Forum Post: Van Jones and The american dream keynote?
Posted 13 years ago on Oct. 9, 2011, 3:34 a.m. EST by gadfly
(17)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Has anyone else seen this video...it is about an hour long. He mentions the way the tea party is structured and why that movement has had the impact it has, and how we might fight back. Did anyone agree/disagree with his analysis of the Tea party's structure? or how we might go forward from here. I personally am less interested in finding consensus with others in a movement. I really liked the ideas he promoted involving an affiliation of loosely associated diverse movements structured in many different ways. Some of those organizations or individuals might do one thing here with one group and another there with another group, but always under a loosely affiliated banner. Instead of a movement behind one man like Obama...or an organization like the democratic party...it would be a "metabrand" w/out organizational structure. No headquarters...no agenda meetings...only diverse groups who affiliate in a structure more naturally resembling the manner in which movements actually spring forth. Facilitated by a network of movements and a common banner only representing a diversity of groups that frequently act in common cause.
If you ask yourself..."Why did I sense a connection with this movement?" I seriously doubt is because you wanted to be part of an autonomous collective action or felt some desire to be part of a consensus. Very likely some part of your individuality saw a common cause in the actions others were taking. That some were doing something about the disparities of our economic crisis.
"...only diverse groups who affiliate in a structure more naturally resembling the manner in which movements actually spring forth. Facilitated by a network of movements and a common banner only representing a diversity of groups that frequently act in common cause."
That requires that you have some (generally single) cause or event that results in a natural movement, not a movement looking for a cause(s) which needs to even assess such things. If you're having to have agendas and meetings and such to ask fundamental questions around "Why are we here?," then you don't really have "it." Which seems to be the case. Otherwise, it's just the same old Van Joneses, et. al., doing the same old things they've been doing, with the same results, just under different names. How many more coalitions do you really need? Van himself probably has 20 or so that he's involved in already. lol
One thread argues to focus on restoring the Glass Steagall Act and another for getting rid of lobbyists, and many others ideas are also considered for the central focus. These are just a couple of examples I found. These things are being worked out here already with out the imposition of consensus.
That seems like that is the question being worked on in this forum. Many different threads here are trying to work out what it is that brought us all to this movement. I think this is a great forum to get address that question...and see who else agrees and what actions to take. This question will take care of itself under the conditions of this forum, because the connection is already there...it is only a matter of figuring out what that connection is, through an open forum or network like this and others that can only help facilitate the energy that brought us all here.
This forum is a perfect example of my point. Many diverse viewpoints competing for cooperative action. When work needs to get done some threads in the forum get more attention and engagement towards that end. No need for a consensus...just loose affiliation under the aegis of the OccupyWallStreet forum. Some of us work on one project while others work on another under a common cause that we hash out in between all these different efforts.
Why do we need to come to a consensus as a movement? Haven't we been more effective adding our own individuality into a loose affiliation w/out coming to an agreement before we take action together?
I've heard about the advantages of an autonomous collective, but a loose affiliation might be more effective as a movement.