspetoria, um departamento da Prefeitura (Praça Pio X, na Candelária) completamente sujo, empoeirado, com computadores que não funcionam — todas as máquinas da recepção tem um papel colado há mais de seis meses que informa “em manutenção” —, e funcionários que não estão dispostos a trabalhar. Lá, entregamos uma cacetada de papéis, e somos encaminhados para outro lugar...
11ª fase: Vamos ao Cartório da Prefeitura (de novo no Centro Administrativo, o Piranhão), e depois à Inspetoria novamente, que (enfim!) libera o Alvará Transitório, ou o grande prêmio do jogo da produção cultural.
Com pompa e promessas de “desburocratização”, a Prefeitura do Rio lançou em outubro deste ano um aditivo no site carioca.rio.rj.gov.br, o “Carioca Digital”.
É a compilação de todos, ou quase todos (1ª fase, 2ª fase, 6ª fase, 10ª fase e 11ª fase) os pedidos de “nada a opor” em um sistema virtual.
Logo descobrimos que, diferentemente do Rio Poupa Tempo, do estado, os órgãos de outras esferas não estão integrados, assim como a Rioluz e a Comlurb, pertencentes ao município.
Ainda assim, o sistema digital seria um avanço, uma luz no fim do túnel, e um alívio nos bolsos cansados de gastar passagens para lá e para cá, em busca de um alvará. Seria, não fossem dois motivos simples:
 Quem diz se o nosso evento de rua pode ou não acontecer é a Secretaria de Ordem Pública (SEOP), que, por sua vez, é comandada por um capitão da Polícia Militar, e não pela Secretaria de Cultura (????).
 Ainda há o fato de a liberação do Alvará Provisório estar demorando mais de dois meses. Sim, mais de dois meses. Um tempo superior ao sistema antigo, analógico, de papel.
Nós, por exemplo, estamos com dois pedidos de Consulta Prévia (um para dezembro e o outro para janeiro) atravancados no sistema desde outubro. A justificativa:
“Somos dois funcionários para avaliar mais de três mil pedidos de toda a cidade. Estamos trabalhando depois do expediente, durante a madrugada, aos finais de semana... Tudo isso para tentar dar conta, mas está complexo”, desabafou um dos funcionários do setor da SEOP/Carioca Digital.
Vale ressaltar que, enquanto o Alvará Transitório não é liberado, não podemos dar entrada na Polícia Civil, Polícia Militar, Bombeiros, Rioluz e Comlurb, já que não existe mais papel. É a desburocratização prestando um desserviço.
Ah: com isso, ganhamos também mais uma taxa obrigatória. A TUAP (Taxa de Uso de Área Pública), no valor de R$ 13,60.
Após a “análise dos técnicos” e com o Alvará Provisório deferido, temos que passar no Piranhão para pegar esse documento (pois o sistema ainda não permite imprimir em casa com a assinatura digital) e, em seguida, percorrer toda aquela peregrinação: 3ª fase, 4ª fase, 5ª fase, 7ª fase, 8ª fase e 9ª fase.
Um pequeno detalhe: Mesmo durante o processo on-line –- antes da liberação do Alvará Transitório e do pagamento da TUAP —, já tivemos que passar na SEOP algumas vezes, pois o sistema estava bugado. Como o telefone está sempre ocupado, só conseguimos resolver o problema presencialmente.
A real é que nós do Sarau do Escritório — e a grande maioria dos projetos de rua que acontecem no Rio de maneira independente –- estamos num limbo entre os eventos de pequeno porte (aqueles contemplados pela Lei do Artista de Rua) e os megaeventos milionários.
Não existe meio-termo. É um não-lugar. Um não-lugar que nos leva ao cumprimento das mesmas exigências que um Rock in Rio, ou de um Réveillon de Copacabana para dois milhões de pessoas.
Eis um resumo dos gastos que temos com burocracias para cada Sarau do Escritório:

• Transporte (entre idas e vindas ao longo de um mês em diversos órgãos públicos) - R$80,00
• Xerox (de todas as autorizações, documentos, certificados etc.) - R$15
• Bombeiros (DAEM) R$60
• Engenheiro (para preparar a planta baixa da praça, acompanhar e se responsabilizar por todos os trâmites relacionados à manutenção elétrica do evento) - R$300,00
• Aluguel de três extintores de incêndio - R$150,00
• Rioluz (instalação do ponto de luz) - R$100,00
• Light (consumo de energia por edição) - R$30,00
• TUAP (Taxa de Uso de Área Pública) - R$13,60

TOTAL: R$ 748,60
Esses são apenas os custos burocráticos. Some a isso o aluguel de equipamento de som, impressão de material para as exposições, divulgação, transporte de objetos do cenário y muchas cositas más...
A publicidade da Prefeitura alardeia: "A cidade que queremos ser não é feita daqueles velhos cartões postais, mas por quem ocupa as suas praças.” Então, alguma coisa está fora da ordem.
Enquanto isso, a vida segue, para quem persiste em fazer produção cultural nas ruas do Rio. No nosso caso, sem patrocínio.

Manuel Castells and the protests in Brazil

Spanish sociologist, Manuel Castells, says that the conduct of the crisis in Brazil shows that there is hope to reconnect institutions and citizens

by Daniela Maria

The Spanish sociologist Manuel Castells, 68, was in Brazil attending a conference series when the protests for the reduction of tariffs by bus started, even shy, in São Paulo. One of today's leading experts in social movements in the age of the internet, not even him could imagine that the whole country would be taken by a wave of marches that would become the most important political manifestation of the Brazilian society in 20 years. "If they want real change, the critics on the internet are not enough. They must become visible, challenging the established order and force a dialogue, "said the sociologist. Castells has examined other similar movements, such as the Arab spring, Occupy, in the United States, Outraged (Indignados), in Spain, and now accompanies the defense from Taksim Square, in Turkey. With extensive and respected work on the role of new information and communication technologies, the sociologist says that the great strength of these movements is the absence of leaders and sees an exhaustion of the current model of representation. Author of 23 books, it throws in brief "Outrage and Hope-social movements in the age of the Internet" (Wharton School Publishing). 

