Occupy San Francisco: my conversation with a protestor

Philip Oje, 26, is precisely the kind of radical every societal revolution desires. Young, earnest and idealistic, Oje joined Occupy San Francisco on September 30th, 2011. He wants nothing less than to totally change the world.

“Ideally, I’d love to see a money-less society,” he confesses, grinning. I chuckle at this, but he’s not joking. “Everything needs to change,” he says. “We’re trying to do something that has never been done before–what we’re doing has never been done in the entire history of humanity!”

Philip Oje, 11/23/11--sitting in my neighbor's living room

I ask him what he means by this.

“Well, humans have always lived as hierarchical and patriarchal societies. We want a more horizontal society. A sustainable, equitable society.”

Despite my initial skepticism, I find myself warming to Oje’s passion. We agree on several major societal problems: the homeless elderly, dependency on oil, severe global poverty, corrupt government institutions, a broken education system.

“If I could just meditate everyone into world peace, I would,” Oje remarks. “The Occupy movement is devoted to non-violence and global compassion.”

When I ask him if there are leaders in the Occupy movement, Oje shakes his head.

“We don’t have leaders,” he says. “There are some of us who have a….” he pauses, searching for the right description, “a stronger vision.”

“So what does the Occupy movement want?” I ask.

“That’s the most commonly asked question,” he says, pulling out his well-worn notebook and thumbing through the pages filled with notes. He pauses, consults a page, looks up at the ceiling, sighs.

“We believe in and embrace a variety of tactics for social change,” he says. “We are committed to non-violence and change without force.”

But some of those tactics, I say, have people wondering if the movement is truly non-violent. Oje dips his head, closes his eyes for a moment and steeples his fingers.

“I support a protestor’s right to break a window,” he says.

“You support his right to break a window?” I repeat, readying my pencil to write this down.

He smiles and reconsiders. “Well….I respect his freedom of choice although I don’t necessarily support that tactic.”

“There are better ways than destruction of property, yes?” I prompt.

He nods. “I think so. But others in our movement have other forms of civil disobedience.”

His step-dad, sitting a few feet away, interjects a practical question: “I heard the protestors in New York had to file for some kind of legal tax status–to handle all the donations they’ve received. At some point, you’re going to have to organize, how will you do that?”

This seems to perplex Philip. “But filing for legal tax status? That’s–that’s becoming part of the corrupt system we’re trying to change!” he says.

“Well, yes, but you’re going to have to consider some of these real questions,” his step-dad says.

“I know, I just….I don’t want to get into that right now,” Philip says.

Watching their exchange, I see Philip as a young visionary who is frustrated by the practical nitty-gritty of social change. As much as my heart soars with his ideals, I understand the concern of his step-dad. After all, even revolutionaries must eat and have a place to sleep. And then there’s always that pesky question about laundry: who washes the clothes when you’re running a revolution? Who pays the bills?

I can feel Oje’s unease and so I change the subject a bit.

“Has the movement changed you?” I ask. “Are you learning a lot about yourself?”

“Oh, yes!” he grins and lets out a sigh of relief. “It’s been a rite of initiation. I’ve learned I can be an effective human being. I can have conversations with all kinds of people. I’ve overcome many of my fears.”

“Peace-making is hard work,” I say.

“Yes! It is! It’s such hard work and so full of interruptions! Sometimes I feel like I’m being pulled in so many directions. Most of my time is spent in meetings having hours and hours of conversations.”

“The interruptions are part of the process,” I say. “Conversations are a very important part of change.”

“Yes! Thank you for reminding me of that,” he says.

We embrace and I wish him well. If the Occupy movement is full of people like Philip, I have hope it will succeed–at least in convincing more of us that things need to change.

I’m not sure the Occupy movement has a positive identity yet. To me, it seems like the occupiers are more consumed with what they are against than what they are for. And because they have no tangible goals and no practical way of accomplishing them, I have to wonder if they’ll achieve any kind of meaningful change.

I mean, a moneyless society sounds like a marvelous, utopic, lofty ideal. But short of radically altering human nature (which no societal revolution has ever been able to achieve), I foresee a grand dose of disillusionment in Philip’s future–unless the Occupy movement is willing to create more realistic goals. Still, I love the heart of this movement and wish them all the best.

Maybe I’m the one who needs to, as Philip says, “evolve out of this current system.”

I don’t know.

