Forum Post: Another look at the "demands" issue
Posted 12 years ago on Nov. 28, 2011, 8:31 p.m. EST by brightonsage
(4494)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
I have argued vigorously against lists of demands and believe that there is real power in leaving it open to those outside of the movement to ""visualize" demands that they could agree were valid and possibly would support some form of solution. At the same time, I believe that there will be proposals of solutions that people will want to know whether, if they were implemented, would satisfy the majority of the movement. It would be useful to provide an answer so that real implementation could begin.
That said, (being a marketing guy, I thought, "Is there a single easy to remember umbrella demand that captures the essence but is broad enough to encompass all that people who consider themselves members of the movement would embrace?" I hope so, because believing that you are inside the tent is what gives us the power of numbers. If it is hard to challenge our issues as being unreasonable, it takes away the power of those who are trying to defeat us.
This may not be it, but I think it meets the criteria that I (admittedly arbitrarily set).
We want a government "of the people, by the people and for the people."
Is it original? Of course not. But it is completely familiar to every American. It is completely reasonable and I think it is as broad as all of the "demands" I have heard articulated. You don't have to get into details of how it is to be achieved. It is like beauty or sexy. You know it when you see it, and you know whether a specific example is what you like. Simple.
Now to tactics. Looking at all of the forums I realized that we are a mass of interest groups A Venn diagram of the movement would have an almost infinite number of overlapping circles. Each of us has a set of interests that are held in common with a subset of other people. If each of these issues had a forum that everyone could join and everyone could choose the fora that they would like to join, the number of members of each forum would be a measure of breadth of interest. If the number of visits, or cumulative length of time spent in each forum were logged, it would be an indication of the relative importance of that issue to each individual. So, if I spent my time in a forum working on moving a constitutional amendment forward (which had 1 million members spending an average of 2 hours per week), rather than spending my time arguing with an anarchist forum (with 10,000 members spending 5 hours each per week,)) we would know that my group is working on something more generally viewed as important than that of the other group.
But, we don't need to draw that conclusion, just report the data. We don't need a spokesperson. Everyone can interpret the data for themselves.
I don't have to feel responsible for groups I don't subscribe to. I am just responsible for myself. What do you think about these?
I will post tactics that make use of the forua/working groups. I believe that the tactics, drive the way that you handle the demands publicly. I am not saying you can't make our own personal list, and I am not saying not to prioritize that list. You should. But we shouldn't be flapping around arguing about the tail end of the list and wasting time with those who want to take positions that aren't serious for their own personal reasons. For me this is serious.
This is the most serious time since WW-II, in my opinion. Fixing a country isn't a walk in the park.
http://occupythiswiki.org/wiki/Assorted_Calls_for_%22Demands%22
we need to create and faciliate a space for issues exploration, solutions to problems, open source direct democracy- NOT "demands"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OPR3GlpQQJA
I have been active here since the very beginning, and since the very beginning I have been trying to make some core points. These points clearly have not been digested or fully understood by the mob, and so I'm going to try to make a further attempt here again.
For these reasons, I beg of you to please immediately join me on the wiki. We need to have all of these details and all of these ideas put together in an organized fashion, rather than posted in a long scrawl which will never be read.
http://occupythiswiki.org/wiki/THE_99%25_POLITICAL_PARTY
http://occupythiswiki.org/wiki/Main_Page
http://www.followthemoney.org/?gclid=CMbY87bB-qsCFUPt7Qod9HE8mQ
http://maplight.org/us-congress/guide/data/money?9gtype=search&9gkw=list%20of%20campaign%20donations&9gad=6213192521.1&9gag=1786513361&gclid=CP61oYbB-qsCFQFZ7AodcTF0jw
http://www.opensecrets.org/
http://occupywallst.org/forum/our-new-wiki/
http://occupywallst.org/forum/non-violence-evolution-by-paradigm-shift/
Agree that the OWS Forum is too disjointed to aid in communication and consensus building. Has your wiki attracted much attention? Would a banner button on the OWS site help?
Much of what I see coming from OWS is the Anarcho-syndicalism solution, "proposed in somewhat differing implementations by both Chomsky, Fresco and other intellectuals", is the great utopian dream of the social liberal anarchists of OWS. Two problems though. The disorder to implement it will potentially kill billions due to food shortages, and the leaderless vacuum it will create will probably be filled with something tyrannical per human nature.
Our Nation's people and our leaders "Revisiting our Constitution" might be a better place to start for the change needed. Intellectual pontificating by Godless men (ad nauseum) who claim an intellectual moral enlightenment, which exposes their lack of humility continue to lead the impressionable whose legitimate frustration is fed by a group victim mentality.
Creating a vacuum for tyranny will give all of us a lot more to worry about than crony capitalism which has nothing to do with the free market. Beware what you ask for....you may get more than you bargained!