Castells was professor at the University of Berkeley, Calif., for 24 years. He currently lives in Barcelona, Spain, where he spoke to ISTO É (a Brazilian main stream magazine) by email, and is a professor at the Open University of Catalonia and the University of Southern California in Los Angeles, in the United States.

"The great strength of these movements is that they are spontaneous, free, a celebration of freedom.

The Occupy (OWS) left new values for Americans "

ISTOÉ (I.E) – You were in Brazil when the first protests occurred in São Paulo. Could imagine that they would take this ratio?

MANUEL CASTELLS- No one could. But what I imagined, and researched for several years, is that the crisis of political legitimacy and the ability to communicate via the internet and mobile devices leads to the possibility that spontaneous social movements arise at any time and in any place. Because there are always reasons for outrage everywhere.

I.E.-the Brazil has greatly reduced social inequality in recent years and has full employment. How to explain size discontent?

MANUEL CASTELLS-youth in São Paulo was explicit: "it's not just about cents, it's about our rights." It is a cry of "enough!" against corruption, arrogance, and sometimes the brutality of politicians and their police.

I.E.-it makes sense to continue in the streets if the problems of health and education cannot be resolved quickly, as the bus passes?

MANUEL CASTELLS-firstly, the movement wants to free transport, because it states that the right to mobility is a universal right. The transport problems that make life in cities a disgrace are the result of real estate speculation, which constructs the municipality irrationally, and local bad planning, because of the subservience of mayors and their staff to the interests of the real estate market, not of citizens. In addition, because of the mobilization, the President Dilma Rousseff is also proposing new investments in health and education. As it takes a long time to get results, it's time to get started quickly.

I.E.-the President Dilma acted properly to speak on TV to the nation, convene meetings with Governors, mayors and marchers to propose a Pact?

MANUEL CASTELLS-certainly, it is the first world leader watching, that listens to the demands of people on the streets. It showed that is a true democrat, but she's being stabbed in the back by traditional politicians. The statements of José Serra (former governor of São Paulo and leader of the opposition criticized the initiatives announced by the President) are typical of the lack of accountability of politicians and their misunderstanding about the right of people to decide. The political positions are not owned by politicians. They are paid by the citizens that elect. And citizens will remember who said what in this crisis when the election comes.

I.E.-how to compare the Brazilian with the movement that took place in the rest of the world?

MANUEL CASTELLS-there was a million people protesting in this way for weeks and months in countries around the world. In the United States, for example, more than a thousand cities were occupied between September 2011 and March 2012. The difference in Brazil is that a democratic President as Rousseff and a handful of truly democratic politicians, as Marina Silva, are accepting the right of citizens to express themselves outside the bureaucratic channels. This is the true meaning of the Brazilian Movement: it shows that there is still hope to reconnect the institutions and citizens, if there is good will on both sides.

ISTOÉ-what is crucial for the success of these movements summoned with the help of the internet?

MANUEL CASTELLS-The demands should reverberate for a large number of people, there shouldn´t  be politicians involved and that there should be no leaders handling. People who feel strong support to each other as a network of individuals, not as masses that follow any flag. Each one is its own movement. Police brutality also helps to spread the movement through images on the internet broadcast by mobile phones.

ISTOÉ-why so many protests end up in looting and depredations? How do I prevent marginal could well take advantage of the movement?

MANUEL CASTELLS-there is violence and vandalism in society. It is impossible to prevent them, although the movements everywhere try to control them because they know that violence is the most destructive force of a social movement. Sometimes, in some countries, supported by the police provocateurs create violence to delegitimize the movement.

I.E.-How the police should act?

MANUEL CASTELLS-Intervene selectively, carefully, professionally, only against the bullies and violent groups. Never, ever raise lethal weapons, and if contain not to hit indiscriminately on peaceful demonstrators. The police is one of the reasons why people are protesting.

I.E.-the absence of leaders weakens the movement?

MANUEL CASTELLS-on the contrary, this is the force of the movement. Everyone is their own leader.

ISTOÉ-But this does not preclude the negotiation with the political elite?

MANUEL CASTELLS-no, the proof of this is that the President Dilma Rousseff met with some representatives of the movement.

ISTOÉ-what is the great strength and a great weakness of these movements?

MANUEL CASTELLS-the great strength is that they are spontaneous, free, festive, is a celebration of freedom. The weakness isn't theirs, the weakness are stupidity and arrogance of the political class that is insensitive to autonomous demands of citizens.

ISTOÉ-In Brazil, political parties were banned the demonstrations and there are those who see in it the danger of a coup. It makes sense that concern?

MANUEL CASTELLS-there is no danger of a coup d ' état. The corrupt and undemocratic are already in power: they are the political class.

I.E.-how to solve the crisis of representativeness of class politics?

MANUEL CASTELLS-With political reform, with a Constitutional Assembly and a referendum. The President Dilma Rousseff is absolutely right, but, in this sense, it will be destroyed by their own base.

ISTOÉ-these manifestations articulated through social networks require a new form of citizen participation in the decision-making process of the State? Which is?

MANUEL CASTELLS-Yes, this is the new emerging political participation form everywhere. I analyzed this world in my most recent book.

ISTOÉ-what is there in common between contemporary social movements?

MANUEL CASTELLS-internet Networks, presence in the urban space, lack of leadership, autonomy, freedom from fear, as well as coverage of the whole of society and not just one group. Largely the movements are led by youth and are looking for a new democracy.

I.E.-the movement Occupy, in the USA, was defeated by the arrival of winter. That legacy left?

MANUEL CASTELLS-Left new values, a new consciousness to most Americans.

I.E.-The Spanish Outraged (Indigados) was there some victory?

MANUEL CASTELLS-many victories, especially with regard to the right to mortgage and housing evictions and a new thorough understanding of democracy in most of the population.

I.E.-That Parallels do you see between the Turkish and Brazilian movement?

MANUEL CASTELLS-are very similar. They are also powerful, but Turkey has an Islamic fundamentalist Prime Minister semi-fascist, and Brazil has a truly democratic President. This makes all the difference.

ISTOÉ-believes that this wave of protests will spread to other countries in Latin America?

MANUEL CASTELLS-there is a strong student movement in Chile, and embryos arising in Colombia, Mexico and Uruguay.

