Problems in Occupy Together

[Welshy]

So I'm creating this thread for everyone involved in the Occupy Together protests to post any problems they have encounter in their local protests and general assemblies. This way other will be able to see them and be on the look out for similar problems arising in their protests and general assemblies and work to counter them before they become a larger issue. We should also use this thread as a way to share advice on how to deal with these problems and brainstorm potentials solutions to be applied. So I guess we should treat this as a Pour Your Heart Out thread but for the Occupy Together protests.

[Summerspeaker]

The major issue here revolves around the word "occupy" and how it alienates indigenous people. We had a four-hour debate on whether to change the group's name today, with no resolution.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

A name is a name in my opinion and already has caught on.I am not sure how we would even change a movement's name.I don't believe it alienates people too much,not anymore than political activism in general anyway.

On topic: I think this thread is a great idea.

[Jimmie Higgins]

The major issue here revolves around the word "occupy" and how it alienates indigenous people. We had a four-hour debate on whether to change the group's name today, with no resolution.Were native americans making this argument or was there just a sense that people might be alienated from this word? I could be wrong, but I've never heard any criticism about the Occupation of Alcatraz being called that... I always thought AIM was trying to draw parallels with student occupations and civil rights actions of the time.

[o well this is ok I guess]

The major issue here revolves around the word "occupy" and how it alienates indigenous people. We had a four-hour debate on whether to change the group's name today, with no resolution. The real problem is that being an issue in the first place.

[Summerspeaker]

I am not sure how we would even change a movement's name.I don't believe it alienates people too much,not anymore than political activism in general anyway.

Indigenous groups have been criticizing (http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2011/10/indians-counter-occupy-wall-street-movement-with-decolonize-wall-street/) the name and orientation of Occupy Wall Street from the start. Momentum grows for a change. The majority of folks at the meeting here today favored moving away from occupation, though we didn't reach consensus. The Native studies critique of the U.S. nation-state as essentially illegitimate connects pleasantly with anarchist/communist analysis and promotes radicalization. It's something revolutionary leftists should get behind.

[Welshy]

Ok so at our second general assembly in my town we had an experience with the failures of consensus and letting hipsters handle the voting. We had a vote on whether we should split up in working groups or continue the speak out and some one wanted to argue for continuing the speak out though it seemed like most people wanted to do the working groups. And because of this we ended up continuing the speak out. The organizers also tried to do this weird voting with one's thumb where thumbs up is a yes vote, thumbs down is a no vote, and a side ways thumb was an abstention. They also had everyone, regardless of how they were going to vote, show their thumb at the same time which made it impossible to count votes.

What type of voting system do you think should replace this consensus bs and what way of counting votes do you all think would be most effective? I ask because I'm going to an organizing meeting tomorrow and I want to push for proposal to be brought up to the GA on wednesday
.

[Martin Blank]

Another problem I see with the "Occupy" name is when it comes to cities with large populations of workers and working poor, African Americans, etc. For example, "Occupy Detroit" is coming together, but most of its organizers are white and relatively privileged (some workers, some petty bourgeois). This sounds less like an anti-capitalist occupation and more like a suburban invasion. And I suspect that the opponents of "Occupy Detroit" will use that sentiment to their advantage, painting the participants as outsiders.

[Welshy]

Another problem I see with the "Occupy" name is when it comes to cities with large populations of workers and working poor, African Americans, etc. For example, "Occupy Detroit" is coming together, but most of its organizers are white and relatively privileged (some workers, some petty bourgeois). This sounds less like an anti-capitalist occupation and more like a suburban invasion. And I suspect that the opponents of "Occupy Detroit" will use that sentiment to their advantage, painting the participants as outsiders.

Have you heard about the whole Occupy The Hood stuff? Is there some in Detroit connected to it?

[Susurrus]

The one I went to in Jax was very diverse in terms of demographics.

[Rocky Rococo]

If I'm not mistaken, Detroit is where Occupy the Hood got started.

[Martin Blank]

If I'm not mistaken, Detroit is where Occupy the Hood got started.

It's a joint project of Black community activists from New York City and Detroit. If OTH is taking a central role in the Detroit actions, which they may be now, that does alter the character of the event. I can only hope that there is a large and visible African American working-class presence at the actual occupation.

[Ocean Seal]

Another problem I see with the "Occupy" name is when it comes to cities with large populations of workers and working poor, African Americans, etc. For example, "Occupy Detroit" is coming together, but most of its organizers are white and relatively privileged (some workers, some petty bourgeois). This sounds less like an anti-capitalist occupation and more like a suburban invasion. And I suspect that the opponents of "Occupy Detroit" will use that sentiment to their advantage, painting the participants as outsiders.
Its possible that might be used to the disadvantage. But if you look at it from the other side you'll see that the majority of the criticisms to the protesters is that they're "unemployed" blaming the rich for their job losses, and generally on the lower echelon of society. At least that's what the Republican party is saying. Some people buy it, but their generally self righteous members of the middle class, they aren't much use in the movement.