Did not see any follow-up on your post. Are there Forum working groups?
I really didn't get any. I guess if you can't physically show up at the GA, you don't exist?
I'm not in principle opposed to demands, but how are they to be raised? What is the mechanism or context in which they can be raised? In many respects the NYC GA continues to be the central decision making body of OWS and getting a consensus on demands there doesn't seem very likely. The Demands Working Group can barely agree within itself on a common set of demands, much less convince a skeptical GA.
Where else and how might a set of demands emerge? Perhaps from another fairly large and central GA (Philly? San Francisco? LA?) but I don't see any signs of that.
I thought this was dead but it must have gotten bumped up. Others are asking the same sort of questions you are., I agree with you, I was watching the DC group and they seemed pretty practical and focused on political activity.
But the NY group seems dominated by anarchists and far out fringe people. The Portland group seems very active and a little radical.
I don't think that breaking laws and fighting with police is productive at this point (or maybe at any point). I think it is difficult to argue coherent positions from a group that is as diverse as this. For this reason when you can get large number who are saying various versions of "the system is broke, fix it." our cause is picked up and argued for us by articulate bloggers, columnists, and some news people.It has been effective to this point and either OWS or the 99% is brought into almost every political and policy discussion with people who are not actually part of the movement but who support it furthering our issues. At some point some one who is speaking publicly in support of us, will start attracting support from among us.
I have suggested that working groups be formed across the country to create draft positions that we could get crude measures of support for. One way is just counting the positive comments. That is very imprecise, but unless you get to real names the multiple alias problem precludes accurate numbers.
I am still looking for someone doing something rational. We need to have a way to link up reasonable people so we can share discoveries and actually work together. Ideas?
I'm a part time occupier in NYC. I wouldn't consider the NYC GA "fringe" by any means. It was they, who after all initiated the movement. It was they who passed the Declaration of the Occupation, an outstanding political document and it was they who initiated virtually all of the alliances which OWS has built, most especially the first alliance between organized labor and the radical intelligentcia since the 1940s. I wouldn't characterize any of that as "fringe" activity and the base of the NYC GA has not changed substantially since September 17, so it is not an issue of some fringe group taking over at some point. The same people who were at the core of the movement on September 17 are still at the core of the movement. I've also visited both Occupy Philly and Occupy DC several times and I don't find the political base of the movement significantly different there than it is in NYC.
i don't think the organization of new working groups in already established GAs is particularly productive. But organizing new GAs and new occupations would be. That's what OWS is about after all. That's what inspired people. Again, I'm not opposed to raising demands in principle, but I don't see it as a primary issue. Organizing new GAs and new occupations is. That is what OWS is based on.
That said, it does seem to me that the way to go to actually get a set of demands passed is to get them passed by a major GA, at which point other GAs would undoubtedly pick them up. Of course it would help if there was more coordinate between local GAs, but that will come as a felt need for it grows.
I appreciate the assessment of NYC. I was (mis) judging (as I as sure others, friend and foe) based on the comments and posts which do not Identify whether we are there or remote. So what you say re them, Philly and DC are very welcome. I am not opposed to raising demands but as a atctic I argued against it because if some of them appear far from the mainstream there is a double hit, it puts of the folks we want to join and it welcomes attacks by the opposition that we are a bunch of nut cases out to destroy society, good aspects and bad.
If we can avoid that hand get sensible issues identified AND get them prioritized, I think we will get a lot of support and a lot more people actuall joining the movement. At that point a lot of us might (I hope) be willing to fess up as to who we are. Then you can pick leaders from reviewing the comments and posts as a starting point. People who rant insanely when they are anonymous are not to be trusted as leaders, are they? I think working groups are a good way to form these issues ( I stop short of demands because it closes the door on people supporting us from suggesting solutions that may be better than we would adopt in a working group.) You will get to demands after a thorough public discussion. That is what I believe, but I could be wrong, again.
From your post it doesn't sound as though you are active in any GA. I think that is a problem as GAs are the only decision making bodies of the movement, I do realize that some people do live too far away from any GA or have too many personal responsibilities to participate in a GA on a regular basis. For those people I strongly recommend that you begin a GA in your own community. Even if it is a small community, to get something you want passed in a GA is much more likely to get it adopted by the movement as a whole than is bull shit on a web site like this.
The same goes for leadership. What people are asking for when they seek "leadership" is incomprehensible to me, and I think to them when they really think it through. So far as I can determine, there are two kinds of leadership, sometimes found in one person. One is a kind of bureaucratic leader, the general secretary, president, or chair of an organization. If that is what people want what kind of administrative changes are they concretely proposing in OWS that would require the election of such bureaucratic leadership? The other kind of leadership is not elected. It evolves organically by common consensus, or more often because the press requires a "spokes person" to interpret the movement for them. By definition there is no way to elect such a leadership. It will either emerge or it won't. Right now I'm very happy that it hasn't. OWS is the least ego based movement in history and I hope we can keep it that way. The emergence of a specific personality as a leader will be antithetical to that.
