Forums:
Should we join ANY other organizations events?
My thought on this is, "No." Strongly, adamantly, blockingly, "No." At least not this early in our movement.
Here's why I think we should not: Conflict of interests. It is not representative of "the 99%" if we do so.
Let me make this clear now as well: I do not mean to dissuade people from going to other organizations' events. By all means if someone wants to go to an event they should go, and they are still part of Occupy as well. I see that as no problem. I think people are welcome to encourage others to go to any and whatever event as well. I encourage that really- people totally should stand up for what they believe in. What I see as an issue is Occupy LA (or any of the Occupy movements, really) OFFICIALLY backing other organizations and their events.
There are MANY causes out there, many are just and good as well. However, "just and good" can be interpreted differently by different people. The 99% is made up of A LOT of different views. If we throw our support behind another organization's event, then should we not also throw our support behind events from EVERY other organization?
Say we went to a Democratic Party affiliated demonstration, well that opens up why not go to a Republican demonstration, or a Libertarian demonstration, etc?
Should we help out Pro Choice demonstrators? Well what about Pro Life demonstrators who are also part of the 99%?
How about we join an NRA event, and heck we can go to an anti-gun event too!
I do not think we can throw our support around to every group. Rather, every group is welcome to come to us, whether as a group or as individual members, find common ground and have their voices heard along with the rest of us.
They are ALL a part of the 99%. However, not everyone in the 99% is a part of their organizations or agrees with their causes.
The 99% is made up of people who disagree and do not get along on many many topics. We are here for our common topics, not about any one special interest.
Other organizations would love to take in our numbers, I am sure. And I wouldn't be surprised if some groups and organizations push really hard to have the Occupy movement join their cause.
In my view it is detrimental to our cause if we join any other cause at this time. If we join one, then join them all- which is impossible to do.
It is harsh, I know. It is very hard to turn someone's cause down when they have a cause you agree with. However, remember that we started this for our common cause and causes. We're still in the process of finding out through the general assemblies what our common causes are- why would we march in someone else's cause before we've solidified our own? How can we march in someone else's cause without betraying other people belonging to an opposing view who are still a part of the 99% ?
I also know it can be very hard to accept an opposing view, especially politically, especially within one's own group/movement. However, we have to be able to get along and discuss or we fail. There WILL be and probably already ARE people in the movement who's ideology that YOU (you the reader) absolutely can not stomach. Well guess what, THEY are the 99% too. So let's concentrate on finding our common ground.
It may seem paradoxical, but the only way to RESPECT every organization is to equally deny throwing our weight behind any of them.
We are supposed to be EVERYBODY except the top 1%. How can we choose one organization's events to attend to over another's without being disingenuous? I do not think we can, and if we do so I think we lose credibility.
Are we the 20%? 55%? The 80%? Either we are the 99% or we are not.
- F. Clark
"The 99% is made up of people
Submitted by AshleyCarey on
"The 99% is made up of people who disagree and do not get along on many many topics. We are here for our common topics, not about any one special interest."
Strongly agree with this. As it stands, there's a motion on the table for the GA to consider officially affiliating ourselves with a labor union march this month. I don't see how we could do such a thing and remain non-partisan, as that would be a highly partisan move. I was told the motion was almost unanimously approved except for two or three hard blocks. We must remember that despite what may be our own similar political beliefs here in Los Angeles, there is a large group of the 99% we would be alienating by approving an official affiliation with a partisan cause. We have to represent everyone, whether they watch Anderson Cooper or Glenn Beck for their news.
