After a hearing followed closely by Occupy Boston residents and supporters on Thursday, December 1st , Judge Frances McIntyre ruled to extend the temporary restraining order the occupiers currently held against the City of Boston. The restraining order barring eviction will remain in effect until a decision is issued by the Superior Court on or before December 15th. This marks the second time that Occupy Boston’s legal team has secured a victory – albeit a temporary one – for the group.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Massachusetts and the National Lawyers Guild (NLG) - Massachusetts, through attorney Howard Cooper of Todd & Weld, originally filed a motion for injunction on behalf of the occupiers, which was granted on November 16th. The goal of the restraining order was to head off the possibility that Occupy Boston demon-strators would be forcibly removed from their encampment, as had been recently witnessed in New York City, Portland, and Atlanta.

Cooper, who filed the suit as a coop-erating attorney with the NLG and ACLU stated:

“The Occupy Boston encampment in Dewey Square is a uniquely expressive response to the problems we face as a society today. At a time when many feel that our government is broken, the protesters have set up a small community to demonstrate how people can asso-ciate together in a more democratic, egalitarian and just way. In deciding to go to Court, the protesters have sought protection from interference with their efforts to communicate their message.”

Each party was allowed only one testifying witness at the hearing. Fire Marshall Bart Shea testified for the City, and Occupy Boston resident and Harvard doctoral student Kristopher Eric Martin testified on behalf of Occupy Boston.

Numerous Twitter accounts relayed the proceedings of the hearing throughout the morning, and included reviews of the testimony supplied by Shea and Martin. Martin endured a thorough cross-examination by City attorneys, who put forward a number of

questions regarding the camp’s merit as a form of speech and the ability of resi-dents to comply with health and safety codes. City attorneys also questioned Martin’s ability to represent the views of Occupy Boston.

Martin’s responses highlighted occu-piers’ desire to comply with safety and health standards, saying that he helped to address issues brought to him by City officials. Speaking more broadly, Martin explained that he sees the encampment as more than just a protest, but “an example to all those who come through here” of how a better society might function.

Boston Fire Marshall Bart Shea compared blue camping tarps in use at Dewey Square to “napalm,” were they to ever be ignited, and said that condi-tions at camp “made the hair on the back of my neck stand up.”

The City’s attorneys held that, due to the leaderless nature of the movement, there was no clear way to address health, fire, and safety hazards. Those in camp were puzzled as to why City officials did not bring their concerns to the General Assembly, Occupy Boston’s well-publi-cized public decision-making body, especially since police officers stationed at Dewey Square witnessed it in action numerous times. Attorneys for Occupy Boston pressed the Fire Marshall to explain why he had not done more to effectively communicate his concerns to the group.

Shea said that he “didn’t waste the effort” attempting to communicate with occupiers through the General Assembly. Instead, he testified that he spoke to one occupant, sent two letters to the camp and one to the Greenway Conservancy - all after the initial injunction was granted against the City - but did not provide any evidence that the letters were received.

Urszula Masny-Latos, Executive Director of the NLG (Massachusetts Chapter), encouraged the City to collaborate with Occupy Boston. “The City should work with Occupy and create an acceptable and workable plan for addressing all health and safety-related issues” she said, “rather than seeking the ultimate closure of the Dewey Square encampment.”

City Extends Restraining Order

by Matt Cloyd, Dan Schneider, and Heidi V. Buttersworth

by Josh SagerAt Occupy Boston, a working group composed

of occupiers and several faculty members from local universities has been working to winterize the Occupy camp. Through a combination of preparation, vigilance, and medical assistance, the occupiers will prepare for the winter so that everybody can remain safe, healthy, and comfortable.

The Occupy Boston camp is currently largely composed of smaller, three-season tents along with several larger, military grade tents. As the smaller tents are not able to protect against extreme cold or heavy winter precipitation, they must be replaced before winter sets in. Additionally, the tents are spaced far too closely to comply with fire regulations. At this point, the Winterization working group has proposed a solution that includes the consolidation and reorganization of the tents.

Several military grade, Arctic-rated tents will be purchased with donated money and set up to replace the current tents. These tents are far stronger, more insulated, and better waterproofed than the current tents, making them a safer and more comfortable way to weather the winter.

In addition, volunteers from MIT and Harvard are hard at work designing strong, lightweight shelters to shield occupiers from the New England winter. These structures will also allow more people to live together, making it possible for occupiers to better keep an eye on

each other’s health and enforce public safety guidelines.Nights are the most dangerous times for people living

without proper shelter in the winter. To ensure the health of occupiers, the Winterization group is orga-nizing a winter safety system in coordination with the Safety and Medical working groups. On cold winter nights, the Safety and Medical groups will run periodic checks inside tents to ensure that everyone is safe. In the event that somebody becomes hypothermic, they will be brought to the medical tent to be given insulating layers and warm drinks. In a worst case scenario, the medical team will call for an ambulance to transport the hypothermic occupier to the hospital.

One potential stumbling block in the winterization plan, according to the occupiers, is the actions of the police, who refuse to allow new materials into the camp, despite an injunction against the city preventing eviction (except under extreme circumstances). This frustrates occupiers, who need these new materials to make the camp safer.

The police officers stationed at Dewey Square have conducted their jobs largely without violence and are only following orders to blockade the occupiers’ site. Ultimately, any responsibility for this policy rests up the chain of command, not with the officers themselves.

The occupiers hope that the judge hearing the case will allow the occupiers to stay in Dewey Square, as well as enable the occupiers to winterize their camp in order to stay safe and healthy.

National: The Public Face of an Oath of Honor The arrest of retired Philedelphia police captain Ray Lewis -Page5

Local/Regional:Occupy Worcester Stays MobileA review of the Occupation’s nomadic history - Page 2Statement From The Courthouse StepsReprinting of a speech given by occupiers - Page 3The Howard Zinn Memorial Lecture SeriesAn overview of the series’ inception, moti-vation and history - Page 4

The Occupy Boston SummitOccupy Boston gathers together to openly discuss issues - Page 5

Police Confiscate Sink From Occupy Boston - Page 2

Opinion:The 99%, the 1% and Class Struggle - Page 7Cartoon: “Focus” - Page 7

www.bostonoccupier.com

Occupy Boston protesters march through Boston on November 30th, 2011in honor of the two-month anniversary of the Occupy Boston encampment at Dewey Square. (Photo: Tess Scheflan / Activestills.org)

Winterization Continues at Occupy Boston

Issue No. 2 December 5th, 2011 FREE PRESSbostonoccupier.com

LOCAL / REGIONALPage 2 bostonoccupier.com | The Boston Occupier - Free PressDec. 5th, 2011

Occupy Worcester Stays Mobile

By Mason WeiserSince its humble beginnings on Wall Street, occu-

pations have sprung up in cities and towns all over the country, and Worcester, MA is no exception. Worcester saw its first GA on October 9th, and in the nearly two months of occupation they have had more than their fair share of trouble.

In its short history, Occupy Worcester has dealt with meddling bureaucrats, snowstorms, two evic-tions, and more than twenty arrests. The move-ment’s harried life has forced occupiers to focus on ensuring that it has a future, instead of actively advancing their political goals “I have noticed that some people feel the group is on the defensive,” said occupier Jon Noble of the mood in camp following the several evictions Occupy Worcester has faced.

Occupy Worcester began with a GA on the Common right across from City Hall, and there it made its first encampment. The police ousted the occupiers several days later, on the grounds that public parks in Worcester close at 10 PM. They then moved to Quinsigamond Lake Park, where they weathered the October snowstorm. However, since the new camp was on private land whose owners were increasingly uninterested in having an occupation in their park, they were forced to seek another place to stay.