ISTOÉ-Countries that control the internet, like China, are free of these manifestations?

MANUEL CASTELLS-no, this is an error of the Western press. There are many demonstrations in China, also organized on the internet, such as the Guangzhou City (in the South), last January, by freedom of the press (the editorial of a newspaper was censored and this motivated the first demonstrations for freedom of expression in China in decades. At least 12 people have been arrested, accused of subversion).

I.E.-How do you see the future?

MANUEL CASTELLS-I don't like to talk about the future, but I believe that it will be brighter now because companies are awakening through these social movements network.

Manuel Castells e os protestos no Brasil

Entrevista com Manuel Castells

Sociólogo espanhol diz que a condução da crise no Brasil mostra que há esperanças de se reconectar instituições e cidadãos

por Daniela Mendes


PROTESTOS NA AMÉRICA LATINA
“Há um movimento estudantil forte no Chile, embriões
surgindo na Colômbia, no México e no Uruguai”, diz Castells


O sociólogo espanhol Manuel Castells, 68 anos, estava no Brasil participando de uma série de conferências quando os protestos pela redução das tarifas de ônibus começaram, ainda tímidos, em São Paulo. Um dos maiores especialistas da atualidade em movimentos sociais na era da internet, nem ele podia imaginar que o País todo seria tomado por uma onda de passeatas que se transformaria na mais importante manifestação política da sociedade brasileira em 20 anos. “Se querem mudanças, não bastam somente as críticas na internet. É preciso tornar-se visível, desafiar a ordem estabelecida e forçar um diálogo”, afirma o sociólogo. Castells analisou outros movimentos semelhantes, como a Primavera Árabe, o Occupy, nos Estados Unidos, os Indignados, na Espanha, e agora também acompanha a defesa da Praça Taksim, na Turquia. Com extenso e respeitado trabalho sobre o papel das novas tecnologias de informação e comunicação, o sociólogo diz que a grande força desses movimentos é a ausência de líderes e enxerga um esgotamento do modelo atual de representatividade. Autor de 23 livros, ele lança em breve “Redes de Indignação e Esperança – Movimentos Sociais na Era da Internet” (Zahar Editora). Castells foi professor da Universiade de Berkeley, na Califórnia, por 24 anos. Atualmente, vive em Barcelona, na Espanha, de onde falou à ISTOÉ por e-mail, e é professor da Universidade Aberta da Catalunha e da Universidade do Sul da Califórnia, em Los Angeles, nos Estados Unidos.


“A grande força desses movimentos é que eles
são espontâneos, livres, uma celebração da liberdade.
O Occupy deixou novos valores para os americanos”



ISTOÉ - O sr. estava no Brasil quando ocorreram os primeiros protestos em São Paulo. Podia imaginar que eles tomariam essa proporção?

MANUEL CASTELLS - Ninguém podia. Mas o que eu imaginava, e pesquisei durante vários anos, é que a crise de legitimidade política e a capacidade de se comunicar através da internet e de dispositivos móveis levam à possibilidade de que surjam movimentos sociais espontâneos a qualquer momento e em qualquer lugar. Porque razões para indignação existem em todos os lugares.

ISTOÉ - O Brasil reduziu muito a desigualdade social nos últimos anos e tem pleno emprego. Como explicar tamanho descontentamento?

MANUEL CASTELLS - A juventude em São Paulo foi explícita: “Não é só sobre centavos, é sobre os nossos direitos.” É um grito de “basta!” contra a corrupção, arrogância, e às vezes a brutalidade dos políticos e sua polícia.

ISTOÉ - Faz sentido continuar nas ruas se os problemas da saúde e da educação não podem ser resolvidos rapidamente, como o das passagens de ônibus?

MANUEL CASTELLS - Em primeiro lugar, o movimento quer transporte gratuito, pois afirma que o direito à mobilidade é um direito universal. Os problemas de transporte que tornam a vida nas cidades uma desgraça são consequência da especulação imobiliária, que constrói o município irracionalmente, e de planejamento local ruim, por causa da subserviência dos prefeitos e suas equipes aos interesses do mercado imobiliário, não dos cidadãos. Além disso, por causa da mobilização, a presidenta Dilma Rousseff também está propondo novos investimentos em saúde e educação. Como leva muito tempo para obter resultados, é hora de começar rapidamente.

ISTOÉ - A presidenta Dilma agiu corretamente ao falar na tevê à nação, convocar reuniões com governadores, prefeitos e manifestantes para propor um pacto?

MANUEL CASTELLS - Com certeza, ela é a primeira líder mundial que presta atenção, que ouve as demandas de pessoas nas ruas. Ela mostrou que é uma verdadeira democrata, mas ela está sendo esfaqueada pelas costas por políticos tradicionais. As declarações de José Serra (o ex-governador tucano criticou as iniciativas anunciadas pela presidenta) são típicas de falta de prestação de contas dos políticos e da incompreensão deles sobre o direito das pessoas de decidir. Os cargos políticos não são de propriedade de políticos. Eles são pagos pelos cidadãos que os elegem. E os cidadãos vão se lembrar de quem disse o quê nesta crise quando a eleição chegar.

ISTOÉ - Como comparar o movimento brasileiro com os que ocorreram no resto do mundo?

MANUEL CASTELLS - Houve milhões de pessoas protestando dessa forma durante semanas e meses em países de todo o mundo. Nos Estados Unidos, por exemplo, mais de mil cidades foram ocupadas entre setembro de 2011 e março de 2012. A diferença no Brasil é que uma presidenta democrática como Dilma Rousseff e um punhado de políticos verdadeiramente democráticos, como Marina Silva, estão aceitando o direito dos cidadãos de se expressar fora dos canais burocráticos controlados. Esse é o verdadeiro significado do movimento brasileiro: ele mostra que ainda há esperança de se reconectar instituições e cidadãos, se houver boa vontade de ambos os lados.

ISTOÉ - O que é determinante para o sucesso desses movimentos convocados pela internet?