All I do know is that I have children to tend and ain’t nobody gonna wash that huge laundry pile of mine. What can I say? I am the 99%.

This entry was posted in Societal Commentary. Bookmark the permalink.
  • KatR

    I love this! And yes, I identify with the initial frustrations of OWS, but I’m not for meditating in the park for a moneyless society.

    I thought encouraging people to move their money from big banks to credit unions was a great idea (I’m in the process, timing is everything when your bills are paid online!). I hope OWS focuses more on those kind of actionable items.

  • KatR

    I love this! And yes, I identify with the initial frustrations of OWS, but I’m not for meditating in the park for a moneyless society.

    I thought encouraging people to move their money from big banks to credit unions was a great idea (I’m in the process, timing is everything when your bills are paid online!). I hope OWS focuses more on those kind of actionable items.

  • http://www.redeemingthetable.com Kamille

    i’m with you Elizabeth–i like the interview & the questions you posed.  Thanks for looking at both sides, because that’s life…very grey & not so much black & white.

  • Jane E.

    But they’re not non-violent. There are so many accounts of rape, destruction of property, all sorts of violence! This is not a peaceful protest. 
    I’m curious how he would like this change enacted. Someone is always in charge–even in these groups, there is a leader, even if he doesn’t identify one. There needs to be societal order. 
    People are not, inherently, equal in their abilities. We’re just not. Some people are intelligent, and some people are not. Some people are outgoing, some people are introverts. We are all equal in certain areas–but we are not equal as far as talents and abilities. Everyone is different. 
    Someone will always be poorer than someone else. Yes, there are big, global problems with poverty–which is why I support my church’s poor outreach, and I have a World Vision sponsorship. But part of the reason there IS so much poverty is because of governments that are unstable and don’t have a working hierarchy. If you are politically and economically unstable, you’re not going to have a population that can support itself. 

  • http://www.downtoearthwomen.blogspot.com Tracey

    Maybe you should have asked him if he’d still  support the freedom of someone’s else’s choice when they decide to break one of, or all of, HIS windows…..

    And sorry, EE, you did what most mainstream reporters/journalists have been doing when it comes to the Occupy crowd….they softball the questions, for whatever reason. If these people can’t answer the hard questions, then they have no business creating a revolution because they have no real idea what that would really mean to the common man. 

    That’s irresponsible. 

  • KatR

    I think she might have come off as a little assholic if she started grilling a guy sitting in her neighbors living room like they were on “60 Minutes”.

  • http://blueberriesforme.wordpress.com Jackie

    Sure some people will always be less capable – but that doesn’t mean they deserve less

  • http://blueberriesforme.wordpress.com Jackie

    I support OWS. People forget that protests shouldn’t be quiet. Was it illegal for black people to hold sit-ins at restaurants and libraries? Absolutely. Was that law just? No. Is it illegal for people to camp out in parks? Sure. Does that mean it is an illegitimate or wrong form of protest? No. Was it wrong to greedily collapse the economy of the United States, profit off of the downfall of others, and destroy thousands of lives and life savings? I’m gonna go out on a limb and say that is worse than illegally blocking a sidewalk.

    He is wrong though about being the first to try this. Hunter/gather societies were/are egalitarian. I’m an anthropology nerd.

  • Mszewcza

    I have been troubled at one level with the occupy movement because there is a presumption that all will be better in the absence of any plan other than radical individualism to move it anywhere. No students of history, sociology or psychology in the bunch. On the other hand it is fortunate that some subversive element has not yet wrangled control of the movement and that for the most part the First amendment seems to be working.

  • Anonymous

    I respectfully disagree, Tracey. I’m a human being before I’m a journalist or even a blogger. My main goal in talking to Philip was to have a conversation. I asked questions and was skeptical, even, but I did it respectfully and not by nailing him to the wall with a hardline “Answer This, Buddy!” line of questioning. After all, this was my neighbor’s house. I was a guest. People are free to create revolutions even if they don’t have all the answers figured out yet.

    This is not to say I support violence in any way. I think it’s pretty clear if you read my blog that I don’t support ANY of that. :)

  • Anonymous

    I hear you on OWS not being the first egalitarian infrastructure of all time. Christians, too, in the very early years of their new religion lived “with all things in common.” :)

  • Anise

    Actually, you’re absolutely right; the Occupy Movement has a resistance identity. It challenges the status quo. If it presented a particular solution, it would have a project identity. I think it is valid to point out a problem without necessarily giving a ready-made solution. All too often, we look for quick and easy solutions, probably it has been trained into us by the advertising/consumerism culture: tell someone she/he has a need or problem and present the product promised to fulfill or fix it. This is certainly evident in the media’s reactions to the Occupy Movement- where is our quick solution?

