Forum Post: Occupy local government?
Posted 12 years ago on Oct. 12, 2011, 5:41 p.m. EST by ribis
(240)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Clueless newbie here; please redirect me if there's already a strong discussion of this elsewhere. Also, the following is purely MY OWN conjecture and opinion, no more and no less.
A proposal for non-stop occupation of local/municipal and state legislative assemblies.
Presumptions:
"Winter is coming." Many locations will become difficult to occupy in a month or two, especially without proper camping and outdoor gear. While I have strong hope that the NYC occupation might survive a nasty winter, other groups may suffer significant abandonment due to sickness and weariness.
Many people receptive to our message cannot attend major Occupations, whether due to travel expenses, long working hours, physical infirmity, or family/local obligations. Nevertheless, the Occupation needs to involve these people in the greater effort.
Like them or lump them, the Tea Party has increased its visibility and influence significantly by attending local governmental bodies, and eventually by having its members elected to many local offices.
The Occupation must seek sustainable methods for action in the future.
Proposal:
I suggest a new Occupation goal, at least for the winter: nonstop attendance of open governmental meetings. Any group of people larger than, say, three or four with any free time among themselves might succeed in at least sympathetically monitoring the public actions taken by a given municipal body on behalf of the Occupation; larger groups could, at some point, seek to influence local policy.
Potential benefits:
Local involvement. People who live far from major cities could still contribute in a tangible way to the greater Occupation's goals, either by offering representation at these local meetings, or by identifying troublesome issues that affect the 99% on a local level. Corporate interests cause problems on all levels.
Broad involvement. Currently, many people are sympathetic but unable to actually visit Occupations: the handicapped and infirm, working folks, ruralites, those too poor to afford travel, and so on. Traveling to a city hall one or two nights a week to take notes or even advocate policy change is a far lower bar for participation than is taking an extended "vacation" to a large city.
Weather-proofing. Come rain or sleet or hail or snow... As long as City Hall keeps the lights on, even a one-legged asthmatic septuagenarian could attend public meetings while staying involved with the greater Occupation online or by attending "coffee-shop" scale meetups locally.
Experience building. Ding! By attending local governmental meetings regularly, Occupiers could gain valuable knowledge of how the system "works" and how business interests both legitimately and illegitimately influence policy.
Greater visibility and legitimation. Simply by being a persistent (hopefully, constructive) presence in local political scenes, Occupiers can make the movement more formidable as a whole. They can act as a counterweight to existing influence groups without the need for co-option by extant groups such as the Democratic party or union groups.
[Some consideration of Potential Drawbacks in my 1st reply]
Thank you for your consideration.
no if anything next election WE should run, i mean our own elected officials. thats how we occupy local government by taking it over by force via VOTE. after that we work from there, we have the cities so we can more productively organize what we need to do.
Right on the mark, Patrick. Local government is as much victimized by this 1% in many cases.
And how aware is local government of this victimization? If they felt the burn as the Occupiers do, wouldn't they be out there marching, or making sure that Occupations had adequate weather protections, or at least directly interfacing with the movement? By getting sympathetic people to show up at governmental bodies where they live and work, we can be sure to point out that victimization at every opportunity, to be sure they realize it when they're being forced to ignore the needs of the people for the wants of big business.
Local governments are more often than not(especially now) victimized by their own state governents as well as the federal government. Most of them are too preoccupied with their own problems(running their towns and cities infrastructure) that they don't have the time or resources to assist the Occupiers. I would suggest looking for friendly support from select members of the business community. See link: http://www.upwardspiral2011.org
I see no conflict between attending meetings and seeking election. In fact, I see a direct relationship between the two -- anyone we back for office needs to have an understanding of how to effectively use that office, and this is a way for people without a law school or business school degree to gain that knowledge. If voting worked all by itself, we wouldn't be in this mess to begin with.
then we come up with an ultimatum for congress. they are more inclined to listen to us if they fear our departure from the union. i think we should focus on the federal government cos i feel they care little about local government, state and federal government separation issues of dinosaur era.
Counterpoint: one of the "big two" political parties is deferring greatly on a national level to the Tea Party, whose genuine power stems greatly from their takeover of local governments nationwide. Anecdote alert: my college town's government flipped from blue to red thanks to Tea Party interference, and they've already crushed some left-friendly policies here -- environmental regs, lgbt stuff, and plenty more.
I'm sorry that I'm not jumping up and down seeking to stab the beast in its belly at this very instant, but there is nothing I've suggested that would inhibit simultaneous national action. Rather, by building a strong base for widespread action, we could empower national activities with the promise of undertaking many smaller activities should our national platform be ignored.
Potential drawbacks:
A. Signal loss. People who aren't tightly connected to major Assemblies/Occupations may have a tendency to over-represent niche interests, to take actions that damage the cause overall, or to "splinter" into opposition groups, which would be more vulnerable to co-option or derailment.
-- I'd argue that some of this is inescapable. OWS pitched a big tent; niche interests are going to exist regardless. Better to have a multitude of groups in place that are at least marginally sympathetic to the greater Occupation than a cohesive-but-ineffectual in-group. (Further) improved internet mechanisms can combat this, as could the organization of ride-sharing to major Occupations.
B. The "Democratic Tea Party" slur. This method has been a major part of the Tea Party's success over the last few years. By using similar means, this comparison will become stronger, in spite of fundamental differences in our goals and origins.