MANUEL CASTELLS - Que as demandas ressoem para um grande número de pessoas, que não haja políticos envolvidos e que não haja líderes manipulando. Pessoas que se sentem fortes apoiam umas às outras como redes de indivíduos, não como massas que seguem qualquer bandeira. Cada um é seu próprio movimento. A brutalidade policial também ajuda a espalhar o movimento através de imagens na internet difundidas por telefones celulares.

ISTOÉ - Por que tantos protestos acabam em saques e depredações? Como evitar que marginais se aproveitem do movimento?

MANUEL CASTELLS - Há violência e vandalismo na sociedade. É impossível preveni-los, embora os movimentos em toda parte tentem controlá-los porque eles sabem que a violência é a força mais destrutiva de um movimento social. Às vezes, em alguns países, provocadores apoiados pela polícia criam a violência para deslegitimar o movimento.

ISTOÉ - Como a polícia deve agir?

MANUEL CASTELLS - Intervir de forma seletiva, com cuidado, profissionalmente, apenas contra os provocadores e os grupos violentos. Nunca, nunca disparar armas letais, e se conter para não bater indiscriminadamente em manifestantes pacíficos. A polícia é uma das razões pelas quais as pessoas protestam.

ISTOÉ - A ausência de líderes enfraquece o movimento?

MANUEL CASTELLS - Pelo contrário, este é o vigor do movimento. Todo mundo é o seu próprio líder.

ISTOÉ - Mas isso não inviabiliza a negociação com a elite política?

MANUEL CASTELLS - Não, a prova disso é que a presidenta Dilma Rousseff se reuniu com alguns representantes do movimento.

ISTOÉ - Qual é a grande força e a grande fraqueza desses movimentos?

MANUEL CASTELLS - A grande força é que eles são espontâneos, livres, festivos, é uma celebração da liberdade. A fraqueza não é deles, a fraqueza são a estupidez e a arrogância da classe política que é insensível às demandas autônomas de cidadãos.

ISTOÉ - No Brasil, partidos políticos foram banidos das manifestações e há quem enxergue nisso o perigo de um golpe. Faz sentido essa preocupação?

MANUEL CASTELLS - Não há perigo de um golpe de Estado. Os corruptos e antidemocráticos já estão no poder: eles são a classe política.

ISTOÉ - Como resolver a crise de representatividade da classe política?

MANUEL CASTELLS - Com reforma política, com uma Assembleia Constituinte e um referendo. A presidenta Dilma Rousseff está absolutamente certa, mas, nesse sentido, ela será destruída por sua própria base.

ISTOÉ - Essas manifestações articuladas através das redes sociais demandam uma nova forma de participação dos cidadãos nos processos de decisão do Estado? Qual?

MANUEL CASTELLS - Sim, esta é a nova forma de participação política emergente em toda parte. Analisei este mundo em meu livro mais recente.

ISTOÉ - O que há em comum entre os movimentos sociais contemporâneos?

MANUEL CASTELLS - Redes na internet, presença no espaço urbano, ausência de liderança, autonomia, ausência de temor, além de abrangência de toda a sociedade e não apenas um grupo. Em grande parte os movimentos são liderados pela juventude e estão à procura de uma nova democracia.

ISTOÉ - O movimento Occupy, nos EUA, foi derrotado pela chegada do inverno. Que legado deixou?

MANUEL CASTELLS - Deixou novos valores, uma nova consciência para a maioria dos americanos.

ISTOÉ - Os Indignados espanhóis conseguiram alguma vitória?

MANUEL CASTELLS - Muitas vitórias, especialmente em matéria de direito de hipoteca e despejos de habitação e uma nova compreensão completa da democracia na maioria da população.

ISTOÉ - Que paralelos o sr. vê entre o movimento turco e o brasileiro?

MANUEL CASTELLS - São muito similares. São igualmente poderosos, mas a Turquia tem um primeiro-ministro fundamentalista islâmico semifascista e o Brasil, uma presidenta verdadeiramente democrática. Isso faz toda a diferença.

ISTOÉ - Acredita que essa onda de protestos se espalhará para outros países da América Latina?

MANUEL CASTELLS - Há um movimento estudantil forte no Chile, e embriões surgindo na Colômbia, no México e no Uruguai.

ISTOÉ - Países que controlam a internet, como a China, estão livres dessas manifestações?

MANUEL CASTELLS - Não, isso é um erro da imprensa ocidental. Há muitas manifestações na China, também organizadas na internet, como a da cidade de Guangzhou (no sul do país), em janeiro passado, pela liberdade de imprensa (o editorial de um jornal foi censurado e isso motivou as primeiras manifestações pela liberdade de expressão na China em décadas. Pelo menos 12 pessoas foram detidas, acusadas de subversão).

ISTOÉ - Como o sr. vê o futuro?

MANUEL CASTELLS - Eu não gosto de falar sobre o futuro, mas acredito que ele será mais brilhante agora porque as sociedades estão despertando através desses movimentos sociais em rede.

Ten Immodest Commandments

Mike Davis gives 10 pointers to Occupy activists based on his experience in the New Left.

A friend in Canada recently asked me if the Sixties’ protests had any important lessons to pass on to the Occupy movement.

I told her that one of the few clear memories that I retain from 45 years ago was a fervent vow never to age into an old fart with lessons to pass on.

But she persisted and the question ultimately aroused my own curiosity. What, indeed, have I learned from my fumbling-and-bungling lifetime of activism?

Well, unequivocally I am a pro at coaxing 1,000 copies of a flyer from a delicate mimeograph stencil before it disintegrates. (I’ve promised my kids to take them to the Smithsonian someday to see one of these infernal devices that powered the civil rights and anti-war movements.)

Other than that, I mainly recall injunctions from older or more experienced comrades that I’ve put to memory as a personal Ten Commandments (like you might find in a diet book or inspirational tract). For what it's worth:

First, the categorical imperative is to organize or rather to facilitate other peoples’ self-organization. Catalyst is good, but organization is better.

Second, leadership must be temporary and subject to recall. The job of a good organizer, as it was often said in the civil rights movement, is to organize herself out of a job, not to become indispensable.
Third, protesters must subvert the media’s constant tendency toward metonymy -- the designation of the whole by a part, the group by an individual. (Consider how bizarre it is, for instance, that we have "Martin Luther King Day" rather than "Civil Rights Movement Day.") Spokespeople should regularly be rotated and when necessary, shot.