  • Anonymous

    This is very interesting. My husband has been griping for a long time about the Occupy protest having no real message, no real “for,” only “against.” I have a lot of sympathy with what they’re against, but I’m not ready to go to a moneyless society–nor do I think there is now or ever will be the remotest possibility it will become so. Human beings are too numerous; there must be some way to organize society, and if it isn’t money it’ll be bartering again, but it’s all the same idea: I have what you need, and thus I hold power over you. It’s the reality of life outside Heaven.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Theresa-Thompson/1525414797 Theresa Thompson

    Dear Mr  Oje….Yep you have you right to protest, just as I have a right to be $*&#@* put out at my hard earned tax $’s having to clean up the occupy groups’s mess here in Canada.  My suggestion to you sir is to lead by example. Go and start a business, hire some employees and be the most perfect, best, ethical leader/employer that the world has ever seen.  Talk is cheap!!

  • KatR

    Even if they are unintelligent introverts.

  • http://twitter.com/eradicating Esther

    Actually, politically OWS have some very well defined goals:

    1: Get the money out of politics. Most often cited was legislation to blunt the effect of the Citizens United ruling, which lets boundless sums enter the campaign process. 2: Reform the banking system to prevent fraud and manipulation, with the most frequent item being to restore the Glass-Steagall Act – the Depression-era law, done away with by President Clinton, that separates investment banks from commercial banks. This law would correct the conditions for the recent crisis, as investment banks could not take risks for profit that create kale derivatives out of thin air, and wipe out the commercial and savings banks.3. Draft laws against the little-known loophole that currently allows members of Congress to pass legislation affecting Delaware-based corporations in which they themselves are investors.So I think you were talking to the wrong person, depending on which viewpoint you were going for in your interview.

  • http://www.downtoearthwomen.blogspot.com Tracey

    Okay, you were a guest in someone else’s house, fair enough. You didn’t mention that part before and the way you presented this blog entry, made it seem like you were on an interview, particularly when you wrote about “readying your pencil.’
    Thing is that wanting change is not enough. If you want change, then you not only have to do the hard work, you have to attempt to make friends with those you oppose or at least find common ground that can be built on.While you were lovely at attempting to understand the point this guy was trying to make, ( no fault of yours that he really has no definitive point,) the Occupy crowd as a whole is not doing this. They refuse to recognize that the “evil” corporations are what fuel this economy. They refuse to recognize the good that business has built in our country and they also refuse to recognize the peril for the people of other countries when an individual work ethic is not only discouraged, but outright denied. It would be lovely to have everyone have everything they need at all times and for no one to go hungry and no one to be greedy, however, societies that have tried to even everything out, rewarding the lazy with the fruits of the labor of the industrious, (and I am not including the infirm, or kids, or the elderly in the group of the lazy.) everyone does end up pretty much the same and that same is POOR with a few skimming off the top and taking for themselves what they have earned by swindling it out of others. How is making most everyone poor, good for anyone? True, there will always be people who are poor, who are always going to be at the bottom of the stack. That’s reality, but why not make that group have a lot fewer people in it? The more people you have in a society who are self-sustaining and who possess and abundance of adaptation skills, the better off society is as a whole AND the better off poor people are, because there is a larger pool of self-sustainers who can help the ones who can’t do it for themselves. I will give the Occupiers credit for creating more jobs, however. Now that they are being told that enough is enough and ordered out of their shanty towns and makeshift tents, there’s lots to clean up and laborers are getting plenty of overtime pay which will pad their Christmas lists. I guess shoveling human excrement has it’s upside. 

  • http://www.downtoearthwomen.blogspot.com Tracey

    Sure, switching from large banks to locally owned banks or credit unions is a good idea in and of itself, in my opinion, but the OWS crowd isn’t telling us anything new. So they are  going to crap in the street to tell us to move our money? 

    Anyone who is money savvy, already had that figured out. 