Many voices in the camp wanted to move back to the Common where the movement began. On November 7th they held a GA on the Common that attracted over a hundred people, including Worcester Mayor Joe O’Brien. According to a press

release from the movement’s website, O’Brien expressed his support for the movement, but warned that it was the intention of the police to arrest anyone who stayed in the park after 10PM.

In true Occupy fashion, the GA decided to take the park anyway. They began arriving the next evening: crowds of dozens swelled to hundreds over the coming hours, the media converged, and tents were pitched. The police arrived shortly after 10 PM and blockaded the surrounding area. According to the same press release, 17 occupiers who refused to leave were arrested, as well as three others who had not been occupying the park.

With the campaign to take back the Common lost, Occupy Worcester decided to take Lincoln Square, which sits at the intersection of of Route 9, Route 70, and several other major roads through Worcester. Though the square could not accom-modate tents, it served as a visible base of operations for the movement. But even though there were occu-piers pacing the sidewalk with signs at all hours of the day, Lincoln Square was not a home for the movement until the owners of the nearby abandoned Vocational High School agreed to allow the movement to use their parking lot.

During GA on November 29th, the news came that the board of directors that oversaw the high

school would be accepting tenants into the building soon, and so the occupiers would have to leave. They have yet to decide where to go next.

Some members of Occupy Worcester believe that because of the frequent evictions taking up a great deal of the camps energy, focus has moved more towards the continued existence of the camp

than the purposes for which it was founded. “I personally hope that there are more proposals for direct actions soon,” said Noble, who was brought into the movement after joining one of its marches. “I think one of the big concerns right now is numbers, there have been more of us in the past.”

Sink Confiscated By Police, Puzzling Occupiers

By Aliza Howitt and D.J. BuschiniThe Boston Police Department confiscated

a kitchen sink from the Occupy Boston camp at Dewey Square this past Thursday night, prompting a clash between police and protesters. The move came as a shock to many occupiers, who had already gained approval from the Boston Department of Health for the portable device which, they explained, would have been used to improve overall sanitation.

When police officers arrived at Dewey Square to seize the sink, occupiers surrounded their vehicles. An activist used a call-and-response form of communication called the ‘human mic’ to proclaim, “This officer has told us he needs to take the sink out of here. I’ve asked him what law he is enforcing. He has not said what law. He has only said we need to take it out of here.”

Another voice asserted that the Occupy movement peacefully “stands[s] up for inalienable human rights,” and urged listeners to act in that spirit even if met with police force.

Dozens of police deployed to Dewey Sq. helped to remove the sink. Several officers proceeded to carry and load it from the encampment’s food tent into a police van, but an estimated 75 occupiers linked arms around the vehicle and resisted for twenty minues before finally surrendering the sink to authorities.

In addition to the sink, three human beings were also taken into custody. Two were charged with disorderly conduct and the third for assaulting a police officer. There were also several claims of police violence towards various occupiers including Suzi Pietroluongo, who was punched and stepped on. Pietroluongo holds, however, that the incident may have been accidental.

Occupiers were granted a victory at a court hearing earlier that day, when Suffolk Superior Court Judge Frances McIntyre chose to extend

the temporary restraining order against the City of Boston. Her final decision will be made by December 15th. Until then, the Boston Police Department is forbidden from evicting the Dewey Square encampment; a premature raid would risk contempt of court. A press release from Occupy Boston claims that the confiscation of property also conflicts with the ruling: “The order also prevents officials from removing tents and personal property.”

However, the Boston Police Department main-tains that “building materials” are not allowed in the camp. When questioned about the term, one officer said this included “anything you buy at Home Depot.”

One of Occupy Boston’s main concerns at the hearing Thursday was that police had prevented – and, at times, sabotaged – attempts at improving safety and living conditions within the camp. Witness Kristopher Eric Martin testified that the police had repeatedly confiscated winterization and safety equipment like tents, insulating mate-rials, and blankets. Earlier in the week, Boston Police chose to confiscate a wooden pallet that was brought to Dewey Square, citing safety issues. The Occupation utilizes wooden pallets in order to form its major walkways between tents, and the pallet being brought in was intended to replace a broken one.

News of both Wednesday’s pallet incident and Thursday’s sink farce spread rapidly on the internet, where a number of Twitter users were quick to mock what they viewed as a patently absurd affair. A photo of Police Lieutenant John Pike––now infamous for his actions against protesters at Occupy UC Davis––has emerged in which the officer pepper-sprays a sink.

Police did not say whether or not bail would be granted so that the object in custody could return to its rightful owners.

University Refuses Dialogue with Occupy Harvard

By Aliza HowittMembers of Occupy Harvard may have

avoided the kind of police violence that crushed the encampment at UC Berkeley on November 9, but Harvard’s student occupiers nonetheless have had to cope with subtler forms of attack from their administration. The night that tents sprung up in Harvard Yard, Harvard literally locked its gates to the public. “There was a 5 to 10 minute period where we were pushing on the gate, and they just closed it on us,” said Will Whitham, a Harvard sophomore. “It was a charged moment, symbolic because it was Harvard shutting out all these people.” Many who wanted to participate in the Occupy Harvard community were prevented from joining that night’s encampment, including students from other schools, alumni, employees, and unaffiliated residents of Cambridge and Boston. That night Dean of Students Suzy Nelson came out to speak with the General Assembly. “The dean wanted us to move to a place that was ‘less disruptive,’” said Whitham of Nelson’s comments to the GA.

But the students voted to remain in the Yard, where their tents would remain in the public eye. Nelson agreed to attend the next day’s meeting, saying she would bring freshmen to voice their opinion on where the encampment should be. But on November 10, Nelson was a no-show.

Two weeks later, PhD student Jennifer Sheehy Skeffington took part in a Dudley House discussion forum about Occupy Harvard, which Evelynn Hammonds, the Dean of Harvard College, had committed to attending. However, Skeffington said, the dean “pulled out the day of, not citing any reasons.” Members of the panel were told that “she’d been asked to pull out by the administration,” Skeffington continued, “so [the Master of Dudley House] left an empty chair at the panel discussion to symbolize the administra-tion’s failure to turn up.”

The same day, Harvard President Drew Faust sent an email to the Harvard community, further explaining her decision to close the gates, claiming that she was primarily concerned with campus safety. Skeffington questioned Faust’s explanation since the lock-out had not “prevented the physical and verbal abuse that we’ve been receiving from certain drunk students every night. No security guard has ever done anything about that.” Harassing behaviors included swinging branches, throwing eggs, and trying to uproot the tents.

Faust also used the email to express her support of free speech and cited her own efforts to engage in discussion with the movement. Skeffington, however, paints a different picture, in which the only interaction with the administration was a ten-minute interval in the President’s office hours, which any student can claim. “The fact that she

was gloating about this, as if it was her efforts to reach out, was quite comical,” Skeffington said.

Despite a steady stream of petty harassment from a portion of the student body, there has been a significant show of support for Harvard’s occu-piers. The Undergraduate Student Council voted unanimously on a resolution to support “the right of students to peacefully protest without violent response,” and almost 1000 members of the Harvard community signed a petition in support of Occupy Harvard, including, as of November 20, 178 Harvard professors.

Occupy Harvard has attracted the national notice and the attention of some prominent figures. For instance, Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Chris Hedges, a longtime foreign correspondent for The New York Times and weekly columnist for Truthdig, counts himself a supporter. Having been formally invited to give a lecture at Harvard, Hedges opted to spend the night of November 28 in protesters’ tents instead of the room booked for him at the swanky Harvard Faculty Club. Another ally of Occupy Harvard has been Nobel Peace prize nominee Ahmed Maher, an Egyptian revolutionary and the co-founder of the April 6 Youth Movement. Unlike Hedges, Maher was never even allowed in the Yard. Denied entry, he chose to present his lecture to an audience split in half by the gates, a situation rife with symbolic significance.