Fourth, the same warning applies to the relationship between a movement and individuals who participate as an organized bloc. I very much believe in the necessity of an organic revolutionary left, but groups can only claim authenticity if they give priority to building the struggle and keep no secret agenda from other participants.

Fifth, as we learned the hard way in the 1960s, consensual democracy is not identical to participatory democracy. For affinity groups and communes, consensus decision-making may work admirably, but for any large or long-term protest, some form of representative democracy is essential to allow the broadest and most equal participation. The devil, as always, is in the details: ensuring that any delegate can be recalled, formalizing rights of political minorities, guaranteeing affirmative representation, and so on.I know it’s heretical to say so but good anarchists, who believe in grassroots self-government and concerted action, will find much of value in Roberts’ Rules of Order (simply a useful technology for organized discussion and decision-making).

Sixth, an "organizing strategy" is not only a plan for enlarging participation in protest but also a concept for aligning protest with the constituencies that bear the brunt of exploitation and oppression.
For example, one of the most brilliant strategic moves of the Black liberation movement in the late 1960s was to take the struggle inside the auto plants in Detroit to form the League of Revolutionary Black Workers.
Today, "Occupying the Hood" is a similar challenge and opportunity. And the troops occupying the plutocrats’ front yard need to respond unequivocally to the human-rights crisis in working-class immigrant communities.

The immigrant rights protests five years ago were amongst the largest mass demonstrations in U.S. history. Perhaps next May Day we will see a convergence of all movements against inequality on a single day of action.

Seventh, building movements that are genuinely inclusive of unemployed and poor people requires infrastructures to provide for basic survival needs like food, shelter, and healthcare. To enable lives of struggle we must create sharing collectives and redistribute our own resources toward young frontline fighters.

Similarly we must renew the apparatus of movement-committed legal professionals (like the National Lawyers Guild) that played such a vital role in sustaining protest in face of mass repression in the 1960s.
Eighth, the future of the Occupy movement will be determined less by the numbers in Liberty Park (although its survival is a sine qua non of the future) than by the boots on the ground in Dayton, Cheyenne, Omaha, and El Paso. The geographical spread of the protests in many cases equals a diversifying involvement of people of color and trade unionists.

The advent of social media, of course, has created unprecedented opportunities for horizontal dialogue among non-elite activists all over the country and the world. But the Occupy Main Streets still need more support from the better resourced and mediagenic groups in the major urban and academic centers. A self-financed national speakers and performers bureau would be invaluable.

Conversely, it is essential to bring the stories from the heartlands and borders to national audiences. The narrative of protest needs to become a mural of what ordinary people are fighting for across the country, e.g., stopping strip-mining in West Virginia; reopening hospitals in Laredo; supporting dockworkers in Longview, Washington; fighting a fascist sheriffs’ department in Tucson; protesting death squads in Tijuana; or global warming in Saskatoon; and so on.

Ninth, the increasing participation of unions in Occupy protests -- including the dramatic mobilization that forced the NYPD to temporarily back down from its attempt to evict OWC -- is mutually transformative and raises the hope that the uprising can become a genuine class struggle.

Yet at the same time, we should remember that union leaderships, in their majority, remain hopelessly committed to a disastrous marriage with the Democratic Party, as well as to unprincipled inter-union wars that have squandered much of the promise of a new beginning for labor.

Anti-capitalist protesters thus need to more effectively hook up with rank-and-file opposition groups and progressive caucuses within the unions.

Tenth, one of the simplest but most abiding lessons from dissident generations past is the need to speak in the vernacular. The moral urgency of change acquires its greatest grandeur when expressed in a shared language.
Indeed the greatest radical voices -- Tom Paine, Sojourner Truth, Frederick Douglas, Gene Debs, Upton Sinclair, Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, and Mario Savio -- have always known how to appeal to Americans in the powerful, familiar words of their major traditions of conscience.

One extraordinary example was Sinclair’s nearly successful campaign for Governor of California in 1934. His manifesto, "End Poverty in California Now," was essentially the program of the Socialist Party translated in New Testament parables. It won millions of supporters.

Today, as the Occupy movements debate whether or not they need more concrete political definition, we need to understand what demands have the broadest appeal while remaining radical in an anti-systemic sense.

Some young activists might put their Bakunin, Lenin, or Slavoj Zizek temporarily aside and dust off a copy of FDR’s 1944 campaign platform: an Economic Bill of Rights.

It was a clarion call to social citizenship and a declaration of inalienable rights to employment, housing, healthcare, and a happy life -- about as far away from the timid concessionary Please-Just-Kill-Half-the-Jews politics of the Obama administration as might be envisioned.

The fourth-term platform (whatever opportunistic motivations existed in the White House) used the language of Jefferson to advance the core demands of the CIO and the social-democratic wing of the New Deal.
It was not the maximum program of the Left (i.e., democratic social ownership of the banks and large corporations), but certainly the most advanced progressive position ever espoused by a major political party or U.S. president.

Today, of course, an Economic Bill of Rights is both an utterly utopian idea and a simple definition of what most Americans existentially need.

But the new movements, like the old, must at all cost occupy the terrain of fundamental needs, not of short-term political "realism."

In doing so, why not accept the gift of FDR’s endorsement.

Artigo retirado de: libcom.org

Monopoly is an old game

Fórum Social Mundial + Primavera Árabe + Indignados + Occupy = Another World is Possible (?)

por Maurício Hashizume
retirado da Carta Maior

Tunísia aproximou do Fórum movimentos como Occupy e Indignados

Um mês depois de ocorrido, o Fórum Social Mundial (FSM) 2013 que teve lugar em Túnis, capital da Tunísia, continua a motivar discussões sobre as formas coletivas de resistência e a busca de alternativas à lógica dominante do capitalismo neoliberal.

leia mais...

Assange Show: On Occupy

David Harvey propõe retomada de espaços públicos nas cidades

(*) O teor da entrevista de Harvey está transcrito (editado) abaixo em português.

