Arun Gupta's critique of "The Right Hand of Occupy Wall Stre

Arun Gupta's critique of "The Right Hand of Occupy Wall Street"
https://www.facebook.com/chip.berlet/posts/10151997340562568

## Arun Gupta > ‎Chip Berlet

Here’s is a bit more on Spencer Sunshine’s article on "The Right Hand of Occupy Wall Street. "

First, can anyone name one person who was a right winger and had any influence within Occupy in the first few months? Just one? There were hundreds of leaders around the country, but I can’t think of anyone even remotely right wing. So why all the sound and fury about “The Right Hand of Occupy Wall Street”?

Now, take this paragraph he wrote:

“Lyndon LaRouche’s Far Right sect was initially involved in OWS. It has long pushed for restoring Glass-Steagall, a New Deal-era act that limited the kinds of investments that banks could make, which was repealed in the late 1990s. Many believe that it would have prevented the housing crisis had it remained in effect. During Occupy, two bills were in Congressional committee that would have restored its provisions, and it was a priority for many Occupy protestors on the Left, as well. LaRouche’s followers were active in the OWS planning meetings, where Glass-Steagall’s restoration was one of six initial proposals for the never-realized “one demand.”19 LaRouche’s organization even claimed credit for making its reinstatement “a leading demand of the movement.”20

First, why he is saying LaRouchites were "involved"? They regularly show up at antiwar events. That doesn't mean they're involved. It just means activists can't control public spaces and any wingnut can show up. What’s relevant is the response from the left and the crowd, and Spencer provides no evidence that the left was friendly to LaRouchites or that they had any success in recruiting activists. And in my experience, the left always harasses them and tries to chase them away. Zuccotti was different because of the central social-legal-ideological role public space played in OWS.

The real problem with his paragraph is this fallacy. Just because the LaRouchites support an idea that many liberals, progressives and leftists also support does not imply any crossover or influence. Does Spencer really believe, as he is implying, that no one would have pushed a repeal of Glass-Steagall without LaRouche? Who cares what LaRouchites put on their website? Just because they claim making the repeal of Glass-Steagall was due to their influence that doesn't make it so. That's what reporting is for. He could have easily talked to Occupy the SEC, OWS activists, Debt Strike people to ask them if there is any validity to the LaRouchite claim. But Spencer doesn’t indicate that he talked to anyone.

It leaves the impression the LaRouchites did have this influence. Otherwise why say this and quote them? And if this is true, why not then find evidence to back it up, unless it's just wishful thinking on the LaRouchites' part, which Spencer accepts uncritically.

It's the same thing with his claim that the Oathkeepers "helped establish an encampment" at Occupy L.A. Activists who were there completely refute this, and it's his only point of evidence for this statement: "in some cases they [the right] supported and helped organize it even before it started."

Really?! He provides no evidence, zero, that the right "helped organize" OWS "even before it started."

He makes wildly unsubstantiated claims like this, "Paulists were at the OWS planning meetings, and they remained a fixture in the movement and appeared at almost all Occupations, though they were usually a small but vocal minority."

For one, there is no source for this. Does he mean pre-planning or just someone showing up to the NYCGA? That's a huge difference. I don't know if this is true, but I would like to hear what David Graeber, Nathan Schneider and others who were actually at OWS pre-planning say about this claim. How did they remain a fixture in the movement, just because a few of them hung around Zuccotti? And the last claim is outrageous. At one point there was something like 2,000 Occupy "affiliates" across the United States and close to 300 physical occupations. So unless Spencer spent months emailing and calling people, how can he claim Ron Paul supporters "appeared at almost all Occupations"?

Or take a look at this flawed analysis: "They [Paulists] gained general traction within Occupy because of their objection to the Federal Reserve’s bailout of the major banks after the financial collapse, and sometimes focused on its role in the subprime mortgage crisis. Counterintuitively for many, the lesson of the crisis for Paulists was the need for less—not more—federal involvement in the banking system."

So let's assume his claim is true the Paulists gained traction. If so, we would expect to see proposals and working groups within Occupy calling for less federal involvement in the banking system. Except we saw the exact opposite coming out of the Debt Strike, Occupy the SEC and others, which put forward specific proposals for regulation of the finance industry and greater government oversight. OWS was far more influenced by Matt Taibbi, who is extremely critical of the Fed. The difference between him and conspiracy theorists is that Taibbi is a journalist who has enumerated highly detailed critiques of the role the Fed plays in the economy and what reforms should be pursued. Yet none of this is considered probably because it would cause Spencer's argument to collapse.

Or this conclusion. "The deeper problem is that right-wing groups benefited from the Left’s willingness to give them a stage to speak from and an audience to recruit from."