Maher’s short lecture drew on his experience as a youth leader. He emphasized the importance of unity among young people for the achievement of real democracy and social justice. Hedges, in his talk, spoke on economic issues and pointedly criticized Harvard’s role in the economic collapse. “Harvard exists essentially to feed the plutocracy,” he said, standing just outside the locked gates. “It harbors within its walls some of the most capri-cious and corrupt figures: Laurence Summers, Robert Rubin, and others, who are responsible not only for the meltdown of wealth within the United States – $17 trillion virtually evaporating, $40 trillion in worldwide wealth … [but] while they were at it, they trashed one third of the Harvard endowment.”

To air these and other concerns, Skeffington joined in publishing an open letter to the Harvard president via the Harvard Crimson, the student-run newspaper. The letter also aimed to stimulate discussion among the student body on such issues as the lack of transparency in Harvard’s $32 billion endowment and the absence of clear ethical stan-dards for its investment policies. Since then, the authors of the letter have been contacted by the Harvard administration with requests to schedule a meeting. Members of the Occupy Harvard movement hope that face-to-face dialogue will soon lead to a re-opening of the gates and a new commitment to transparency and economic justice at Harvard.

Occupy Worcester protesters march on October 15th, 2011, as a part of a global day of action that drew millions into the streets. (Photo: Mike Benedetti)

Bill Lewis helps out at Occupy Boston’s dishwashing , station. (Photo: Tess Scheflan/Activestills.org)

Page 3bostonoccupier.com | The Boston Occupier - Free Press | LOCAL/REGIONAL Dec. 5th, 2011

A Statement From the Steps of Suffolk Superior Court

Statement read outside of the Suffolk Superior Court, December 1st, 2011At 8 a.m. last Thursday, as reporters and cameramen converged on Suffolk Superior Court for a hearing to determine the future of Dewey Square’s encampment, the Occupy Boston Media Team held a press conference. Occupiers Acacia Brewer and Ryan Cahill read a prepared statement, and Stephen Squibb fielded questions. The statement recalls to its audience the broader significance of the protest, reaching far beyond the bounds of Dewey Square or Boston. The importance of the statement and its occasion motivates us to print it here, in full.

For two months, Occupy Boston has been encamped in Dewey Square, across the street from the Boston branch of the Federal Reserve. Today, we are at Suffolk Superior Court to defend our right to that encampment. The Commonwealth is concerned with the character of our speech, but our words and actions cannot be understood separate from the extraor-dinary circumstances which summon them. The former are a matter of interpretation, the latter are not.

It is not a question if, in the aftermath of the financial crisis, the Federal Reserve provided trillions of low-cost loans to giant, insolvent financial institutions and then hid this information from our elected representa-tives. It is not up for debate that these same institutions proceeded to lie, openly and consistently to their shareholders, to Congress, and to the American people, about the extent of their failure while the Fed actively lobbied for a further taxpayer investment on their behalf. It is not a matter of interpretation that members of Congress charged with regulating these organizations were knowingly denied access to a full understanding of their perfidy and the willingness of Federal Reserve to underwrite it.

What is a question is how many families would have kept their homes had they been able to borrow at rates as low as those lavished on banks in secret. It is unknown how many jobs would have been saved had small businesses been allowed to sell seven hundred billion dollars of bad decisions back to the American government. It is unclear how many of the lives irrevocably damaged by our devastated economy would have fared better had they received the same consideration as the desire for JPMorgan, Bank of America, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, and Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley to pay their employees no less after the bailouts than they did beforehand.

There has been much concern over the refusal of the occupation to state clearly the nature of its political ideology. We offer that a sober assessment of the current situation explains this silence. One does not have to be a Republican to be outraged at the pointed destruction of the competitive market by the Federal Reserve. Just as one does not have to be a Democrat to be disgusted by the 51 cases in the past 15 years in which 19 Wall Street firms repeatedly violated antifraud laws they had agreed, also repeatedly, never to breach. Indeed, one need not even be an American to be roused to the defense of democracy against the systematic collusion of high-finance and those who we pay to regulate it. No political identity is necessary when the reality is unacceptable by any standard.

But here in Boston we are Americans, raised over a lifetime to revere

the principle that government derives its authority not from the largest corporations or the wealthiest individuals, but from the consent of the governed. And that any government that maintains its authority otherwise cannot be called just. The occupation of Dewey Square is an attempt, however imperfect, to once again locate a government of the people, by the people and for the people at the center of those corporations and institutions that have profited by its larger destruction. Our encampment is the only means to this end.

Fifty-six years ago today, a forty-two year old woman named Rosa Parks was arrested for refusing to surrender her seat to a man born a different color than herself. She knew the law and broke it willingly, because she knew that she was right and that the law was wrong. But the movement that inspired her did not only seek the repeal of this law, of that prohi-bition, but the end of an entire culture of injustice. A culture that decreed, against all human reason and sympathy, that certain people were innately more deserving than others. This struggle continues.

Today the banks justify their salvation by the American taxpayer by claiming that they too, are better than others, and that to hold them accountable would amount to punishing success. We now know how craven a lie this is. They are not better, merely better connected; they are not more efficient, just more deceitful, and their size only signifies the scope of their greed. At Occupy Boston, we have endeavored to create a community that does not recognize position, deceit and greed as the measure of success. We have attempted to prioritize human needs – food, clothing, shelter, the freedom of speech and assembly – so as to highlight their betrayal by those working around us.

Many people have expressed support for these goals, including the Mayor, who has repeatedly said that he understands our cause. We wonder: if he so understands, why he has not opened an investigation into what goes on inside the tall buildings that surround our little camp? When Bank of America was defrauding schools, hospitals, and dozens of state and local governments via illegal activities involving municipal bond sales, did he send the police to remove them? Does he believe that their crimes were less damaging to the health and welfare of the public than our winterized tents?

The General Assembly has approved $12,000 for the purchase of these safer, warmer tents, along with a detailed plan for assuring the safety of all occupiers through the winter. A shipment of these tents was recently seized as contraband by the Boston Police Department. Despite complaining avidly to the press about threats to public safety, the City has not sent any notices to our PO Box, posted any communications on our message boards, or appeared at our General Assemblies to relay those concerns to us. These are facts.

Yesterday, the Federal Reserve announced it was reducing the price of borrowing dollars in foreign countries. This is once again a response to a crisis provoked by irresponsible behavior on the part of the banks and their allies in governments throughout the industrialized world. In Greece, democracy itself has been suspended to better ensure the servicing of international finance. The occupation in Boston, like others around the world, is a response to these threats to our democracy, and it will continue so long as they do.

We are the 99 percent, and we are no longer silent.

Bill Lewis helps out at Occupy Boston’s dishwashing , station. (Photo: Tess Scheflan/Activestills.org)

A crowd of reporters and supporters of Occupy Boston wait outside of the courtroom at Suffolk County Superior Courthouse on December 1, 2011. (Photo: Omer Hecht)

bostonoccupier.com | The Boston Occupier - Free Press | LOCAL/REGIONAL

Zinn Lecture Series Brings Academia to Occupy Boston

by Doug Enaa Greene“The fact [is] that these demonstra-

tions are unprecedented. The Occupy movement is unprecedented.” These inspiring words were spoken by linguist and social critic Noam Chomsky to a crowd of thousands spilling into the streets at Occupy Boston. Professor Chomsky is one of the many speakers who have come to Occupy Boston as part of the Howard Zinn Memorial Lecture Series.