-- I'd argue that again, this is somewhat inescapable. The best vehicle for opposing this notion is continued strict independence from the tight platforms offered by the Democratic party, by Unions, by environmentalist lobbies, and by other traditionally DNC-aligned groups. [This is not to cast aspersions at left-wing groups; I personally share many "left-wing" concerns. Nevertheless, Occupiers' policy goals, when acting on behalf of the Occupation, ought to primarily focus on those goals advanced by the Occupation's General Assemblies. ]
C. Ripeness, or the lack thereof. The Occupation remains in its infancy. Its message has yet to become coherent; indeed, it hasn't decided whether such "coherence" is ultimately desirable. As a juvenile movement, it may be unready to move toward more concrete action.
-- I'd argue that broad local involvement of this sort would force more rapid maturation. By bringing in more people, by getting more people involved in "actually doing something," the movement can draw on existing expertise, build new experience, and develop roots for continued action.
D. But, I'm here to "smash the system!" Getting involved in the same old cycle just reinforces the mechanisms by which we've been exploited! Etc.
-- I purposefully gave the "straw man" version of this argument, and I apologize immediately -- it's a deep rabbit-hole and I can't fathom the bottom in a single bullet point. And, I see the issue -- it's probably the most direct conflict I'm aware of between the Occupation's goals and my proposal. Nevertheless, I think it's essential in any case that the Occupation takes a deep reckoning of where we are at, as a nation. If the Occupation's goals are, one day, "Revolutionary," it can only benefit from direct knowledge of how the existing system functions and fails, and the best method for learning about such failures is the school of direct experience. Previous revolutionaries spent years, if not decades, trying to reform the system from within; in some cases, they even succeed in reawakening stagnant systems, garnering significant benefits without the attendant misery of an actual insurrection. [Full disclosure: I am not revolutionary, nor am I even a full-on socialist; nevertheless, I like to consider myself open-minded, and I can imagine multiple circumstances under which revolution might be warranted. In any case, I'd prefer a "vanguard" bolstered with people capable of handling the inescapable demands of public policymaking, including the monotony of giving the same speech and answering the same questions a dozen or a hundred times, of weeding through endless paperwork, of efficiently handling a hundred simultaneous petty concerns. Participating in the system while consciously awaiting the proper moment for its replacement serve these ends.]
Again, thank you for your consideration.
This is possible, but we need a comprehensive strategy that implements all our demands at the same time, and although I'm all in favor of taking down today's ineffective and inefficient Top 10% Management Group of Business & Government, there's only one way to do it – by fighting bankers as bankers ourselves. Consequently, I have posted a 1-page Summary of the Strategic Legal Policies, Organizational Operating Structures, and Tactical Investment Procedures necessary to do this at:
http://getsatisfaction.com/americanselect/topics/on_strategic_legal_policy_organizational_operational_structures_tactical_investment_procedures
Join
http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/StrategicInternationalSystems/
if you want to be 1 of 100,000 people needed to support a Presidential Candidate – myself – at AmericansElect.org in support of the above bank-focused platform.
I see no conflict here. Number one, I'm not advocating a "list of demands" here -- I, too, am suggesting a strategy. Number two, nothing stops people from taking economic action AND seeking to influence public policy directly. In fact, by getting people involved locally, there would be more chance of getting people on-board with your economic plan -- you're advocating a very broad action; you'll need buy-in from MANY people to get it off the ground. I'm not criticizing you here, but this isn't an "either-or" proposition. If you want to start banks within the system, you'll need contacts in municipal and state governments. Local involvement generates those contacts.
Agreed, but it takes 100,000 people to join the group cited in the second link to support a candidate (and not necessarily me) in order to make that strategy a reality at AmericansElect.org, which automatically includes your strategy. Therefore, I hope you will join the group at http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/StrategicInternationalSystems/ among others there so far, for every person added is more powerful than the last person added when it comes to doing anything.
...You said that group was advocating "to support a Presidential Candidate – myself" before. Now you say, "not necessarily me." It doesn't add up.
That said, how does any of this relate to my topic?
Any candidate is a straw man; it's the STRATEGY that the people organize themselves behind, in military internet formation, that's important.
OK, I agree, strategy is important. It's a big reason why I posted a strategy and not a "List of Very Important Demands That Shouldn't Be Ignored Because I Say So."
Is there some point of conflict that I'm missing between your "let's make a bank" plan and my "let's become visible in local government" plan? The two strategies seem mutually compatible, extremely so, as somewhat "bottom-up" methods for building strength for the future.
Exactly, the two strategies are mutually compatible, but we must choose a strategy and a candidate at the same time, for every spear needs a tip in order to be effective and efficient in the eyes of the public.
I'm not advocating that I or my strategy should be the spearhead, nor the Occupation's primary goal, nor exclusionary in any unnecessary way. Fundamentally, I'm saying, "Here is something we can realistically do that might help us survive the literal and metaphoric cold weather of the next six months."
Your plan, and many more, would have a stronger audience if local networks of interested people were built nationwide. If those networks focus on developing contacts and recognition at Podunk City Hall and Flyover State Capitol building, the gargantuan task of building an independent banking network or promoting a Presidential run becomes a heck of a lot more approachable.
Agreed, but they must still add themselves to a single site advocating both, and thus not allow themselves to be immediately divided and conquered, for a divided house cannot stand.