  • http://www.downtoearthwomen.blogspot.com Tracey

    And if you personally want to do what you can to even that out, more power to you. For myself, I’d like to decide where my money goes, what charities or individuals will get my help, if anyone will. If I make buku bucks, then how I spend that is between me and my own conscience. It’s not for anyone else to tell me what I ought to do with anything I earn.

  • http://www.downtoearthwomen.blogspot.com Tracey

    Well, this definitive message was lost on me and I was actually looking for it. 

    However, the OWS crowd, doesn’t have the corner on any of this and they aren’t the first ones to advocate for any of it. If this is their message, then they completely distracted attention from it by their tactics and offensive members. 

  • http://www.downtoearthwomen.blogspot.com Tracey

    Really, you see bartering as “I have what you need, therefore I have power over you?” Really? 

    I see it more as a “Hey, I’ve got what you need/want/can use, and it looks like you have what I need/want/can use. Let’s trade.” 

    Thing is that if you don’t want someone to have that kind of power over you, then you are required to bring something to the table as well. You have to have something worthwhile to offer in exchange. 

    Why is expecting people to rise to that requirement a bad thing? 

  • http://www.downtoearthwomen.blogspot.com Tracey

    I don’t think the OWS crowd enlightened us any as to the fact that there are some serious problems in need of fixing. I think what they mostly highlighted is the fact they have too much time on their hands and needed something to give them validation for their existence. 

    So they spent all this time and energy doing what? Letting us know they have no quick and easy solutions, contrary to the lull we’ve been in because of ad agencies? Maybe we should be looking to ad agencies to come up with a solution then. If they’ve done it for other things, surely they can fix the government. :-/ 

  • http://www.downtoearthwomen.blogspot.com Tracey

    Exactly, on the first two sentences. 

  • Laura

    When you get right down to it, money in its basic form is a labor counter.  It’s easy to swap labor in a household – you cooked dinner so I’ll wash the dishes,  just like “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need” works in a family – but once you get outside the household it isn’t so easy.  I’ll cook Fred next door’s dinner while he does Tom’s laundry so Tom can mow my lawn? Then how do you get that box of grapefruit from Tampa?  A lot easier to set a dollar value to these tasks, so that labor is kind of fungible.

    What needs to be focused on, and what OWS is at least sometimes focused on, is the stranglehold that the banking-government complex has on the country.  “Too big to fail” should not be allowed to happen.  I don’t want to be taxed more to make up for other people’s careless mistakes when those other people have 50 times more money than I do to start with.  The bailouts, and the Solyndra thing which you know is the tip of the iceberg, make me sick.  And here I am, going to work every day and paying my taxes like a good little prole.  So as silly as those people sometimes are, a corner of me is rooting for them.

  • http://www.downtoearthwomen.blogspot.com Tracey

    I think this is a lot different than the fight for civil rights. The movement for civil rights had a point.  They also had a clear, definitive cause and clear definitive goals to work towards. 

    Hunter gatherer societies were by and large, smaller than the 300 million people in our country. They also didn’t have the advantages of food preservation and transportation that we have today. That one thing alone probably moved us from a egalitarian society more than anything else. For better or for worse.

  • KatR

    For those of us who aren’t practically perfect in every way, the OWS focus on credit unions was a great reminder that they are a better alternative.

  • Anonymous

    Oh, of course you have to bring something, hence the idea of “barter.” But monetary transactions can be handled respectfully or as an abuse of power, and barter transactions are exactly the same way. My point is not about one being better than the other; my point is simply that society is too large to function without some system, whether it’s money or bartering.

  • Handsfull

    Interesting, but I still don’t get much of an idea as to what the point of the whole exercise is.
    As for being the first ever to do this – has nobody ever heard of that group of people in the 1960s/70s called hippies?!  They protested all sorts of things too, in much the same way.  To me, this just seems like the latest version of that.
    I still don’t know whether I support them or not, because I still don’t really have any idea what I’d be supporting other than camping in public places.

  • http://www.tincantreader.com/ Alecia@tincantreader

    I would like to see them set some more tangible goals.  

  • Jeenny

    Expecting people to rise to the requirement is a great question. Are you willing to share your goods and services with persons that don’t have goods or services that you need but will starve if you don’t trade? Do we give barter credits to the people who cannot do anything? Do we let the unwilling die or do we work extra hard to take care of them? And when the unwilling get taken care of for free how many more will give up and not rise to the occasion? Who will run the public works? I would hope that someone would feel that they were being well compensated for making sure the city’s sewage and waste was being managed well, likewise for the mailman. How do you measure that, how do you barter that? Sorry, my brain starts going….. J ust pondering thoughts.