Consensus is not all it can/sounds like it is, Thurs Gen'l Asmby
Submitted by maryjanie on
Attempts to be heard at Gen'l Assembly on Thurs 10/8 was difficult to contribute to, tho some of us tried desperately - persistently and futilely. I raised my hand immediately to Hard Block “action” to join union demonstrations. However, moderator 'did not see' me – sitting below on fountain, and probably missed others. So I walked uphill to a tight-pressed-together-large-spiral -of those who wanted to state their concerns - and could not hear from any spot as I circled those in center –who spoke mainly to each other [only]- thus not allowing others to comment. A “facilitator” tried to state what he heard - a few words outside that ltd center of insiders - and did not even finish before being stopped. The "stacker" whom was standing right beside this Occupier was tapped on shoulder, glanced at ,my raised hand, 2x, then did NOT include this real person in his list of "hard blockers" at all ! Could this be deliberate favoritism ? could be some kinds of discrimination? could be mere unconsciousness? could be overwhelm and inability to do job he chose to do ? dunno...... Group on dark hill cont'd on with those straining on outside of insiders in circle – those unable to participate, hear, or be ONE OF the deciders. The option to "table" the decision was offered earlier but not accepted after all, or was it ? No one heard the results that evening, even at 11:30 pm near that gathering place, nothing else could be dis-covered…… Unfortunately, the process sounds goods but can it be acted upon fairly ? dunno….. My hard block was to say "NO" to the easy "support" because the general language use of word “support” is confused with "participate" and "help" and "contribute" and "pay towards" or "hold up" or whatever else common usage is…. the word is too easily mis-understood to mean MORE than Occupiers can claim, offer or realize ...for now... Unions are good, and ALSO sometimes also act selfishly in spite of ideals and political statements. Not all union members want to vote as their money is used in their behalf…. Majorities are not always fair or smart or equitable either….. All causes have good words, sound bites, claims and sometimes, seldom, live up to what they say they are and promise….. "The American People" is used as a conglomerate that is hardly ever what any commercial /political/ speech person claims for their own purposes…. Hard Bloc here stated again= Agree with their goals, or ideals, sure ! "Support" has to been carefully defined and limited. [ Plse See other comments about HOW OCCUPIERS ARE BEING 'USED' FOR OTHERS' P.R. AND their own “LOOKING GOOD” + maybe even more than their actual caring to participate with 99% of occupiers demonstrating unity here . [ Ur responses in good faith appreciated to this opinion and thinking]
I was asked by someone to
Submitted by AshleyCarey on
I was asked by someone to speak against the affiliation at tonight's GA, but as you have seen, it may not be possible. All I want to say is that this is a partisan move, and what we're here for is beyond partisan lines. We can't afford to alienate the large group of Americans who are simply anti-union. Many of us may fundamentally disagree with the anti-union sentiment, but that's an issue for another time. And hopefully, one of the many partisan issues on which we can reach a common understanding once we achieve true representation in the legislature again.
Of course, any member of Occupy LA is more than welcome to join and march with causes they agree with, but to make this an official support relationship is very detrimental to the inherent non-partisanship of this movement. Unfortunately, the partisan divide in this country is so big right now, that even leaning toward the left or the right will lose us the full support of large factions of the opposing party. It sounds impossible in today's America, but we have to stay central.
I guess it comes down to
Submitted by nobody on
I guess it comes down to class. Do you want to start to form alliances with the working class and poor, or form alliances with the upper-middle class and people who think like them?
Is this a 99% that's really only the top 40%? The people who have done the best and have the most privilege, but are now falling on hard times?
Yes, any Occupier can go anywhere, but why desert us here ?
Submitted by maryjanie on
those are are committed to this SPECIAL DEMONSTRATION localized temporized HERE AND NOW in beutifool Los angeles [where angels do reside too] might prefer to stay with This One for now. And join any other org, union, march, parade, circus later instead of just now when this is Really HAPPEN'in !
my obvious opinion is - stick with us for now- go elsewhere later- ...or not.....
we can do with those who CARE enough to stick it out here and without those whose alliances or doubts or ambivalences lead them elsewhere ...either way is ok...a choice is on each of us to make and keep and honor...a choice.
because that's insular thinking
Submitted by nobody on
Focusing on the encampent rather than growing the movement - that's a dead end. Might as well be a Rainbow Family Gathering, Burning Man, or a Greatful Dead Tour. All great things - but not going to change society. In fact, they're like a release vavle that takes the pressure off of living in the corporate world.
What do we achieve by just
Submitted by cryptomnesiac on
What do we achieve by just sitting there? We're not picketing 24/7. I don't see the powerful statement in a bunch of people lounging in their tents on a sunny afternoon. OWS marches, and I thought we were supporting their methods. There will be plenty of time for passers-by and media cameras to see those committed, determined hundreds of people camped out on the lawn, between marches and actions.
Mike C.
Buffalo Beast - Twitter - Facebook
As I've said in my USPS
Submitted by cryptomnesiac on
As I've said in my USPS thread, if we ignore unions but somehow expect to fight for working people, we're parking an ambulance at the bottom of a cliff.
Unions aren't exclusively a liberal domain, in spite of what the media says. They are working people of differing social views utilizing the last, and dwindling, mechanism for balancing power with their employers; ignore them, let them die off, and we're stuck having to rebuild something similar with no existing examples and zero foothold.
What's important to emphasize here is that people in unions will differ more on social issues than fiscal ones. The very nature of a union suggests acknowledging the adversarial stalemate that prevents corporations from doing... well, exactly what we see today: exploiting the living shit out of their employees.