The Howard Zinn Memorial Lecture Series has been an integral part of the new discourse that the Occupy movement has fostered. Since Occupy began, there has been a torrent of conversation on topics and issues such as inequality, capitalism, racism, and war. According to the Series’ website, the organizers’ goal is “to create a series of lectures in which academics lead a dialogue with Occupy Boston participants on issues of economic, political, and social justice.”

The series was born out of the conversa-tions between a few radical academics who met during a mass march on the first night of Occupy Boston. Among them were local professors Joseph Ramsey, Emilio Sauri, and Pankaj Metha, who then started an ongoing dialogue about how academics could connect with the new movement in a meaningful way.

Ideologically, the Zinn Series takes its inspiration from the late political scientist, teacher, historian and activist Howard Zinn. In his seminal work, “A People’s History of the United States” Zinn sought to retell the history of America from the point of view of ‘common’ people - such as workers, political radicals and minorities - rather than elites. “A People’s History” also contains one of the earliest uses of the statistical and rhetorical distinction between the 1% and 99%, a distinction used frequently by the Occupy movement. Zinn saw himself as a historian taking the side of the people. In his words, “you can’t be neutral on a moving train.”

Since its inaugural lecture by Victor Willis in early October, the Zinn Series has brought many nationally and inter-nationally renowned academics - such as Richard Wolff, Fred Magdoff, Vijay Prashad, Elaine Bernard, and Noel Ignatiev - to Dewey Square. The speakers have addressed issues as diverse as capitalism, race, feminism, and the environment.

Listeners braved a harsh rain to hear economist Rick Wolff give a talk about the causes of the current recession. Arguing against those who would blame particular corporations or “greedy” individuals, Professor Wolff said that, “When everyone plays by the rules of the game and the game’s results are awful, the problem is the game. It’s the system.” Wolff argued that the Occupy Movement has changed the nature of discourse in the country so that now,“We can debate an economic system

that does not work.”Fred Magdoff, a professor of plant

and soil science at the University of Vermont, talked about the environ-mental crisis and the state of agriculture under the current system. Citing the growth of hunger and malnutrition across the world, he pointed out that capitalism is not “designed to provide for people’s needs, but to produce a profit.” He argued that there is no hope for the environment to be sustained under capitalism, and that what is needed is “a real economic and political democracy where people make deci-sions about the economy; people need to make decisions about what to invest in instead of...private corporations.”

Another speaker was Vijay Prashad, a professor of International Studies at Trinity College and frequent contributor to Counterpunch.org. Prashad highlighted problems within academia, “where to be educated is to be indentured.” His talk raised questions of how there can be free and meaningful education in a society that serves elite interests.

Despite audio problems, Harvard law professor Elaine Bernard’s message was heard loud and clear. She spoke forcefully of the assault on public sector unions across the United States. Professor Bernard explained to her audience that democracy doesn’t just happen in a voting booth, but depends on strong unions to make the financial struggles of the working class more widely understood.

A particularly provocative talk was given by Noel Ignatiev, a professor of history at the Massachusetts College of Art, who spoke on the issue of race and the Occupy movement. Professor Ignatiev stated that “there exists in Black America a deep current of sympathy to what this movement represents.” As part of addressing the issues of race, he said that Occupy should call for the “unconditional and immediate abolition of prison.” Ignatiev’s talk produced a wide-ranged discussion of what a society without jails would look like.

Channeling Zinn’s spirit, speakers in the series have brought with them ideas outside of conventional political discourse, concepts that challenge the status quo. They have sought to use their abilities as academics to not just to understand the world, but also to change it, bringing their knowledge ‘off of the campus and into the streets’.The Howard Zinn Memorial Lecture Series is archived online at zinnlectures.wordpress.com. Those interested in learning more can contact the Series organizers at: zinnlecturesoccupyboston@gmail.com

Their Crisis and Our ResponseBy Victor Wallis

This article was the basis of the first lecture in the Howard Zinn Memorial Lecture Series, presented at Occupy Bostonon October 11th

Howard Zinn would have loved to see you all here today, and to have been part of this historical moment. He believed we should each do the right thing regardless of whether or not it has a visible impact. When a positive impact materializes, it then comes as a pleasant surprise. But it wouldn’t happen without all the seemingly thankless work that came before.

What the Occupy movement recognizes is that the problems facing the 99% are systemic in nature. They won’t be cured by putting one of the two capitalist parties in office.

The systemic contradictions have been around for a long time, but the popular response in the US is unlike anything since the 1930s. And now there is the added urgency posed by environmental breakdown, which requires us to question previously unchallenged assumptions about the desirability of growth.

The 1930s experience remains important to us, however, for it shows both what a government could do and what it needed to do more of.

On the positive side, it proved that the government can directly create jobs that are socially useful and well paying. Such programs are not even being considered at present, when all the debate revolves around ways of subsidizing private capital to create jobs – an approach that costs more and is less successful than public works programs.

On the negative side, the New Deal of the 1930s didn’t take social power away from private capital. It weakened capital slightly, but not enough to stop it from later returning with a vengeance, leading to its steady escalation over the last 30 years.

The problem, then, is capitalism. The Occupy movement understands this in broad outline, but still has to meet practical challenges.

Critics of the Occupy movement talk a lot about wanting to hear immediate demands. The big demand, however, is a long-range one: to change the basic structure of society. This doesn’t preclude making immediate demands, but it sets the framework for defining them.

If the long-term goal is to take class-power away from the 1% and give it back to the people as a whole, the medium-term task is to build a movement – and eventually a political organization – that is actually run by the majority.

For this, we’ll need to go far beyond what was achieved in the 1930s.

How have we arrived at our present starting-point? What conditions do we face?

What political resources can we build on?First, there are the dramatic levels of unemployment

and home-foreclosures that have surrounded all of us for more than three years, along with the unprecedented levels of economic inequality brought about by decades of union-busting, deregulation, globalization, privatization, and service-cutbacks. The fact that all of this has occurred regardless of the party in power has strengthened awareness of the need for an independent popular movement.

Second, especially since the collapse of first-epoch socialism (1989), there has been an increasingly unre-strained aggressiveness on the part of capital. This has been shown not only in the Bush doctrine (continued under Obama) affirming that the US can launch military actions wherever it chooses, but also on the domestic front. On top of the recent state-level attacks on public sector unions, there are also moves by many state governments to severely restrict the voting rights of poor people (via voter-ID rules, limited access to early voting, etc.), which could remove from the voting rolls up to 5 million of those who are most in need of progressive economic policies.

Third, the Democrats continue to collaborate in a conservative economic agenda by perpetually pointing to the ever-more outrageous proposals made by Republicans and claiming to be “not that bad.” This underlines the importance, for the Occupy movement, of not allowing the Democrats to co-opt the rising popular outrage. The point is not that we should never engage in electoral politics, but rather that our doing so should be conditional upon having candidates who are from our midst – not just politicians who say things that we like to hear.

Fourth, on the positive side, we now have potent alternative media (e.g., Democracy Now; Open Media Boston), which we should use and help grow. And we have the inspiring example of popular movements from the Mideast to the Midwest.

Finally, the crisis, unwittingly aided by right-wing anti-socialist rhetoric, has created a new openness to socialism as a systemic alternative. Its grounding in US history is marvelously presented in John Nichols’ 2011 book, The “S” Word. Howard Zinn would have admired this book. Its message is that socialism is ultimately inseparable from democracy. The exact forms it will take are for us collec-tively to work out. The Occupy movement is a powerful start.

