Forum Post: Have you guys seen this yet? Plan for organization of a National General Assembly:
Posted 13 years ago on Oct. 17, 2011, 12:47 a.m. EST by Bryson
(29)
from Austin, TX
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
"The final version of the PETITION OF GRIEVANCES voted upon by the Delegates of the National General Assembly MAY or MAY NOT include the following suggested issues:"
The point of the NGA would be to debate and decide on grievances universally acceptable, the ones listed on the page are just proposals.
these people jumped the gun, in my opinion. and some people are getting the misimpression they are representing all of the ows
Who are you saying is getting that misimpression?
people online, after the huffington post article was relayed all around
Are you saying that people online have started getting the impression that the work group responsible for this plan represents OWS as a whole?
I am saying that. The huff post article was amended, after the author was contacted. But before that happened it was quoted on many sites all over the web last nite. There are discussions regarding this on democratic underground's forum
I see, and I agree that one work group should not be seen as representing all of us, but the point of their proposal is not the list of grievances itself, but the plan for creating an assembly for debating such grievances, with the option of any delegate presenting their own or voting down any of those on the list.
I'm looking for an amendment overturning Citizens United and public only financing of elections. Both the right and the left and everyone in between can get on board for this one, which is good; cause we're gonna need em to get it done.
Have you seen GetMoneyOut.com ? There are two very different but both very promising versions of an amendment to do exactly that. One completely overturns CU by making any and all financial contributions to campaigns illegal and declaring money not speech, and one that nullifies it by limiting financial contributions to citizens only, and limiting the total of each contribution to the equivalent of $100. Both declare voting day a national holiday so that all have access to the polls on that day, no matter how many jobs they have to work.
I'm behind either or both of those proposals. To they have a petition?
yeah it's on that page. They have over 200k signatures.
I think this is a good start. I say yes.
We have been noticed … and while we have the world’s attention let’s not squander the opportunity.
We now need to focus … focus on how government and fairness in this country can be returned and belong to everyone not just an elite governing few.
We need a position – a unifying theme – something that everyone will get behind … something that people can grasp and something that the 1% will understand.
If we wish to win.. and to win long term, we must settle on the most important change we wish to achieve. Preferably it is one that everyone who is not one of the 1% agrees with.
Very seldom are there situations where virtually everyone agrees the same change needs to happen. If we press a platform that is diverse then we will be opening ourselves to division within ourselves, and as result providing those who have every incentive for the current rules to stay unchanged - weak points for them to exploit.
Remember united we stand and divided we fall.
Does everyone believe Student Loans should be forgiven? No! Does everyone believe we should simply withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan? No! Does everyone oppose the NRA? No! Does everyone believe in a women’s right to choose? No! Should they? That is a different question. To have such debates and to be part of the debate we need first to get back the government of our country! We will not do this if we list many many demands. We will not move forward because we will be endlessly debating amongst ourselves. Save those debates for later – later until there can be a real debate - rather than simply rules and stances decreed by those who weigh everything with a single criterion – namely “what’s in it for me!”
Currently the 1% does not take us seriously – they have hunkered down and are waiting for this surge to fizzle and burn out. We too will likely tire if we do not have a understandable major goal - a shining beacon to carry forward.
Beware of those who were initially critical and deriding of us – and yet are now those who position themselves as our champions. I do not want to be lectured to as to how we need to act because we don’t understand the political process – especially by those who for years have been at the beck and call of the 1%. I don’t want headlines blaring forth our victory only to find whatever we thought we had achieved is whittled away in a legislative process.
The legislation that becomes law should be a law for the 100%.
I plead with everyone who is part of or considering to be part of this movement – put aside issues that divide us – adopt the incontrovertible single point and aim of what I believe we all demand. Let’s get our government back!
To start, let’s not wait until next year to hold a National Meeting, let’s challenge our elected representatives NOW! If Grover Norquist can require all Republicans to sign a pledge to never raise taxes – then we can ask and expect that every representative, every senator, every governor, every mayor, and in fact every elected official sign a pledge that they will not take money from any corporation, PAC, organization, and that they will only accept a maximum of $500.00 (the amount is not significant it could be $100 or $1,000) per individual. Let’s make sure that those who do not sign on to the pledge will not receive one vote the next time they run for office, and anyone who is elected and who has accepted monies from other than individuals will face a recall.
This will be the start – let’s have our elected officials declare – go on record – as to where they stand – let’s make them go public so we can create a bulletin of shame . Let’s also make it clear that any company, PAC, Union, organization and/or individual who in the past has donated (either transparently or otherwise) more than the threshold we agree on, that will now not sign our pledge to limit what they provide and to cease and desist lobbying – they too will be put onto the Wall of Shame and will suffer the isolation and of boycotts until they do sign on.