Look at our camp and tell me social conservatives will feel at home there. All people are welcome, but not everyone will feel so, because some will be prejudiced -- be it against ethnicities, nationalities, sexual orientations, lifestyles, etc. There are also tons of mainstream people, because the goals, thought varied, are obvious in their general direction. While I hope the majority, regardless of social stances, will see the pragmatism in fighting for economic issues, the fact remains there will always be some segment of the population, middle class, underclass or otherwise, that will disagree even on economic terms (such as those who go out of their way to defend billionaires, believing their money signals their merit, and that we should all just live with it, and aspire to magically defy probability and "work hard" to become rich ourselves, even if the circumstances of the economy are demonstrably stacked against the likelihood).
We should emphasize independence from specific unions, and be wary of those with histories of corruption, but we represent working class people, and so do unions. Unions work, and they've accomplished goals similar to many of ours: better pay, job security, safer conditions, shorter hours, benefits, etc.
If we remain paralyzed by a fear that the media will demonize any trace of identity within the movement, we prolong the likelihood of being co-opted by another group; especially one backed by money and mainstream media. Any media outlet determined to do so will misrepresent what we're doing, whether out of malice or laziness. Point a camera at the shirtless guy burning incense, and we're a hippie commune. Show the signs with the pyramids with eyeballs, and we're conspiracy theorists. Show the Ron Paul signs, and we're libertarians. None of these things are accurate in describing the thousands upon thousands of people who've passed through to show their support. But if they'd had a problem with something, there'd be no shortage of targets for their objections. I'd like to give people more credit than that, and not try to gain their support by remaining a blank slate.
The fact is anything can be inflated to wrongly represent the whole. It behooves us to put forward at least a general message of purpose, and of independence, so we can be free to pursue the democratically chosen objectives, while having something readily available to clarify our positions when the inevitable misrepresentation takes place.
That's my take on the matter, and I think it's consistent with OWS's work.
I do agree this can't be a unilateral thing, and I'd expect the unions to support the occupation as well, at least in daytime demonstrations.
Mike C.
Buffalo Beast - Twitter - Facebook
Step 2
Submitted by Fallout2man on
Very insightful, Unions if anything are the tragedy of the whole situation. They were an imperfect solution to an imperfect system. We must represent all people and only be strict in our demand of all inclusiveness. That any person may be welcome so long as they are able to put aside personal animus and work towards the greater good, economic justice for the 99%.
But to increase media visibility and prevent co-opting now is more important than ever. We're disparate movements. We need to link up with New York and establish a mutually agreed form of consensus making that allows all groups to quickly make decisions as a single hole. Perhaps using the internet as a tool to enable distributed voting by the people on certain issues. But we have to do this because we then need to start selecting people to act as media representatives.
We're not going to win this by just playing good Samaritan, we need to understand how we were tricked and in some cases play those same tricks against our oppressors. We need to speak as a single voice and with a single narrative or fluid sense of objectives, goals and demands even if specifics aren't hashed out. But the idea is that we need to establish media legitimacy now or our numbers are only going to start dropping as people see a protest that has yet to even SET its own goals let alome accomplish them.
So again, I say we must solidify the movement right this second, for there is not a time where it is a second too soon. This doesn't mean that we can't still be an entirely democratic conesnsus-based group but we need to be able to reach decisions by consensus while presenting the outward appearnce of central leadership. It's the only way we'll be able to stop the cries in the media "where are your demands!" and so on.
We must move to step 2.
You can't have it both ways.
Submitted by nobody on
You can't have it both ways.
You can't be a diverse group representing a vast majority of people...
AND ALSO speak with a single voice.
It's just not possible. WIth many people come many voices. This call for unity of a singular message is impossible.
You're so f'n articulate!
Submitted by nobody on
You're so f'n articulate!
Unions have been fighting for all working people on the legislative front. I know you all don't like politics and politicians, but CA recently passed a few laws that the unions were lobbying hard for.
The DREAM Act which allows long-term-resident undocumented students to pay in-state fees and apply for financial aid.
A law that clamps down on misclassification of "independent contractors" - a law that's routinely violated not just in laborious jobs but also in tech and teaching jobs.
Unions support single payer "Medicare for all" at the state level, including all the recent bills that have failed. They support ending the wars and bringing the troops, and money, back home.
And they always fight for workplace safety regulations.
These legislative fights benefit all people. Indeed, if there's anything to criticize, it's that they deal with things members already have: healthcare, a legit job, a voice at work, and usually citizenship. Why do they bother to fight for everyone else? It's in their blood - their legitimacy is derived from this struggle.
Also, speaking of partisanship - while all the poorer members like janitors unions are pretty much Democrats, in the better paid government jobs they are 50/50 Democrats and Republicans. The best compensated government workers in unions are firefighters and cops, and they tend to be Republicans.