He proved none of this. All he showed was the extreme right was intrigued by Occupy and showed up in some instances, but that in no way proves they "benefited," that "the Left" willingly gave them a stage -- in fact he shows it was liberals who did this and the left opposed it -- or that they successfully recruited from that audience.

Mind you, this is just a limited critique.

The Right Hand of Occupy Wall Street: From Libertarians to Nazis, the Fact and Fiction of...
politicalresearch.org
The Right Hand of Occupy Wall Street: From Libertarians to Nazis, the Fact and Fiction of Right-Wing InvolvementBy Spencer Sunshine, on February 23, 2014About Spencer...
Share · Yesterday at 3:40pm ·

    Stanley Rogouski and Paul Messersmith-Glavin like this.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

## Comments

    Chip Berlet That's not the issue, Arun. As Spencer's article starts:

    "Certainly, Occupy was always a largely left-leaning event. But right-wing participation has been the norm rather than the exception within recent left-wing U.S. movements—including the antiglob...See More
    22 hours ago · Edited · 1
    Arun Gupta You're trying to change the subject, Chip. I just gave a detailed critique of just a few flaws in his article. Again and again I note he shows no evidence to back up his assertions or conclusions. Please address those points, unless you think what I'm ...See More
    22 hours ago · Edited
    Chip Berlet Arun, the issue of right-wing and neofascist forces becoming involved in populist mass coalitions is real. It is a problem internationally, as the Ukraine clearly shows. That these forces bring absurd and sometimes racist and antisemitic narratives int...See More
    21 hours ago · 1
    Arun Gupta Chip, you are not responding to my critiques. So at this point should I conclude that you agree with all the reporting and analytical flaws I have detailed in Spencer's report?
    21 hours ago
    Chip Berlet That is a shabby debate trick, Arun Gupta
    21 hours ago
    Arun Gupta Then respond to the criticisms!
    21 hours ago
    Chip Berlet Arun, I am responding to what I think the main issues is, and suggesting the vigorous animosity toward Spencer and the article is telling. As someone who has written for a number of journalism reviews, I know that much of what you are demanding of me i...See More
    21 hours ago
    Arun Gupta I'm not asking you to fact-check his article. I am pointing out two categories of flaws: failure to report and then all sorts of logical fallacies. I brought Jared in on the discussion who was actually there at Occupy LA, and says End the Fed had one t...See More
    21 hours ago
    Arun Gupta Whatever, Chip. Don't engage with any criticisms.
    20 hours ago
    Chip Berlet Sorry, my bad keystroking left Arun's comment an orphan.
    20 hours ago
    Chip Berlet I do not think the article is deeply flawed, Arun. You are, in fact, doing some nitpicking here.

    "3,000 actions" (it was 2,000 movements and 300 occupations, btw)"...See More
    20 hours ago · Edited · 1
    Arun Gupta So what? I saw all sorts of wingnuttery in 41 occupations in 26 states. I talked to 500+ occupiers. And I would say at least 2/3's were naive or nutty and often both. Occupy represented American society almost more completely than any political movement we can probably think of.

    This was the nature of Occupy. It was bound to attract all sorts of right-wing kooks and sectarians and NGO and liberal and union opportunists and on and on.

    I could take Spencer's methodology and write an article about how Occupy was a den of criminality -- theft, assaults, rapes, and drug use galore. And that's exactly what Breitbart did. At least in Breitbart's case he actually interviewed Occupiers.

    I haven't gone through the footnotes, but I would bet nearly all this right-wing interest was in October 2011. One investigative reporter emailed me that Spencer's article boils down to: "Neo-Nazis showed up, they trolled everyone and they left."

    So how is any "news" that right-wingers attended some meetings and sniffed around various Occupy camps more than two years ago? The left knew it. It dealt with it when it was the violent right. Now, the liberals were problematic with their kumbaya politics, but that's liberals, not the left.

    Today I've heard from at least four people heavily involved in OWS from the get-go who all say the influence and presence of the extreme right was not significant or influential, and that it diminished over time.

    Nathan Schneider wrote, "I met a couple LaRouche folks at the Tompkins park meetings. They were present but not influential. And Ron Paul folks were always (though less and less over time) were a quiet but present minority."

    So, in fact, in then appears that Occupy dealt with the very problem he is complaining about.

    Moreover, Spencer is acting like this was all unknown and some huge problem that the left failed to grapple with. The only way you can come to that conclusion is if you decide not to interview anyone from the left who was actually there.
    20 hours ago
    Chip Berlet Arun, we just have to disagree on this.
    10 hours ago