While we do all this we need to keep in mind that we live in a democracy – or at least wish to. In the society we live in we need to respect that we will have differences of opinion. We must make it clear that the expression of one’s views is still everyone’s right.
I will be the first to sign the pledge …. Will you join me .. and demand that every elected official declare themselves to be with us … or not .. and that they doo so publicly.
Yours truly,
Alex P
I totally agree and you should check out:
http://occupygovernment.org/
It's a site/community forming for the very thing that you're describing, i.e. a pledge for voters saying they will only support candidates who refuse corporate funding, and a pledge for potential candidates that they will not accept said corporate funding or allow themselves to be influenced by anything other than the good of the voters. [I must note that on principle I think any political pledge should be taken symbolically and never an excuse to compromise one's values or morals] They even have a system for helping those who wish to run for office on such a platform to do so and get the necessary attention without all the funding that comes with being a crony. I think it's great, but it has just been started, so the effectiveness is yet to be seen.
That being said, I don't understand why immediate action and the plan for a national GA are mutually exclusive. What better way to get things done than to first make the candidates take a stand and declare themselves accountable to the people and then create a body with the ability to boil the various views of the people down to just the issues on which there is consensus and put those specific issues and positions in front of said accountable candidates? That's making the rather optimistic assumption that we can get such candidates elected of course, but if we're not going to try, we should all just go home right now.
I'm totally with you on the idea that we need to be taking part in the governmental process as it is, but I think a political body made up only of ordinary citizens (who don't have the resources or ability to devote years of their lives to politics) who can accurately express the feelings and temperaments of the common people would be a VERY effective influence on our representatives and senators, regardless of their position on the "99%."
In response to your post about the fact that many in the Occupy movement don't support some of these measures, I reiterate what I have answered a few other people on this page, the list of grievances on the page to which I linked is merely a list of ideas to get the debate started. If there are certain things you simply will not stand for, make that known at your local GA, or whatever we come up with for the selection of the delegates and if you and your GA decide then your delegate must carry this objection to the national assembly. The idea being not to make everybody agree with something but to find the things that we all agree on and have a place to reasonably debate the things we don't.
Where else is this possible other than forums like these which are plagued by trolls and provocateurs which compromise the integrity and composure of the debate?
I have no interest in pressing my views on anybody else, I just dream of the ability to have my views, or my objections, expressed in a meaningful way. I thought that was why we all were here.
Did it have a section in there about eliminating worldwide currency?
I don't believe so but I'm sure you could introduce the idea to your local community and see if it's something everybody could get behind.
I liked the plan overall. It has many good points. There were only a few things I disagreed with, like the suggestion that we pass Obama's Jobs bill. I think that would be a mistake, as it (like many bills DC passes) has too many kickbacks to private corporations in the form of privatizing infrastructure.
Also, I agree that getting money out of politics is a good thing, but we should be aware of unintended side effects. Karl Denninger has a fairly detailed assessment of each demand. He brings up some good points. http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=196201
Overall though, I think its a move in the right direction. Giving the congress an ultimatum to act or risk the rise of a new independent third party with the explicit intention to dismantle the corporatocracy is a GREAT idea.
The solution to the problem lies outside of the circumstances and institutions that led to the problem. We have to stop thinking of this as a political movement and start recognizing it for what it is, a socio-economic revolution.
If we get in the dirt with these political institutions it won't be long until we're as dirty as them.
Here's an idea I'd appreciate your opinion on:
http://occupywallst.org/forum/world-wide-organization/
Thanks Malikov - I am down here in Fullerton just an hours drive south of you! I like the idea and will take some time to learn more about it.
Awesome! Hey, can you reply (when you do) on that thread page, for a bump and relevancy?
I agree, but that's why I like this plan. It's a whole new way of getting things done. The founding fathers starting by convening in an assembly to agree on a comprehensive list of grievances, which is what this is. If the grievances are not addressed satisfactorily, we then already have a structure in place for deciding upon and executing nationwide action.
Anarchists will certainly view this as more of the same, but to me it looks like a way to start fresh with an open and accountable body politic that is not tied down in the corruption and partisan bullshit that plagues the current system.
If we need a whole new system in this country, what better way to figure out the "what" and "how" than a national convention of unaffiliated but completely accountable delegates, the way we did it last time 'round?
If not this, how do you propose we execute this socio-economic revolution? Nonviolently of course.
"If not this, how do you propose we execute this socio-economic revolution? Nonviolently of course."