Unions would support Republican politicians if they were friendly to unions, but most are not.
Pro-Union
Submitted by artdyke on
I'm sorry, I think refusing to stand with the unions is spitting in the face of the working class. I spent my first day with the New York protesters today, and let me tell you, they are TRUMPETING their union support. That is how we make this a bigger, stronger, scarier movement, by making allies, and seeing as unions are the only force with any political sway whatsoever who are actually working for the 99%, not the 1%, they are an ally we'd be fools to let slip away.
To address some of OP's other points, this is quite clearly a progressive movement. It is is explicitly anti-racist, feminist, pro-immigrant, and egalitarian. For example, so I could see us supporting a pro-choice rally, but never a pro-life one. I don't see us ever going to or supporting an explicitly Democrat (or any other party) event.
Yes, this group is made up of a lot of different people with a lot of different views, but there are some views that are divisive within that group (say, animal rights or communism) and some that absolutely are not (mentioned above), or at least shouldn't be if this movement means anything at all.
Respectfully Dagree
Submitted by Fex on
I respectfully disagree. In NYC the unions came to the Occupy Wall Street's march, which I think is awesome, however the Occupy movement did not go to the Unions' marches.
Btw I myself am not against unions, and think they often do much good work and am glad they exist. However if, say, the Occupy movement does not include the religious right-wing for example, then the movement is not AT ALL the 99% and the slogan as an idea is a pure sham and lie. I have a lot of disagreement with a lot of ideas of the religious right, but I would not refuse any of them their voice in our movement. Defend to the death their right to speak and all that.
"Word following word- I wrought words. Deed following deed, I wrought deeds." - The Havamal
True enough, and I could see
Submitted by artdyke on
True enough, and I could see the argument to be made that going out to their protests (or anyone's protests) distracts from our own movement, which is its own animal however much our ideas might overlap. But to say we should distance ourselves from them or refuse to ally ourselves or do anything but welcome them with open arms is foolish.
I would be deeply opposed (that's a hard block) to including the religious right in any way, shape, or form the movement. The religious right is idealogically opposed to everything we stand for, even though it would benefit them. The reason the 99% doesn't have the power that the 1% does is that the 1% is fantastic at convincing large swaths of the 99% to work in their favor, and the religious right fell hard for that. If the religious right wants to drop the "right" part and suddenly become interested in egalitarianism and social justice, then by all means, come on board. But that will never happen, and pretending it might or that their voices are worth hearing is just going to put off people like me who have had it up to here with being persecuted by them my entire life.
That's not true. A big
Submitted by nobody on
That's not true. A big contingent of Occupy WS went out to support the USPS union pickets.
You're also taking the 99% thing a little too literally. There are people whe earn over $300k who are numerically in the 99%, but who side with the rich when it comes to politics. They won't be at Occupy.
On the other hand, the odds are much better that a conservative Christian or Muslim person would show up at an Occupy event. It's hard times for everyone.
Sounds real smart to me
Submitted by Sue Basko on
Your comment sounds really smart to me.
Sue Basko, Lawyer
OCCUPY PEACE - Legal Info on How to Hold a Peaceful Protest or Occupation
The 99% is a financial
Submitted by cryptomnesiac on
The 99% is a financial statistic, not a membership count. It reflects the open door policy of the movement for whoever would like to support its causes (TBD, officially, I guess), but we have no claim on anyone's support who is not directly involved beyond sharing similar financial hardships. Let's not confuse the symbolism of the percentage in showing solidarity for all working class and underclass people, for having -- or even seeking -- the literal support of such a complete majority. We believe what we can achieve would benefit 99% of the people; we are doing it for them (for all of us), but we're not going to spin our wheels, trying to look as generic and non-threatening as possible, to curry favor with every person in America within a certain income bracket.
Mike C.
Buffalo Beast - Twitter - Facebook
Couple repeates from the original post
Submitted by Fex on
" At least not this early in our movement."
"It is harsh, I know. It is very hard to turn someone's cause down when they have a cause you agree with. However, remember that we started this for our common cause and causes. We're still in the process of finding out through the general assemblies what our common causes are- why would we march in someone else's cause before we've solidified our own?"
I would suggest having patience and build up a base of all we can get on our own with our own message(s) instead of trying to push heavily to pad numbers with causes you believe in or that seem similar to Occupy's.
We're here together and still building in response to national wide (and even world wide) issues affecting all of us, where the hell were all these other organizations standing for all of the rest of us in our stead the last several years? We were drawn together for a reason, barely any time has passed, let's stick to our guns so to speak.
That's just me.
"Word following word- I wrought words. Deed following deed, I wrought deeds." - The Havamal
Pages