You are correct. I am an old guy in a little community on Colorado. I used to sleep on the ground, in the cold and snow etc. But health, age and mental weakness (or sanity) precludes that sort of participation.
I thought a virtual GA or a virtual component of a GA would be a way for some of us to participate/contribute. Some of might have some experience or perspective or whatever that might be useful.
I just posted elsewhere that a few issues seem to get the most resonance and those issues start with "the system is rigged against most of us, so fix it."
The rest are aspects and symptoms and anectdotes supporting that assertion. The concern I have had, tactically, is that trying to get a narrowed list of those symptoms and solutions in the form of demands provides an opportunity for really radical elements among us to make radical "solutions" official. Then the people we are trying to attract to joining us openly are put off and don't want to be associated with "bombthrowers and lunatics" and the opponents attack us with, "see I told you they were a bunch of violent crazies, lazy hippies, etc."
Tactically, that would be a horrible thing to happen. But if we can get agreement on the next tier issues like, get the corrupting influence of money out of elections and governance at the federal, state and local levels. Provide reasonable regulation of financial institutions including consumer protection, real shareholder participation in corporate governance, revise the tax structure to make it fair and remove the loopholes.Provide equality across the board for everyone (under the law and opportunity).
RE leaders. There are logistical planning that can.should be done to make us more effective (we saw how much that helped in The Egyptian spring. and that would be under the bureaucratic heading that you mentioned. If we make clear that that is not the same as the policy setting function we can too an extent that may be sufficient to prevent it becoming a bottleneck or a misrepresentation function and still provide the benefit we seek.
The policy function can be split up into working groups which should have a tactical function (how do they act to get attention (I like the nonviolent flash-mob approach all over the country, maybe it's is because that is something I could physically do, but I am not alone).
The working groups whether virtual or not will produce some leaders with great de-centralization and a training proving ground (and we should review their comments and posts because people who say radical and insane things when the are anonymous are not to be trusted as leaders when we are open with our identity.
I absolutely agree that it has been largely ego free and needs to stay that way. So those are my thoughts and confession. I used to say there are two kinds of, __, I am the other one.
I am 68 which is one of the reasons why I am a part time rather than a full time occupier. But starting a GA does not require one to sleep on the ground, in the open in the winter. If you are not too far from some kind of community, small town or business center, starting a GA is not at all out of the question and perhaps younger people who are attracted to the movement may be moved to start an occupation.
There are instructions on this web site as to how to start a GA. If at all possible and you are within a couple of hundred miles of an existing GA or occupation, I would strongly urge that you visit it, just to get a concrete feel of what the movement is all about. If you need help starting a local GA I am sure that the closest GA or occupation would send someone to help, though you may have to pay for transportation, room and board,
I am not crazy about virtual GAs. I think face to face contact is extremely important and frankly people relate to each other differently face to face than they do on the net. That said I do realize that there are a few people who are so geographically isolated or so disabled that they cannot literally participate in a face to face GA. If that is the case with you then by all means pursue the idea of a virtual GA. If not, if you live in or near a community of even only a few hundred people then reach out. I suspect you will find co-thinkers that you didn't know you had.
If you are getting the impression that the movement is composed of violent hippies then you are getting incredible distortions from the press. The average age of an occupier is 33, Most are college graduates, Many have graduate degrees. Despite that many are unemployed, I would not say that violence has been entirely absent from the movement, but I have been to many demonstrations and several occupations and I have not personally witnessed any violence coming from movement activists. What violence that there has been seems to be very isolated, such a handful of instances (only one that I know of) where a store window was broken. There has also been an occasional problem with sexual preditors in the encampments, but for the most part these have been effectively dealt with by the women in the encampments,
I am not here suggesting that there are not bohemian elements in the movement, but they are very clearly a minority if you go to any occupation or GA.
Working Groups are subordinate to GAs, which is to say you can't have a working group without first having a GA to which it reports. That would be putting the cart before the horse, Of course there is nothing to prevent anyone in any locality from organizing a working group absent a GA, but this would be unique and I think it would be easier to relate to the movement as a whole on the basis of a GA.
Leadership already exists in virtually every occupation, GA and working group. It is simply confusing to the media because it is contextual, always in flux and not identified with particular personalities. People step up and assert leadership around things with which they are expert, where they have skills or experience, Other people step up and assert leadership in other areas. Where leadership seems faulty or faultering other people step into the breach on an as need basis,
Structurally there is simply no basis for a bureaucratic leadership to emerge around a particular personality or personalities and so far no single moral leader has yet to emerge by consensus,
I will take your advice. Thanks.