Networks of Rage serves as an incredibly important text for a few reasons, but the most important is that it attempts a (semi) impartial history of OWS. I say semi because I’m not sure how impartial any history text can be; perhaps the right word then becomes “alternative,” not “impartial.” Nevertheless, it is a well-researched summary of the issues that I’ve not found elsewhere (it’s hard to find a source on the origins of OWS that isn’t just a blog post, or at least it was when I was looking three years ago.)
There are a few things that stick with me about this piece, though they’re more about the history than anything else:
“To be sure, there were other networks and groups involved in the origins of the occupy movement, and some in the movement have resented the attribution of the first call to Adbusters” (161). This sentence blew me away, and really reminded me of what the old criticisms of occupy were. Here is a group of revolutionaries working together in a movement to bring the power back to the people, yet they squabbled over who got the headline! Even if another group entirely is given credit, the idea of occupy should be the only important thing. In a people’s revolution, ownership should fall by the wayside. And that it didn’t may be evidence for that common 2011 argument: “Occupy is not truly united.”
What a great idea! I’d love to see a better encrypted mass social network run by and for the people (and not the Valley), but we’ll see where the future takes us.
Admittedly, I might be biased here. But livestreaming events is something I’m immensely passionate about, and I wrote an article about it this past weekend. I wish the piece we read had explored it some more, but ah well.