AMY GOODMAN: Terça-feira é 1º de maio, também conhecido como Dia Internacional dos Trabalhadores, um feriado em que se celebra os direitos e as conquistas dos trabalhadores organizados, como a jornada de oito horas. Este ano, a campanha do Ocupe Wall Street espera mobilizar dezenas de milhares de pessoas ao redor do país com o slogan “Greve Geral. Sem Trabalho. Sem compras. Ocupe em toda parte”. São planejados eventos em 125 cidades. A campanha Ocupe planeja protestar em 99 alvos só em Manhattan, inclusive nos escritórios do JP Morgan Chase e Bank of America.

Na última quinta os ativistas se reuniram no Parque Union na cidade de Nova York para anunciar os planos dos protestos massivos para o Primeiro de Maio, incluindo grupos de imigrantes, trabalhadores sindicalizados, membros do Ocupe Wall Street.

Bem, para falar mais a respeito do Primeiro de Maio e da campanha Ocupe, estamos hoje com o professor de antropologia David Harvey, do Graduate Center da Universidade da Universidade da Cidade de Nova York. Ele vem dando aulas sobre O Capital, de Karl Marx, há quase 40 anos, é autor de uma série de livros, incluindo Os Limites do Capital e Uma Breve História do Neoliberalismo. Seu livro mais recente se chama Cidades Rebelde: do direito às cidades à Revolução Urbana. Explique, David Harvey.

DAVID HARVEY: Eu estou tentando olhar a história dos levantes urbanos. E, na verdade, se você olha para a situação ao redor do mundo hoje, você vê exemplos em Berlim. Você os vê também no Cairo. Vê-los sendo levados a cabo com o movimento dos indignados na Espanha e, é claro, na Grécia. E também os vê no Chile. Nos últimos anos, temos visto levantes como o de Los Angeles, vinte anos atrás. Então é isso – e eu estou interessado no tipo de significado político desses movimentos. E eu penso que em certo aspecto o Movimento Ocupe Wall Street está nessa linha.

E as ações combinadas para este 1º de maio, que serão descentralizadas em toda a cidade, de certo modo estão dizendo “Vamos tomar a cidade de volta e chamá-la de nossa cidade, em vez de ser a cidade que pertence ao 1%”. E assim, é como se disséssemos: “Vamos ter a nossa cidade, e vamos torná-la nossa cidade”. E, é claro, um dos exemplos em que isso ocorreu de maneira mais enfática foi na Comuna de Paris, em 1871.

AMY GOODMAN: O que foi a Comuna de Paris de 1871?

DAVID HARVEY: A Comuna de Paris foi um levante contra o governo, numa tentativa de criar uma forma alternativa de governo da cidade em Paris, em 1871, num contexto de guerra e coisas do gênero. E, é claro, foi brutalmente reprimida, assim como estamos vendo na Síria, neste exato momento, em Homs, na verdade. Então, isso, esses movimentos podem às vezes dar certo e às vezes serem brutalmente reprimidos.

AMY GOODMAN: Indo além da Comuna de Paris, você fala a respeito do direito das cidades. O que significa isso?

DAVID HARVEY: O direito das cidades significa – quem tem direito à cidade de Nova York? Quem pode mudar as coisas aqui? Quem pode realmente mudar a vida aqui? E quando falamos a respeito do poder do 1%, estamos falando de um grupo extremamente poderoso que na verdade domina a maior parte dos investimentos na cidade, a maior parte de sua reconstrução da cidade. E temos um prefeito bilionário que é aliado deles. Em todo caso esta dificilmente seria uma cidade governada pela imagem de sem tetos ou da população empobrecida. Assim, ao reivindicar o direito – ao exigir o direito à cidade, estamos tentando de fato falar a respeito das pessoas comuns que podem mudar a vida urbana e definir um padrão diferente de ambiente urbano, no qual vão viver.

AMY GOODMAN: No começo deste mês (abril), o prefeito de Nova York, Michel Bloomberg comparou o projeto de lei que instituía um salário mínimo para os trabalhadores da cidade com o comunismo. O projeto aumentaria o salário dos trabalhadores com subsídio da cidade. Bloomberg fez esse comentário numa entrevista na rádio WOR. Qual a sua opinião sobre isso?

DAVID HARVEY: Esta é a história de sempre. Mas olhe para a situação. Os 1% da cidade de Nova York ganham – em retorno de impostos, algo como 3,75 milhões de dólares por ano. Isso é o que o topo dos 1% ganham, em média. Há 34 mil famílias, quase 100 mil pessoas que tentam viver na cidade com com 10 mil dólares por ano. Metade da população da cidade de Nova York está tentando viver com com 30 mil dólares por ano. Isto é, os níveis de desigualdade na cidade são absolutamente assombrosos, e estão crescendo imensamente desde os anos 1970.

Quem domina a vida urbana? Quem comanda das decisões? Bem, é o 1%. Assim, eu penso que o Ocupe Wall Street e o resto estão dizendo que nós só temos uma forma de poder, que é o poder do povo nas ruas, das ações nas ruas. Nós não temos o poder de dominar a mídia. Não temos o poder do dinheiro, de comandar a política. E esta é a situação em que estamos. Assim, o Ocupe Wall Street está tentando dar uma expressão política diferente à política tradicional.

AMY GOODMAN: O movimento Ocupe tem enfrentando respostas repressivas crescentes, da polícia. Em novembro o Democracy Now! falou com Stephen Graham, que escreveu o "Cidades sitiadas: o Novo Urbanismo Militar" [Cities Under Siege: The New Military Urbanism], que analisa a influência crescente da tecnologia militar nas forças policiais locais. Você sabe, nós temos uma lei, a Posse Comitatus, que diz que soldados não podem marchar nas ruas, mas parece que o jeito que as autoridades encontraram de lidar com essas novas situações é a militarização da polícia.

DAVID HARVEY: Sim, é. Mas eu tomo isso como um sinal de como o 1% está nervoso. Quero dizer, entramos nesta crise e efetivamente o 1% tem passado muito bem fora da crise. Ninguém foi preso por tudo o que sabemos que fizeram de errado. E eu penso que o 1% está é apavorado, com a possibilidade de que o povo venha a escutar a retórica do Ocupe Wall Street. E em algum grau, as pessoas já o fizeram, porque a conversa mudou um pouco em relação à desigualdade social e à pobreza no país. E eu penso que os movimentos repressivos da polícia não estão ocorrendo apenas na cidade de Nova York, mas em todo o país. Parece quase coordenado, parece-me que há quase uma linha direta de instrução de conduta, você sabe, como se o JP Morgan desse mundo e todos os caras ricos meio que dissessem: “Vocês tem de manter essa gente quieta, vocês têm de esmagá-los pela raiz. Pela raiz”.