“We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.” - Albert Einstein
Then, again I ask, how do you propose we go about this revolution?
Though I still maintain that this is a totally different way of doing things than what got us into this mess. It wasn't the founding fathers' methods of agreeing on grievances and the need for change that sunk us in this hole, but the usurpation of power from the people by the monied interests that we all agree have done so. in fact their methods are what gave them the legitimacy on a world stage to throw off the reigns of the oppressors.
I wouldn't know what to propose. This won't happen overnight. I like this idea ok, but it just seems like a lot to accomplish, especially in less than a year.
Well said
You want to give the EPA MORE power and EXPAND Medicaid? Yikes...I am out. And support for the American Jobs act??? LOL LOL Hello Mr. Obama. Nice to meet you.
Hey EPA protects citizens rights when corps. dont...
Medicaid takes 3% admin. expense when HMO's take 24%.... and Obama sucks
The EPA has NO checks on its power. You think that is a smart play? What do you think the Medicaid admin cost will be for 300 mil Americans?
The average us citizen is paying 65+% tax after you add all the state federal, local, gas, sale etc. etc. taxes up..not including healthcare....
Germany has a flat 50% tax and that includes Healthcare college education, Maternity and Paternity leave...Now thats pro-family....
...oh and Bush almost killed the EPA....and the Product safety dept.- remember lead paint toys...
Those are just proposed topics to be debated at the NGA. So you won't support anything that allows somebody who disagrees with you to even propose their ideas?
Oh I am just saying I could not get behind this movement if that list is their official stance.
It is not. The official stance is that we should elect local representatives (with strict orders from their constituencies about what they can and cannot support) to meet in Philadelphia next summer to come to a consensus on what we all demand from congress. It is not the same as the claims that we need to focus our goals and values, it's only proposing that while we continue these occupations, we should come up with way to put actual pressure on congress and prove ourselves to be a formidable body politic.
Agreed then. :D
Solidarity!
yeah, folks are having a hard time with the intentional decentralization of the movement. get over it.
This is bullshit. There's no way that PUBLIC elections can be held all over the country to elect representatives for this.
They are forming a working group with the purpose of designing and structuring these elections.
https://sites.google.com/site/the99percentdeclaration/home/please-join-this-working-group-and-let-your-voice-be-heard
I think it's imprudent to criticize it for the difficulty of setting up the elections before they've even begun trying to do so; if this CAN work, it could be very effective. Difficult to criticize by the opposition due to its basis on the methods of the founding fathers, powerful in its circumvention of the current (totally ineffective) methods of individuals writing letters to their crony representatives and signing petitions.
why?
How do you propose to hold elections in every congressional district?
I don't know ?... but it is possible
Public elections are for government offices and proposals. Even if they weren't, this couldn't be accomplished in that time frame. It needs to be re-thought.
It doesn't necessarily mean an official public election, I think it means public in the open and transparent sense. How about we discuss the relative benefits/harms of this method of addressing our government while we await the proposed plan for the elections, rather than dismissing it outright just because there is no easily applied precedent?
Do you guys think it would be effective if implemented? Would you want to be a delegate? Do you trust the delegation? Do you have any PRODUCTIVE thoughts on forming the election process?
I don't like top down anything. If something like this is done, I think it should local Ocuppy groups presenting their grievances to the representatives in their district. What NYC wants is not, necessarily what Butte, Montana wants. Also, more consideration should be given to LOCAL government. The power needs to be shifted away from Washington to create a country as the founders envisioned.
All that is included in this plan. The local Occupy groups would send their representative with a specific list of goals and grievances to be championed. It doesn't say that the local groups could not also continue using their GAs to engage in action in their local areas. I feel like the entire point of this plan is to tangibly take the power back from Washington by providing a method for the people to pressure Washington into actually obeying the will of the people, rather than continuing their in-party circle jerks and cross-party flaming, neither of which has led to any kind of progress.
I agree that this can NEVER be done online. There are also many people who don't have computers, or aren't computer literate (like the elderly). It has to be done in person. They used to call these town hall meetings!
Bryson, that reply button for most recent post still isn't there! WTF? Anyway...
Good post and I can be totally on board with that!
Have you ever read any of Gaddafi's "Green Book"? It's online. I've just read a little and it's amazingly like what we're talking about. Also much like the Iroquois constitution (because they both keep control at the tribal level). I firmly believe this is one of the reasons that Libya is being attacked - because they wouldn't play ball with the NWO model. In CNN's shilling for that war against the Libyan people, they keep repeating "there are no viable institutions in Libya". Total lies. they have (or HAD) a very viable model of self governance.