Page 4 Dec. 5th, 2011

“Criticizing the Critique of Representation”Bruno Bosteels at Occupy Boston

By J.E. HamiltonRenowned literary scholar and political theorist

Bruno Bosteels spoke to the Occupy Boston encampment on Tuesday evening as part of the Free School University’s Howard Zinn Memorial Lecture Series. Bosteels’ talk built off of his recent work on the possibility of a reinvigorated communism and the significance of the Occupy movement to a new collective politics. The lecture was followed by a lively discussion with his audience.

Bosteels, a professor of Romance Studies at Cornell University, is best known for his transla-tions of the French philosopher Alain Badiou, who raised the prospect of resuscitating communism shortly before the 2008 financial crisis. Bosteels and several other thinkers responded by beginning to explore what “communism” might look like after the fall of the Soviet Union and major reas-sessments of Marx’s thought.

One result of that exploration was Bosteels’ recently released book The Actuality of Communism, which argues that an emancipatory politics must base itself on the construction of a unified “we” that avoids the abstract arguments of “speculative leftism.” Bosteels finds that many radical leftists today are distracted by theoretical debates with little bearing on everyday life. He maintains that a “new communism” would

confront today’s economic and political realities while avoiding old debates about the work of Marx, Engels, Lenin, and other communist thinkers.

“My goal,” Bosteels said Tuesday, “was mainly to see if those theoretical texts could be made more relevant to the events of today.”

In his talk, Bosteels used this perspective to analyze the Occupy movement and its construction of an alternative model of politics. He began by addressing America’s historical relationship to communism and the need to learn from our

experiences of socialism, anarchism, and other radical political movements.

“As soon as someone mentions those words, one thinks they’re totalitarian or that they’re foreign imports — which they’re not,” Bosteels said, adding that only by honestly confronting history can we hope to move forward.

The relationship between theory and activism is a primary concern for Bosteels, especially given his commitments both to academia and to collective politics. He criticized the philosophers of the 1980s and 1990s who dismissed collective action as utopian and authoritarian. Rather than supporting individual freedom, Bosteels said, this line of thought makes any form of militancy impossible. If no one is allowed to speak for anyone else, he argued, no political gains can be won for a group.

In this way, he noted, the Occupy movement’s General Assembly model — in which each partici-pants speaks only for him- or herself — might inadvertently weaken the movement’s unifying potential.

“It’s a simple question: to what extent is it possible to have collective action in a specific place with a time of its own . . . so as to create a ‘we’?”

Bosteels quoted the poetry of Chilean writer and communist Pablo Neruda as an example of the positive use of a collective voice. Describing Neruda’s poem “Canto General” as an instance of public expression, Bosteels argued that the poet,

rather than co-opting the people for his own use, was instead offering a space for the otherwise mute masses to speak.

For Bosteels, the Occupy movement’s slogan “We are the 99%” is just such a space. The idea of the “99%” creates a collectivity that can speak politically as a unified force. Without such a collec-tivity, he maintains, there is little hope of effecting change.

Questions of representation dominated Bosteel’s final remarks and the informal discussion that followed. While Bosteels recognized that represen-tational politics had largely failed in the West and that the Occupy movement’s model of horizontal democracy has been a positive one, he argued that some sort of “speaking-for” is necessary for an emancipatory politics.

“I’m not sure the critique of representation is going to be all that effective politically,” he said. “The critique of representation does not do enough to upset the status quo.”

Noam Chomsky speaking before a crowd of thousands on October 22, 2011, as a part of The Howard Zinn Memorial Lecture Series (Photo byTess Scheflan/Activestills.org)

Above: Bruno Bosteels

The Occupy Boston Summitby Julie Orlemanski

On Saturday November 19th, the school cafeteria of Josiah Quincy Elementary in Chinatown was filled to capacity with the bustle of conversation, the aroma of lentil stew, clustered café tables, and the bodies of more than 260 participants in the “Occupy Boston Summit.” Another 65 individuals exchanged ideas in a nearby “over-flow” room, and still more weighed in online as the event was Livestreamed.

“This turn-out surpasses all of our expectations,” organizer Maureen White told the crowd.

All of those gathered in the cafeteria had come out to join a community-wide conversation about the challenges and oppor-tunities currently facing Occupy Boston. The dialogue included school teachers and longtime activists, college students and artists, war veterans and suburbanites, civic leaders from Chinatown and occupiers who had traveled from Occupy Wall Street – and of course many who had walked over from Dewey Square on what was Day 51 of Boston’s occupation. Attendees had access to translation services in Cantonese, Spanish, and Portuguese, and on-site daycare was provided free of charge.

As the original “call” for Summit made clear, the purpose of the event would not be to settle on a single course of action: “It would not be a GA or a decision-making session” but rather a chance “to ask ourselves some key questions about how to make the Boston branch of the Occupy movement sustainable, so that we can continue to have space to address the widening inequality in our society.” With tough choices on hold, participants could share divergent opinions freely.

Suzanne Lee kicked off the four-hour event with an inspiring welcome that drew connections between Occupy Boston and the 150-year history of activism and community-building in Chinatown, a neighborhood that “the city ignores, the city over-looks.” Lee had served as the principal of Quincy Elementary for ten years. “Let’s make sure these doors remain open,” she said, referring to the school and other centers for community life.

The diverse group at the Occupy Boston Summit was about to practice “the ancient art of conversation,” in the words of head facilitator Melinda Weekes. “We’re going to tap into our collective intelligence, the expertise and knowledge right here in this room.”

Weekes and co-facilitator Andrea Nagel guided the afternoon’s series of discussions, which dealt with topics on many people’s minds. “What is our story at Occupy Boston?” “What values do we want to live by?” “What must we do to take Occupy Boston to the next level?”

Participants then broke into groups for periods of small discussion, punctuated by the larger “harvesting” discussions in which they would share their ideas with the summit as a whole. One spokesperson, speaking into the wireless microphone that circulated through the room, recommended finding “a balance between the logistics of survival and our vision of the future.” Another, imagining what they would tell their grandchildren about the movement, said: “We changed the conversation, and therefore we changed the world.”

After each topic’s discussion concluded, participants were invited to stand and mill around, finding their way to new interlocutors.

Ideas were various, but several currents of agreement emerged over the course of the afternoon. For one, Occupy Boston seeks to keep growing. More participation, more diversity, more civil disobedience, and more outreach in neighborhoods and suburbs are needed.

Plenty of comments touched on the encampment in Dewey Square. With the camp’s long-term future uncertain, occupiers called for more supporters to spend time there – to put in a shift in the Food Tent, attend meetings of the General Assembly, spend a night on-site, or simply pick up trash.

Alongside these invitations, members of the Summit also strategized about decentralizing the occupation, asking how the movement might take root in disparate locations. Participants

suggested that suburbs, universities, and the neighborhoods of Boston could all add distinctive energies and viewpoints.

While these dialogues unfolded, volunteers with crayons and markers gradually filled an enormous banner as a record of the participants’ ideas. Sticky notes inscribed with values overlapped one another on the cafeteria wall, forming a mosaic of ideals. Among them were compassion, active democracy, redistribution,

non-violence, the end of complacency, transparency, and collective liberation.

In voicing their strategies, hopes, and disagreements, those who chose to identify themselves with Occupy Boston on Saturday afternoon helped to articulate the future of the movement. Such conversations, the summit suggests, will be ongoing.