AMY GOODMAN: E a polícia acabou com todos os acampamentos.

DAVID HARVEY: E a polícia tem feito isso. E eu penso que o Ocupe Wall Street está se inspirando um pouco, parece-me, na coragem do povo da Praça Tahir ou no Bahrein, e em todo o resto, para dizer, “Olha, as coisas tem de mudar. E nós estamos tentando fazer com que isso aconteça de maneira pacífica”. Eu quero dizer, isto é, de novo um dos sinais disso. Esta é uma forma pacífica de demonstração e tem se tornado implacavelmente, algumas vezes, tumultos policiais.

AMY GOODMAN: Você fala a respeito da criação de espaços urbanos comuns.

DAVID HARVEY: Sim. Bem, a coisa impressionante da cidade de Nova York, por exemplo, é que há todos esses espaços públicos, mas há um espaço que de que possamos dispor como uma Ágora ateniense, e ter discussões políticas? A resposta é não. Você tem de protocolar permissões, de todos os tipos, para o uso, e é altamente regulado. Assim, de fato o espaço público não é verdadeiramente aberto ao público. Muito dos parque se tornou agora, claro, canteiros de flores, de modo que temos grandes lugares para a mistura de tulipas, mas não temos um lugar em que o povo possa se reunir. E assim, uma das coisa que estamos tentando fazer neste 1° de maio é dispor de lugares para nos reunirmos, de espaços em que possamos falar sobre as coisas. Então, há um certo tipo de universidade livre no Parque Madison. Eu vou participar disso. Assim de muitas outras ações desse tipo, em que se visa a liberar espaços na cidade nos quais se possa ter discussão política e nos quais se tenha diálogo político aberto.

AMY GOODMAN: Você fala a respeito da festa de Wall Street estar encontrando a sua Nemesis.

DAVID HARVEY: Bem, eu penso que o Ocupe Wall Street realmente se tornou algo. A coisa tocou um acorde. E a grande – eu falo da repressão sobre ele, mas – e eu penso que o acorde que o movimento tocou é, de fato, medido pela velocidade e virulência dos movimentos repressivos acionados. Então, eu penso que está começando a ser escutado, e eu espero que amanhã (hoje, 1 de maio) haverá uma situação em que muita gente dirá “Olha, a coisa tem de mudar. Algo diferente tem de acontecer."

Tradução: Katarina Peixoto

Complete Version:

AMY GOODMAN: Tuesday is May Day, May 1st, also known as International Workers’ Day, a holiday that celebrates workers’ rights and achievements of organized labor, such as the eight-hour workday. This year, the Occupy Wall Street campaign is hoping to mobilize tens of thousands of people across the country under the general slogan, "General Strike. No Work. No Shopping. Occupy Everywhere". Events are planned in 125 cities. The Occupy campaign plans to protest in 99 targets alone in Midtown Manhattan, including the offices of JPMorgan Chase and Bank of America.
Activists gathered last Thursday in New York City’s Union Square to announce plans for the massive May Day protest that will include immigrant groups, workers’ unions, members of Occupy Wall Street. Chris Silvera is Secretary-[Treasurer] of Teamsters Local 808.

CHRIS SILVERA: We want the immigrant community. We want Teamsters. We want laborers. We want the RSDWU. We want the United Food and Commercial Workers. This is a day that should be represented by hundreds of thousands marching like they did in 1886. We have to turn back the clock on Mr. Romney, on Mr. Obama, on the Congress, on Mario Cuomo, on Bloomberg. And the 99 percent has to get their share.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, to talk more about May Day and the Occupy campaign, we’re joined by leading social theorist, David Harvey, distinguished professor of anthropology at the Graduate Center of City University of New York. He has been teaching Karl Marx’s Capital for nearly 40 years, is the author of a number of books, including The Limits to Capital and A Brief History of Neoliberalism_. His most recent book is called Rebel Cities: From the Right to the City to the Urban Revolution_.
Explain, David Harvey.
DAVID HARVEY: I’m trying to look at the history of urban uprisings. And actually, if you look at the situation around the world right now, you see examples in Berlin. You see them in Cairo. You see them going on with the indignados movement in Spain, and of course in Greece. And you see them in Chile. And in recent years, we’ve seen uprisings in places like Los Angeles 20 years ago. And so, this—and I’m interested in the sort of political significance of these movements. And I think, in some ways, Occupy Wall Street is in that tradition.
And tomorrow’s actions, which are going to be decentralized all over the city, in a way is saying, "Let’s take back the city and call it our city, instead of being the city that belongs to the 1 percent." And so, it’s a bit like saying, "Let’s have our city, and we’ll make it our city." And, of course, one of the instances where that happened most emphatically was back in the Paris Commune of 1871. And so, I wanted—
AMY GOODMAN: What was the Paris Commune of 1871?
DAVID HARVEY: The Paris Commune was an uprising against the government in an attempt to create an alternative form of urban governance in Paris in 1871 under conditions of war and the like. And, of course, it was ruthlessly suppressed, as we see going on in Syria right now, in Homs, in fact, so that—so these urban movements can sometimes work, and sometimes they get savagely repressed.
AMY GOODMAN: Moving forward from the Paris Commune, you talk about the right to the city. What does that mean?
DAVID HARVEY: The right to the city means—who has the right to New York City? Who can affect things here? Who can really change life here? And when we talk about the power of the 1 percent, we’re talking about an extremely powerful group that actually dominates much of investment in the city, much of rebuilding of the city. We have a billionaire mayor who allies with them. But it’s hardly a city that is run by Picture the Homeless or the impoverished population. So, in claiming the right—in reclaiming the right to the city, what we’re really trying to talk about is the way in which ordinary people can affect urban life and define a different kind of urban environment in which they’re going to live.
AMY GOODMAN: Earlier this month, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg compared the city council’s living wage bill to communism. The bill would raise workers’ wages at city-subsidized developments. Bloomberg made the comment in an interview on WOR radio.