I haven't read that, but I will look it up. To be honest, I'm embarrassingly uninformed when it comes to Libya. I mean, I know enough about US foreign policy to know that we probably have bullshit motives for being there, and am pretty much opposed to US intervention across the board. I will be reading up on it soon though. It's just hard to keep up with all the bullshit all the time you know?
Yes, I know. I always have about 10 tabs open on the computer, read like a maniac, and still can't get to everything I'd like to. It's impossible.
Gaddafi held meetings with other African Union leaders and planned a pan-African GOLD dinar. This would have put real wealth in the hands of even the poorest Africans. They were also planning requiring that African natural resource exports be paid for in gold. That means Libya's oil, which Europe is a big consumer of. Next thing you know, it's bombs away. It's a NWO attack with their NWO military killing machine, NATO. This is so evil that something has to be done to put an end to it. Ron Paul is the ONLY anti war candidate, left or right, and the media is doing a total blackout on him because they are all shills for their masters who are the war mongers. It makes me sick.
Also, definitely must do that reading on Libya soon, because it sounds ridiculous.
I want to like Ron Paul so badly, he is the only anti-war, truly anti-crony candidate, but he also happens to be anti-gay, -abortion, and -universal healthcare. There are many other postions by him that I like, and a few more I don't, but it will be hard to vote for somebody who believes in a for-profit healthcare system or supports DOMA.
But then I find myself without a candidate. I'm waiting to see what comes out of beyourgoverment.com and amercianselect.com either one could provide good candidates. I'm also terrified that Mitt Romney is going to be president. He is about the worst kind of soulless puppet there is.
" but he also happens to be anti-gay, -abortion, and -universal healthcare"
Is only against FEDERAL involvement in those decisions. He believes, and the constitution backs him, that those are STATE responsibilities, NOT FEDERAL responsibilities.
I can't reply to your comment for some reason so this is for Bryson:
If a state wanted to provide healthcare for its people it would have to be voted on and taxed accordingly. Why is that a hard concept to master? You think its more feasible for a Federal government to do provide healthcare than a State?
How could states provide universal healthcare? Also, I live in Mr. Paul's state and I can say that I want Texas to have as little say in my life as possible. The state of Texas is home to many of the worst oil/gas, military industrial, and private security corporations in the country and they own our state government. It is easy to be for "States rights" in theory, but when you live in a state who has willingly given all its rights to the corporations who bring money in, it loses a lot of its apparent nobility.
Add to the list of enormous problems our country faces: the two-party system. Meanwhile, you may want to learn more about strategic voting and decide for yourself whether there's value in participating or not.
I definitely think there is value in voting, I just dread going to the poll and choosing between shooting myself in the left foot or the right.
I'm sorry, you're last post doesn't have the reply option below it (that happens sometimes for some reason) so I'll reply here.
I will re-read the site. I took it that the GAs would be agreeing on one set of grievances to be presented to congress. My thinking was that the lists may be different from region to region, which is more inline with the constitution (local control).
PT. 2 Also, and again sorry for so many arguments all at once, I think a benefit of picking reps to vote on these grievances helps elimiminate the influence of the trolls and plants that are likely to plague a purely democratic method. (i.e. if we just did an online poll, there would be no way to prevent the anti-OWSers from getting a bunch of people to get online and vote for counterproductive measures or vote against things the actual movement does universally agree upon)
Pt. 1 The National GA would be to vote upon a single set of grievances to be brought to congress, but I believe the point of including the specific orders from each local GA is that it would have to only be the things that upon which all the groups agree. (i.e. if some GAs refuse to support point no. 7 asking for the EPA to be able to shut down corporations, then their delegate cannot support it and the NGA will not ratify it)
I am very much with you on the idea that we need to encourage more focus on the local and state level issues, but this movement was started on the principle that the US government has long since stopped representing the people and have divided us to the point that we are unable to do much about it. It is not the only important thing, but the many issues concerning the national government must be addressed in some way. I think this is the way, but I am by no means opposed to a different plan of action if any more effective and democratic one is presented.
Also, I think one of the benefits of this plan is that it would provide an example for the same sort of bodies being formed within the various states and communities. We do, of course, already have the local GAs but many cannot attend all of them so I think it would be a good idea to for them to continue but to also set up a more specific assembly in each area (which meets once a month, a few times a year, or however each local group feels is best) to decide on exactly what should be brought to their local gov'ts or what direct action is currently most prudent in their areas. Basically I envision exactly what you're saying, the balanced federalist system the framers intended, but one free from the partisan and monied politics. Sorry for the novel. There's just so much to say, and I think we have a lot more in common than it initially appeared.
I do... and I support this... but no-time right now... later ;)