To read more about the Occupy Boston Summit, visit http://wiki.occupyboston.org/wiki/Occupy_Boston_Summit

bostonoccupier.com | The Boston Occupier - Free Press | LOCAL/REGIONAL

The Boston Occupier’s Staff/Contributors:Angie BrandtD.J. Buschini

Heidi V. ButtersworthMatt Cloyd

Ann ColemanDoug Enaa Greene

Ethan HarrisonJ.E. Hamilton

Omer HechtAliza Howitt

Elisa MaeJulie Orlemanski

Marlie PesekJoe Ramsey

Alejandro RussJosh Sager

Dan SchneiderTess ScheflanKatie Soldeau

Chris SturrVictor Wallis

Mason Weiser

Over 300 people engaged in open discussions on Saturday, November 19th as a part of the Occupy Boston Summit. (Photos: Alan Gilburg)

Page 5Dec. 5th, 2011

SubmissionsThe Boston Occupier has an open submissions policy, and review content submitted by anyone. Whether you’re a trained journalist or a first-time writer, we will give your work due consideration for publication in The Boston Occupier or on bostonoccupier.com.We’re interested in publishing original stories about Occupy Boston other ‘Occupy’ camps throughout the country. We also accept original analysis and reports, opinions, letters to the editor, political cartoons and photographs. If you’re interested in seeing your work published in The Boston Occupier or on bostonoccupier.com, send it in to submit@bostonoccupier.com.

For More InformationSend your questions to info@bostonoccupier.com, and we’ll respond to you as quickly as we can.

TransparencyMoney donated to The Boston Occupier - both through our Kickstarter and WePay accounts - has and will solely be used for the printing and distribution of our newspaper. In the interest of transparency, we keep a public, continually updated record of all financial transactions on our website. To view this record, go to bostonoccupier.com/budget-report.

About UsThe Boston Occupier is an independent source of news on Occupy Boston and the Occupy movement. We report on the day-to-day happenings from Occupy Boston, as well as local and national news pertaining to issues raised by the movement. We also publish opinions and other pieces in the service of fostering an articulate, open discourse on a range of subjects.

DonateThe Boston Occupier currently relies entirely on donations to afford printing and distributing physical copies of the newspaper, free of charge to the public.

We accept donations through a Wepay account that can be found on the front page of our website: www.bostonoccupier.com

NATIONALbostonoccupier.com | The Boston Occupier - Free Press

The Public Face of An Oath of Honor

By Heidi V. ButtersworthThanks in large part to a free internet, a plethora

of evidence showing violent aggression by police officers on Occupy participants has made its way around the globe. In each instance, the protesters were unarmed and nonviolent. The repeated pepper-spraying of seated University of California Davis students is just one in a series of images uncommon for a nation of people used to the free exercise of their First Amendment rights to speech and assembly. Whether the aggression is ordered or committed by an officer of his or her own accord, the use of force remains an ethical issue for every police department in the country. The issue is a longstanding one, especially in poorer, politically under-represented communities.

The Police Chiefs Desk Reference explicitly states: “A police officer will never employ unnec-essary force or violence and will use only such force in the discharge of duty as is reasonable in all circumstances.

The use of force should be used only with the greatest restraint and only after discussion, nego-tiation and persuasion have been found to be inappropriate or ineffective. While the use of force is occasionally unavoidable, every police officer will refrain from unnecessary infliction of pain or suffering and will never engage in cruel, degrading or inhuman treatment of any person.”

In addition to the above, and perhaps just as important, the Law Enforcement Oath of Honor, provided by the International Association of Chiefs to police chiefs across the country and taken by thousands of officers, clearly states: “On my honor, I will never betray my badge, my integrity, my character, or the public trust. I will always have the courage to hold myself and others responsible for

our actions. I will always uphold the constitution, my community, and the agency that I serve.”

As with every community, the law enforcement community is imperfect. Oaths taken are not adhered to just as marriages end in divorce. But the Oath of Honor is taken not privately, between two people, but publicly, as a pledge to the community which the police officer has chosen to serve. That officers in both California and New York, for example, have seemingly violated this oath begs the next issue: accountability. If one officer betrays the oath, another officer who has witnessed the betrayal is sworn by the very same oath to hold him or her accountable. This account-ability by fellow officers is something we have failed to see verifiable evidence of, except in the notable case of retired Philadelphia Police Captain Ray Lewis.

Though no longer actively on the force, Lewis never forgot this oath. In full uniform, he took to the streets of New York, actively engaged his fellow officers, and was subsequently arrested for doing so. As widely reported before his arrest, and echoing the directives on the use of force, Lewis stated:

“You should, by law, only use force to protect

someone’s life or to protect them from being bodily injured. If you’re not protecting somebody’s life or protecting them from bodily injury, there’s no need to use force. And the number one thing that they always have in their favor that they seldom use is negotiation - continue to talk, and talk and talk to people. You have nothing to lose by that.”

Only time will tell if the Oath of Honor is more than a simple recitation of words, or whether it is a creed in which the public can trust. The Occupy

movement is relying on more officers like Captain Lewis to not only keep their Oath of Honor, but actively abide by it, by taking and demanding responsibility for the actions of those in their departments and precincts contrary to its stated principles and the accepted ethical standards for the use of force.

Disparate Groups Unite at Occupy Milwaukee

By Dan SchneiderIt’s raining on my third visit to Occupy Milwaukee, and

no one seems to be there. Tents are still up in Garden Park, but sagging and bowed with rainwater. Faint murmurs come from a large, white teepee that occupiers recently erected. Inside, nine men huddle around a small fire, toasting peanut butter and jelly sandwiches.

Joe Carriveau, a bearded, amicable man from Hartland, Wisconsin, tells me that the group had to sleep under the Locust Street Bridge last night. “The police come around a few times a week, remind us that we’re not allowed to have tents up after 10pm, and take them down. So we leave, find somewhere to sleep, and set them up again the next day.”

He adds, “They’ve been coming around a lot more often lately.”Looking at the Occupy Milwaukee’s physical encampment,

one has to wonder what its use is. It has a few things that Boston’s own occupation can’t claim to have – propane tanks, for one, and the aforementioned teepee – but the camp is far removed from the city center, with only a few tents and a handful of full-time occupiers. Not to mention it’s torn down almost daily.

However, Milwaukee’s “Occupy” has a meaning and utility distinct from Dewey Square’s, and perhaps from all other cities’.

Over the phone, I have the story of Occupy Milwaukee’s tumultuous start recounted to me by Jan Christenson, the Editor-In-Chief of Riverwest Currents, a local volunteer-run tabloid from the neighborhood where Occupy Milwaukee resides. Following an inaugural march on October 15th, Jan said that the group “tried to stay in Zeidler Park, downtown near the shopping center and financial buildings. The sheriff came and said in no certain terms that they couldn’t stay there, so they moved to another park in the Third Ward, on the [Milwaukee] river.”

While the displaced occupiers were attempting to settle in by the river, another group under the moniker “Occupy Riverwest,” had been showing up to Garden Park each day to hold up protest signs for an hour or two. Occupy Riverwest decided to offer the wandering occupiers the use of Garden Park, a safer and less exposed location than their stretch of land by the river.

Garden Park itself has a storied history. Several years ago, this “park” was merely a vacant lot owned by the city for potential commercial development. The surrounding community decided to start using it for their own purposes – including “an illegal farmer’s market, when it’s warmer,” Christenson tells me with a chuckle.

That sense of community has held strong at Occupy Milwaukee. The encampment receives many of its donations from homes in the surrounding neighborhood. “We like it because the neighbors are really friendly,” Joe Carriveau tells me. Right on cue, two cars drive by the park, honking their support.

There have been two major demonstrations under the banner of “Occupy Milwaukee” in its brief history. The first was the initial rally and march on October 15th, part of a day of protests across the globe that drew millions into the streets. The second was on November 17th, in conjunction with national “bridge actions” in solidarity with labor.