  • http://musings--aloud.blogspot.com Leah

    It was lost on you before, but now you know!!

  • http://musings--aloud.blogspot.com Leah

    Okay Tracey, I think we’ve been made well aware that you don’t think that the OWS movement has contributed anything new &  that you’ve already had all this figured out!  Kudos.

  • http://musings--aloud.blogspot.com Leah

    Oh Kat, your remarks always make me smile {when what I really feel like doing is boiling over due to other comments}. :)

  • http://musings--aloud.blogspot.com Leah

    Yes.

  • Hippie Gramma

    Why all the anger?  What are they doing that is so infuriating? 
     
    Frankly, after all the badly-masked racism of the Tea Party protests a few years ago in my neck of the woods, it’s refreshing to see people advocating for something positive, instead of grousing about how things aren’t the way they used to be (and we haven’t had rapes, beatings, etc., where in the world is that happening?). I’m happy young people see the problems and are willing to do something about them.  So what if they haven’t exactly figured out the solutions yet?

  • Michaelp12345

    Gospel: Matthew 25:14-30,

  • Nurse Bee

    Besy blog/column I’ve read about the occupy movement!! Thanks!

  • http://blueberriesforme.wordpress.com Jackie

    I disagree. I don’t think that less advantaged people should have to rely on whether or people or not feel like helping them.

  • Chris

    Great post.  You hit on a lot of the negative issues that I hear about the movement, but seemed to ultimately understand what it’s all about.  It’s problematic to pick some random protester out and try to get solid answers and solutions for all the problems, so I wish people were more understanding of that.  These are just random average people from all walks of life in a non-hierarchical group who want change and are out there doing something about it, they aren’t trained public orators and don’t have all kinds of ideas how to solve the problems they are shining a light on, nor should they be.  People like Philip are just sick of the corruption and want to change the world for the better, they don’t have all the answers, they don’t know the tax implications and so on, etc.  They’re just trying overcome inertia and rally the people to change the world.  Every time I debate this with people, they always ultimately agree with what I’m saying (I mean, how can you not consider all the corruption, poverty, etc a problem?), but then say that they don’t understand how it’s going to change anything.  It’s people like that who are going to do in the movement before it reaches a critical mass.  Sympathetic people to the cause who ridicule it rather than support it just kill the momentum.  No one really knows what’s going to happen with it or how it’s going to change anything, but doing nothing hasn’t exactly gotten us anywhere so far!  The government certainly has shown definitively that they aren’t on our side so just rolling over and taking it is probably not the best plan of attack.  It’s discouraging to see all the anger or harsh words from people who probably are on the same side!  It frustrates me that people choose to overlook the importance of the global movement and instead ridicule trivial non-issues, or the missteps of just a few protesters.  Well, actually, I’m sure a lot of it comes from the brainwashing received via the idiot box and the echo chamber of lies aka the 24 hour news channels.  Where was all the outrage when the tea parties rejoiced in their guns and racism and hate speech?  It frustrates me that so many “99%ers” just refuse to see the forest for the trees.
    Well, ok, not all the occupiers are like Philip so I can see where some of the unease with the movement comes from, but I still believe that we really need to support these people, or at least what they stand for, to enact change.  We can’t afford to be divided amongst ourselves anymore – we’ve been played like that for years, it’s time to stop and unify.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_7WBJX2ZOBYM6CMVU6Y6KGJC2RU dlyn67

    “The government certainly has shown definitively that they aren’t on our side so just rolling over and taking it is probably not the best plan
    of attack.”

    I love this!

  • http://papuagirlindallas.blogspot.com Kacie

    Yeah. Your comments are great. This summer I had a long conversation with a friend who has become a part of this movement. He went off on all his lofty ideals. We then discussed what this ideal society would really look like (and, as he specifically said, it would be anarchist). When we talked about how this ideal society would deal with dissenters from the system … is when I really got nervous. Essentially there was NO respect or room for these dissenters. They would need to be shut up, cast out, etc. Scary… very scary. Particularly when he was coming to the table with a newly atheistic view on life which held no intrinsic value for a human being as a human being. If you follow that logic through, a dissenter who doesn’t help society has absolutely no value and can be done away with.

    Yeah. Scary. I hope believing Occupiers have a more redemptive view of things.