MAYOR MICHAEL BLOOMBERG: If you think about it, the last time you really had a big managed economy was the USSR, and that didn’t work out so well. You cannot stop the tides from coming in. We need jobs in the city. It would be great if all jobs in the city paid a lot of money and had great benefits for the workers—not good for the employers—but if you force that, you will just drive businesses out of the city.

AMY GOODMAN: That was Mayor Bloomberg. David Harvey?
DAVID HARVEY: That’s the usual story. But look at the situation. The top 1 percent in New York City earns—on income tax returns, earns something like $3.75 million a year. That’s what the top 1 percent earns, on average. There are 34,000 households, nearly 100,000 people, who are trying to live in the city on $10,000 a year. Half of the population of New York City is trying to live on $30,000 a year. This is—the levels of inequality in the city are absolutely stunning, and they’ve increased immensely since the 1970s.
And then [inaudible] say, who dominates urban life? Who dominates the decisions? Well, it’s the 1 percent. And so, I think what Occupy Wall Street and the rest is saying is that we only have one form of power, which is people on the streets, actions in the streets. We don’t have the power to dominate the media. We don’t have the power, the money power, to dominate politics. And this is the situation we are in. So Occupy Wall Street is trying to give a different mode of political expression to politics as usual.
AMY GOODMAN: The Occupy movement has faced increasingly brutal police responses. In November, Democracy Now! spoke to Stephen Graham, who wrote Cities Under Siege: The New Military Urbanism, which looks at the increasing influence of military technology on domestic police forces.

STEPHEN GRAHAM: Well, there’s been a longstanding shift in North America and Europe towards paramilitarized policing, using helicopter-style systems, using infrared sensing, using really, really heavy militarized weaponry. That’s been longstanding, fueled by the war on drugs and other sort of explicit campaigns. But more recently, there’s been a big push since the end of the Cold War by the big defense and security and IT companies to sell things like video surveillance systems, things like geographic mapping systems, and even more recently, drone systems, that have been used in the assassination raids in Afghanistan and in Pakistan and elsewhere, as sort of a domestic policing technology.

AMY GOODMAN: That’s Stephen Graham, who wrote Cities Under Siege: The New Military Urbanism. You know, we have a law, Posse Comitatus, that says soldiers can’t march in the streets, but it seems the way authorities get around this is simply by militarizing the police. Professor Harvey?
DAVID HARVEY: Yes, this is—but I take this as a sign of how nervous the 1 percent is. I mean, we’ve gone through this crisis, and effectively, the 1 percent has done very well out of this crisis. Nobody has gone to jail for all of the things that we know went wrong. And I think the 1 percent is rather terrified that actually people will start listening to the rhetoric of Occupy Wall Street. And to some degree, people already have, because the conversation has shifted a little bit towards the question of social inequality and poverty. And I think that the repressive moves of the police are not just simply in New York City, but across the nation. It seems almost to be coordinated, seems to me to be almost a direct line of instruction from, you know, the JPMorgans of this world and all of the rich folk to kind of say, "You’ve got to keep these people quiet, you’ve got to squash it in the bud. In the bud."
AMY GOODMAN: And the police did end all of the encampments.
DAVID HARVEY: And the police have been doing it. And I think Occupy Wall Street is taking some inspiration, it seems to me, from the courage of the people in Tahrir Square or in Bahrain and all the rest of it, to say, "Look, things have to change. And we’re going to try to make this change come about in a peaceful way." I mean, this is, again, one of the signal things it’s about. This is a peaceful form of demonstration, and it has been ruthlessly sometimes turned into a police riot.
AMY GOODMAN: You talk about the creation of the urban commons.
DAVID HARVEY: Yes. Well, amazing thing about New York City, for example, is there are all these public spaces, but is there a public space where we can set up the equivalence of the Athenian Agora and have a political discussion? And the answer to that is no. You have to apply for, you know, all kinds of permits, and it’s highly regulated. So the public space is not really open to the public. A lot of it is now, of course, turned into flower beds, and so we have a great place for the assemblage of tulips and so on, but we don’t have a place where people can assemble. And so, one of the things we’re going to try to do tomorrow is to set up places of assembly where we can talk about things. So there’s a sort of a free university in Madison Square Park. I’m going to be participating in that. Then many other actions of that kind, one aim of which is to try to liberate spaces in the city where we can have political discussions and where we can have open political dialogue.
AMY GOODMAN: You talk about the party of Wall Street meeting its nemesis.
DAVID HARVEY: Well, I think Occupy Wall Street has really been onto something. It’s struck a chord. And the big—and I talked about the repression of it, but—and I think the chord it struck is, in effect, measured by the speed and fierceness of the repressive moves that have been taken. So I think it’s beginning to be listened to, and I hope tomorrow there will be a situation in which many more people will say, "Look, things have got to change. Something different has to happen."
AMY GOODMAN: Finally, the art of rent. There is a big anti-foreclosure movement all over this country. In Minneapolis, there is a protest right now—
DAVID HARVEY: Right.
AMY GOODMAN: —happening to prevent another foreclosure. Why do refer to the "art of rent"?
DAVID HARVEY: Well, one of the things that’s happened is the attempt to turn cultural activities into industries to try to commodify history, and you get a sort of commodified form of history. And that allows people to claim that this is a very unique configuration. So, there’s an attempt to create something very, very special, to which tourists are drawn, and then that gives you what I call "monopoly rent," that the uniqueness of cultural configuration is being commodified. But as you know, with the environmental—
AMY GOODMAN: Five seconds.
DAVID HARVEY: —commons and everything else, the tendency is for the uniqueness actually to be destroyed by commercialization.
AMY GOODMAN: Professor David Harvey, thank you for joining us.
DAVID HARVEY: Thank you.
AMY GOODMAN: We’ll put part two on our website. Rebel Cities: From the Right to the City to the Urban Revolution.

http://www.democracynow.org/2012/4/30/ahead_of_may_day_david_harvey#transcript