The November 17th march drew a crowd of a few hundred Milwaukeeans from many different walks of life: Occupiers, union members, students, and activists from a number of organizations, such as Peace Action-Milwaukee and local immi-grant rights group Voces de la Frontera. The protest ended in a massive sit-down on the North Avenue Bridge, blocking traffic

for over 3 hours. Five people were arrested during the march, but Milwaukee Police Chief Ed Flynn ultimately decided not to move in on the entire group. He told reporters that he wouldn’t aid the protestors in fulfilling “martyrdom fantasies,” and that they could “freeze their butts off” if they wanted to.

Despite the decently-sized turnout for these two major actions and the development of two other related groups – Occupy the Hood and Decolonizar el Barrio – Milwaukee’s occupation remains small on a day-to-day basis. But that doesn’t mean other groups haven’t been rallying around the cause.

Eddie Chapman, a junior at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee and a member of the school’s chapter of Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), participated in the November 17th action and has closely followed the Occupy movement at large. He explains to me that SDS and similar groups in the city have stood in solidarity with Occupy Milwaukee and orga-nized events under that name, yet these groups remain separate. “We have a few members involved who participate in [Occupy] events, but Occupy Milwaukee runs differently and is made up of different kinds of people.”

Occupy Milwaukee has received its share of complaints of a lack of ideological focus, although the group does have some particular, locally specific grievances. For instance, those connected to Occupy Milwaukee are generally supportive of current efforts to recall Republican Governor Scott Walker, whose affront to collective bargaining rights brought hundreds of thousands of protesters to the state capital last winter. However, the group has yet to take on a direct initiative of its own relating to the recall, and a statement of demands yet to be released.

Joe Shansky, communications director of Milwaukee immi-grant-rights group Voces de la Frontera, has his own views on what the group should focus on. He would like to see the movement address the immediate effects of nationwide poverty, particularly as it affects the immigrant community that he works for. He suggested that “as a movement for economic justice, we need to focus on building unity among those who are most affected right now.”

“There’s an opportunity to branch out,” Joe said, “because the [movement’s] message is so universal.”

In many occupiers’ minds, universality is a large justification for a physical occupation. As the group rolls cigarettes in the teepee on a November afternoon, Joe Carriveau attempts to explain the difference between a protest and an Occupation. “Occupation is activism, not a protest,” he says.

“A protest is saying you don’t like something and going home. An occupation is about property, power and control. We’re showing people that they can empower themselves, that this space is ours. All of ours.”

CBO Finds Income Inequalities Over 30 Year Period

By Mike MurrayA recent Congressional Budget Office analysis of household income

distribution revealed growing inequalities over the past 30 years. The report examined market and household income growth from 1979-2007, before and after federal tax and government transfers (more commonly known as social benefits, such as Social Security, unemployment, and disability payments).

The causes of the “growing unevenness in the distribution of after-tax income”, says the report, has to do with an increased concentration of market income (money earned through employment, trading, or financial investments) “in favor of higher-income households.”

“The incomes of the wealthiest one percent have nearly tripled since 1979,” says Washington Post’s Ezra Klein. After transfers and taxes, the top one percent saw their income grow by 275 percent, four times the 65 percent growth experienced by the rest of the top 20 percent. The bottom 60 percent saw an increase of 40 percent, with the bottom 20 percent seeing an 18 percent increase. To compare, the top one percent’s income growth was fifteen times that of the bottom 20 percent.

Put another way, those with the most resources saw the largest gain. The highest income earners in 2007 saw an increase in jobs and higher market income between 1979 and 2007, while the bottom eighty percent saw a decrease in both.

The report attributes two factors to the rising inequalities.The first is an uneven distribution of the sources of market income

(income coming from labor industries, business, finance, capital income etc). The population with the highest income had wider access to the industries that generated more income, such as finance, business, trading and investment, while those less skilled, and on the middle and lower end of the income scale, only had access to shrinking industries such as labor,

manufacturing, and production.The second factor was a change in the ways in which income was earned.

The study reported a decrease in the share of income generated by from labor and capital - money generated by small businesses, manufacturing, and other production jobs - and an increase in income generated by business and finance industries. This created a service-heavy economy in which much was traded, but little was produced.

Furthermore, executives have received ever greater pay since 1979, possibly due to weak corporate governance controls on pay increases, says Klein.

The distribution of social benefits - such as unemployment, disability payments, and Social Security - shifted away from households on the lower part of the income scale, declining from 50 percent in 1979 to 35 percent in 2007. The CBO attributes this shift to increased spending on elderly populations instead of impoverished persons from various age brackets.

“Increasingly, the question of income inequality is becoming a volatile political issue,” says Digital Journal writer Sadiq Green. As politicians develop budgets, Green hopes they will turn to “the mountain of data” in order to make policy decisions that would benefit all Americans.

Page 6 Dec. 5th, 2011

Former Philidelphia Police Chief Ray Lewis being taken into custody by the NYPD on November 17th, 2011. (Photo courtesy of Johnny Milano/Tsunami Photo)

bostonoccupier.com | The Boston Occupier - Free Press

OPINIONOccupy Wall Street Versus Wall Street: A Cost Comparison

By Josh SagerOne common theme among those who criticize the “Occupy”

movement is the monetary cost of the occupations to the public. “Occupy” protest camps across the country have been met with substantial, and expensive, police presence; they’ve also required forms of accommodation and support from local governments.

When one compares the costs incurred from the actions of the two residents of Wall Street, the occupiers and the bankers, it gives some much-needed perspective on the costs of the occupations.

For the purpose of this article, let’s leave aside questions of the extent to which Occupy encampments may be over-policed and instead suppose that occupations simply demand more hours of police labor than, say, baseball games, marathons, and parades because these protests are happening around-the-clock and in multiple locations.

According to a recent study, published by the Associated Press, the total cost of the response to occupations nationwide is around $13 million. A vast majority of the costs incurred by the occupied cities was paid to officers earning overtime as they monitored encampments.

Cities where there have been significant police actions against protesters account for the greatest part of the $13 million: together New York City and Oakland spent roughly $9.4 million in their responses to the occupations. In addition to funding the police, a smaller portion of the money has been spent to clean those areas around occupations that have been used far more than usual (bath-rooms, parks, etc.).

It is undeniable that the occupations around the country have cost cities money. But how do these costs compare with the costs of those other occupants of Wall Street -- the bankers and stock-brokers?

According to the estimates of the International Monetary Fund, the recent banking collapse and subsequent recession have cost the world economy approximately $4.1 trillion; these losses manifest through lost value in assets, economic contraction, and lost income due to decreased demand. Most experts concur that this crisis is not attributable to a cyclical market slump, a resource shortage, a war, or natural disaster. Instead, it was the result of combining deregulation, recklessness, and greed. A relatively small number of unscrupulous banking groups sold toxic assets to make enormous profits, all to the detriment of the global economic system and the hundreds of millions of men and women this system affects. If we are to assess the social costs of the occupations, we should also assess the social costs of those whom occupiers are protesting against.

The recent actions of those who work on Wall Street, precipitating the financial collapse, are among the primary reasons occupiers are protesting. Many protesters believe that unless economic and social reforms are instituted, we risk ever-increasing income inequality, and another collapse.

To recap: the Occupiers protesting Wall Street have cost society $13 million in the form of wages to city employees, mostly police officers. The Wall Street banking groups have cost society $4.1 trillion in economic losses.

We can conclude that the recent collapse cost society approximately

315,385 times more than the actions of those who stand up to protest the actions that caused the collapse. It is also important to note that the money spent on police overtime goes to the middle class, while the bailouts and losses to the economic sector benefit top income brackets; large, virtually interest free loans during an economic crisis are very profitable for the rich because they loan the money out and receive a profit margin of the interest rate. Judging purely by the numbers, regardless of one’s views on the protests, the occupiers have cost society an insignificant amount of money when compared with the costs of the other residents of Wall Street.

