This is an excellent piece, one every activist should read, particularly the young and/or inexperienced. The only bit I disagree with is this:
Occupy might have even threatened the Democratic Party had it ever been able to overcome its anarchistic roots and in some way produced a strategy and organization. But its slogan “we are the 99%” resonated widely.
It was precisely because of its anarchist roots that Occupy- was able to threaten the Democratic Party, or at least fend off its efforts at co-optation. It is absolute nonsense to say that Occupy wasn’t organized. Not only was its proceedings orderly and efficient, it also organized several large-scale actions up to and including port-shutdowns.
I gather that what Stauber actually means by organization is hierarchy and the cession by the whole of discretionary power to authorized individual[s]. But we were told time and again that Occupy-‘s appeal was its participatory, egalitarian ethos. In fact it was that democratic spirit which set Occupy- in opposition to the Democrats, and drove the latter crazy. The events which Stauber details in his article were necessitated by the Dems inability to colonize Occupy-, and it was precisely its anarchist construction which made it invulnerable to subversion. The question, properly framed, is whether assuming this impregnable form hindered its ability to achieve desired effects, whether the impenetrability of its defenses rendered it too cumbersome to go on the offensive. I say no, but it is something which we as a Left should debate.