Remember two months ago, on the anniversary of Occupy Wall Street’s insertion into national and popular culture, when all the major media outlets declared Occupy dead?
Those very same media outlets had to swallow those words in the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy, when activists from OWS formed a new group — Occupy Sandy — to help afflicted communities in New York recover from the “superstorm’s” devastation.
They had to swallow their words again when Occupy Sandy began outperforming organizations whose very job it is to help communities bounce back after disasters. When the Federal Emergency Management Agency shut its doors at the onset of a second storm, a Nor’easter, blowing through New York City, Occupy Sandy picked up their slack.
This became such a big deal that even the New York Times — which historically has not been very kind to movements centered around highlighting economic inequality — could not ignore it:
Maligned for months for its purported ineffectiveness, Occupy Wall Street has managed through its storm-related efforts not only to renew the impromptu passions of Zuccotti, but also to tap into an unfulfilled desire among the residents of the city to assist in the recovery. This altruistic urge was initially unmet by larger, more established charity groups, which seemed slow to deliver aid and turned away potential volunteers in droves during the early days of the disaster.
In the past two weeks, Occupy Sandy has set up distribution sites at a pair of Brooklyn churches where hundreds of New Yorkers muster daily to cook hot meals for the afflicted and to sort through a medieval marketplace of donated blankets, clothes and food. There is an Occupy motor pool of borrowed cars and pickup trucks that ferries volunteers to ravaged areas. An Occupy weatherman sits at his computer and issues regular forecasts. Occupy construction teams and medical committees have been formed.
This is not the first time grassroots, activist-based aid groups have outclassed both federal and non-profit disaster relief. Hurricane Katrina saw the formation of the Common Ground Relief Collective. That organization, founded with the principles of horizontal, voluntary association and direct action in mind, began helping people in the Lower Ninth Ward before FEMA or the Red Cross could even set up camp.
These ad hoc groups of activists and volunteers seem to work better than the government or NGOs, but why?
One possible reason is that the activists and volunteers are pulled from the affected communities themselves, rather than coming from without — therefore, they understand the neighborhoods they’re working in, know the people and can gauge their needs quickly. However, this is not always the case; Common Ground was started by four out-of-town street medics.
Another possibility is that horizontally organized groups based on the principles of free association and mutual aid are just superior to organizations steeped in bureaucracy. The evidence for this is growing rapidly, as more people take control of their own lives and help their neighbors during times of crisis, economic, ecological or otherwise.
Citations to this article:
- Trevor Hultner, The ‘Occupy Sandy’ Movement in New York Outperforms Government Aid, Portland, Oregon Skanner, 11/13/12
Precisely my point: most criticism of mutual aid and folks just helping each other out seems to rest on a Hobbesian conception of human nature. Basically, that we are all self-seeking brutes who would just tear each other apart in the absence of a power "to keep everyone in awe." I am not surprised when conservatives make that argument; even the best ones, such as the ones at The American Conservative, assume human nature is at least flawed. Driven more by passion than reason, by ruthlessness as opposed to mutuality.
What blows my mind is when I hear self-proclaimed "progressives" make this argument against the effectiveness of volunteer efforts and mutual aid. It makes me wonder how left-wing they really are. Of course, the grassroots (think the Green Party, Common Courage Press, Chelsea Green, community types, etc) are not like that at all. They have much more confidence in human nature. But, the mainstream types…like a totally different movement.
I don't deny that there is a selfish, devil-take-the-hindmost dimension to people. But, it is not the dominant dynamic. If it were, human beings would neither have gotten where they are or have achieved the numbers we have now. As for selfish gene theory, this can easily account for the presence of mutual aid; genes for mutuality and social behavior are more likely to be replicated. After all, one generally seeks mates that will be cooperative.
As I am often at pains to point out to neoliberals who want to dismantle that part of the state which protects workers and the lumpen, more flexible does NOT invariably equal "just superior." I do not trust free-association to treat people fairly, and unlike the state, free-association cannot be similarly held accountable. The professional-class white people attemptiong to take possession of the 9th ward in the aftermath of the disaster were organized around the same principles, except they were rightists taking advantage of a state of lawlessness. I trust no system of government that does not have a place for someone offensive to all yet harmful to no-one.
Um, we're not neoliberals. Could you explain yourself?
Neo-liberals aren't exactly fans of what Occupy is doing, you know? Nor were they fans of the Common Ground Collective either. They seem to support professional NGOs or nonprofits over spontaneous initiative. I also don't think whoever is trying to take possession of the ninth ward is in anyway comparable to Occupy Sandy.
I would actually think Occupy Sandy would treat those in need much more fairly. As for the state being accountable, that is true. In theory. Just as NGOs are more accountable than corporations only in theory.
Are you implying that, to protect ourselves from rightists, no spontaneous action is to be permitted? I don't think that Occupy is evicting those they find offensive.
I'm going to hate having to pull a stupid neocon meme…but, let's not draw false equivalences. Remember, neoliberals would make that false equivalence as well.
Finally, what do you call "urban renewal"? That's a polite way of saying "We're going to evict all the poor people so we can make our cronies richer."
The state and the capitalist class aren't really opposed. How else do you think neoliberalism gets implemented? By state force! That's what reveals their hypocrisy.
"I trust no system of government that does not have a place for someone offensive to all yet harmful to no-one."
Nor do I. Nor does anyone here. What's your point?