Despite the fact that peaceful protesting is a constitutionally protected right, it remains the fact that millions of dollars have been spent containing and regulating the protests. In order to retain a balanced budget, as is mandated by most cities, revenue needs to be increased to offset the costs of police overtime. There are numerous ways this might be accomplished, without resorting to cuts in city budgets. One possibility is through a federal block grant, which itself would be funded by slight reductions in some federal programs. Here are two examples of programs that might be trimmed:

1) As calculated by the think tank AmericanProgress.org, the Bush tax cut for millionaires reduces tax revenue by approximately $120 million per day ($5 million dollars per hour). This means that the

total costs of the police reaction to the “Occupy” movement could be recouped by cancelling Bush’s tax cuts for 156 minutes.

2) The costs of the responses to the occupations could be defrayed by trimming a little out of our military spending. A single F-22 Raptor jet has a marginal cost of around $138 million. Thus, cutting a single jet would fund the police responses to the occupations ten times over. The diminution of our military by a single F-22 would be negligible in terms of military effectiveness.

How much is the first amendment worth to us in this country? The cost of two and a half hours of tax cuts to the rich? The cost of 1/10 of a jet fighter? The Founding Fathers were clear in their views that the freedoms of speech, assembly, and the press are priceless; these rights are as important to the maintenance of our democracy as is our military defense. The first amendment to the Constitution guarantees these rights and preserves freedom of expression and petition even at the expense or inconvenience of the government.

The 99%, the 1%, and Class StruggleBY ALEJANDRO REUSS

This article originally appeared in Dollars & Sense magazine and on www.dollarsandsense.org.

Between 1979 and 2007, the income share of the top 1% of U.S. households (by income rank) more than doubled, to over 17% of total U.S. income. Meanwhile, the income share of the bottom 80% dropped from 57% to 48% of total income. “We are the 99%,” the rallying cry of the Occupy movement, does a good job at calling attention to the dramatic increase of incomes for those at the very top—and the stagnation of incomes for the majority.

This way of looking at income distri-bution, however, does not explicitly focus on the different sources of people’s incomes. Most people get nearly all of their incomes—wages and salaries, as well as employment benefits—by working for someone else. A few people, on the other hand, get much of their income not from work but from ownership of property—profits from a business, dividends from stock, interest income from bonds, rents on land or structures, and so on. People with large property incomes may also draw large salaries or bonuses, especially from managerial jobs. Executive pay, though treated in official government statistics as labor income, derives from control over business firms and really should be counted as property income.

Over the last forty years, the distribution of

income in the United States has tilted in favor of capitalists (including business owners, stock- and bondholders, and corporate executives) and against workers. Between the 1940s and 1960s, U.S. workers’ hourly output (“average labor productivity”) and workers’ real hourly compen-sation both grew at about 3% per year, so the distribution of income between workers and capi-talists changed relatively little. (If the size of a pie doubles, and the size of your slice also doubles,

your share of the pie does not change.) Since the 1970s, productivity has kept growing

at over 2% per year. Average hourly compen-sation, however, has stagnated—growing only about 1% per year (see figure below). As the gap between what workers produce and what they get

paid has increased, workers’ share of total income has fallen, and capitalists’ share has increased. Since income from property is overwhelmingly concentrated at the top of the income scale, this has helped fuel the rising income share of “the 1%.”

The spectacular rise in some types of income—like bank profits or executive compensation—has provoked widespread outrage. Lower financial profits or CEO pay, however, will not reverse the

trend toward greater inequality if the result is only to swell, say, profits for nonfinancial corporations or dividends for wealthy shareholders. Focusing too much on one or another kind of property income distracts from the fact that the overall property-income share has been growing at workers’ expense.

Workers and employers—whether they like it or not, recognize it or not, prepare for it or not—are locked in a class struggle. Employers in the United States and other countries, over the last few decades, have recognized that they were in a war and prepared for it. They have been fighting and winning. Workers will only regain what they have lost if they can rebuild their collective

fighting strength. In the era of globalized capi-talism, this means not only building up labor movements in individual countries, but also creating practical solidarity between workers around the world.

A labor resurgence could end workers’

decades-long losing streak at the hands of employers and help reverse the tide of rising inequality. Ultimately, though, this struggle should be about more than just getting a better deal. It should be—and can be—about the possibility of building a new kind of society. The monstrous inequalities of capitalism are plain to see. The need for an appealing alternative—a vision of a cooperative, democratic, and egali-tarian way of life—is equally stark.

Alejandro Reuss is a historian, an economist, and a Dollars & Sense Associate.

SOURCES: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Real Hourly Compensation, Private Business Sector, Series ID number: PRS84006153; Bureau of Labor Statistics, Output Per Hour, Private Business Sector, Series ID number: PRS84006093; Congressional Budget Office, Trends in the Distribution of Household Income Between 1979 and 2007 (October 2011); James Heintz, “Unpacking the U.S. Labor Share,” Capitalism on Trial: A Conference in Honor of Thomas A. Weisskopf, Political Economy Research Institute, University of Massachusetts-Amherst (September 2011).

Page 7Dec. 5th, 2011

Monday 12/5 8am “Take Back the Capitol” Bus Leaves for Washington

D.C. From Monday, December 5th, through Friday, December 9th, thousands will descend on Washington D.C. to ‘take back’ our nation’s capitol from corporate interests, including a delegation from Occupy Boston.

12pm The Occupy Boston Health And Safety Improvement Festival Occupy Boston is hosting a celebration in the name of its campers’ health and safety (and the arrival of a fireproof winterized tent to the encampment).

7pm Occupy Boston Social (Encuentro 5, 33 Harrison Avenue, Boston) All are invited to join this celebration in honor of Occupy Boston.

Tuesday 12/6 National Day of Action

Occupations across the country will join the struggle of families and commu-nities that have been on the front lines of a struggle for economic justice.

Wednesday 12/7 5pm The Howard Zinn Memorial Lecture Series:

Avi Chomsky Avi Chomsky, a professor of history at Salem State University, will talk about immigration and Occupy as part of The Howard Zinn Memorial Lecture Series.

7pm Writer’s Caucus Meeting (Meet at Ghandi Statue, Dewey Square) Bring writings you’d be wiling to discuss posting around Occupy Boston.

9pm OccupyTV/Local Access TV Working Group Meeting

Thursday 12/8 5:30pm Winterization Meeting

(Meet at Ghandi Statue, Dewey Square) All are welcome to join in idea sharing and discussion regarding how to best prepare the camp for winter.

Friday 12/9 12pm Occupoetry on the Main Stage

Poets supporting economic justice will perform readings for one hour

Saturday 12/10 Human Rights Day / Global Day of Action

Activist groups around the world will take part in this global day of action, which will serve as a call for governments worldwide to recognize and respect basic human rights. Groups are emphasizing the impor-tance of alternative forms of protest.

10am Community Training: Facilitation and Group Process

Sunday, December 11th1pm Concert: The Recession Boys Tuesday, December 13th9am Get Warm Through Breath and Movement

(Dewey Square Plaza) De-stress and relax. In case of rain or snow this event will be held in the Spirituality Tent, if available.

Friday 12/1612pm The Dewey Square Ad Hoc Chorus

(Dewey Square plaza)

OCCUPY BOSTON EVENTS

Occupy Boston Prostests gather for Day of Action/Unity Ralley on December 4th, 2011. (Photo: Jim Recht)

bostonoccupier.com