[RED DAVE]

What type of voting system do you think should replace this consensus bs and what way of counting votes do you all think would be most effective?Institute majority rule. Majority rule with respect for the rights of minorities is the only true from of democracy. Under consensus, one person or a small group can control a larger group against the will of a majority. As for voting, use a show of hands like most groups.

RED DAVE

[blake 3:17]

Institute majority rule. Majority rule with respect for the rights of minorities is the only true from of democracy. Under consensus, one person or a small group can control a larger group against the will of a majority. As for voting, use a show of hands like most groups.

It doesn't always work. I'm generally a 51%er on a lot of things. A group I work with has an interesting approach -- unless a motion is carried by 70% or so it is referred back and people try to figure out where the disagreement lies.

In the middle of action, unless you have a very broad consensus then people JUST WON'T DO IT.

[khlib]

Interminable meetings!
The facilitation committee for Occupy Detroit is run by a bunch of social workers and "professional" facilitators, and we have 5 hour meetings with nothing accomplished. First we make an agenda, discuss for an hour or so the order of the agenda, then discuss for another hour how much time we should spend on each agenda item (no joke, 10 minute discussions about whether a specific item should take 5 minutes or 10; it's absurd)! At that point, we barely get a chance to get to the agenda. This whole direct democracy, leaderless movement is making me become a Leninist.

I want to make a sign: SOCIALIST WORKERS, not social workers!

Anyone have any similar experiences?

[A Marxist Historian]

The major issue here revolves around the word "occupy" and how it alienates indigenous people. We had a four-hour debate on whether to change the group's name today, with no resolution.

As long as the movement is caught up in four hour no resolution debates over this sort of triviality, it will never get anywhere.

The whole consensus model is a disaster. The movement has developed well enough so that it does not need the crutch of consensus to avoid collapse.

We need solid organization, with majority votes over the real issue, which is what the movement is really for. And if that means the movement splits between the serious people and the tourists, that's fine.

And the real issue is socialism. The answer to Wall Street rule is socialism, nothing more, nothing less, nothing else. For the Occupy Wall Street movement to explicitly adopt socialism as its objective will be the first step in the many needed to accomplish its goals.

-M.H.-

[Olentzero]

It doesn't always work. I'm generally a 51%er on a lot of things. A group I work with has an interesting approach -- unless a motion is carried by 70% or so it is referred back and people try to figure out where the disagreement lies.Which seems an awful lot to me like letting consensus in the back door.
In the middle of action, unless you have a very broad consensus then people JUST WON'T DO IT.This is where it needs to be made clear from the very beginning that people who actively participate in building the movement should consider themselves bound by the decisions of that movement. Doesn't mean there's no room spur-of-the-moment decisions if the occasion calls for it; just that if a movement can't hold its members to some basic level of discipline in actions then it's really never going to get anywhere.

And by no means am I arguing that decisions, once made, are unquestionable ever after. The results and effects of decisions always need to be analyzed after the fact to figure out what worked and what didn't.

But yeah, four hours discussing the problematics of the word 'occupy' is at least three and a half hours too long. That's time that could have been spent on things like figuring out what union locals might be doing and building solidarity with that.

[A Marxist Historian]

Which seems an awful lot to me like letting consensus in the back door.This is where it needs to be made clear from the very beginning that people who actively participate in building the movement should consider themselves bound by the decisions of that movement. Doesn't mean there's no room spur-of-the-moment decisions if the occasion calls for it; just that if a movement can't hold its members to some basic level of discipline in actions then it's really never going to get anywhere.

And by no means am I arguing that decisions, once made, are unquestionable ever after. The results and effects of decisions always need to be analyzed after the fact to figure out what worked and what didn't.

But yeah, four hours discussing the problematics of the word 'occupy' is at least three and a half hours too long. That's time that could have been spent on things like figuring out what union locals might be doing and building solidarity with that.

Just dropped in on the daily mass meeting for "occupy Berkeley." Oy!

Not only were they going through all the weird little rules with thumb positions and all that, but the organizers were making the whole audience repeat them back! Like three years olds with kindergarten teachers. It was like watching Sesame Street.

Immediately escaped by BART to Occupy Oakland. The ultimate in cooption, with Mayor Quan and the city council having endorsed the whole thing. But if it gets out of hand, you have the infamously brutal Oakland Police right around the corner, who lately have been killing about one black kid a week.

Here at least, unlike in Berkeley, you have workers and socialists there and the crowd isn't lily white and half yuppie.

-M.H.-

[Belleraphone]

Another problem I see with the "Occupy" name is when it comes to cities with large populations of workers and working poor, African Americans, etc. For example, "Occupy Detroit" is coming together, but most of its organizers are white and relatively privileged (some workers, some petty bourgeois). This sounds less like an anti-capitalist occupation and more like a suburban invasion. And I suspect that the opponents of "Occupy Detroit" will use that sentiment to their advantage, painting the participants as outsiders.
You're assuming that this movement is against the bourgeois, it's not. It's against corporations and imperialism.

[Misanthrope]

The major issue here revolves around the word "occupy" and how it alienates indigenous people. We had a four-hour debate on whether to change the group's name today, with no resolution.

Can you elaborate on how this alienates indigenous people?

[Spets]

In occupy Asheville, (North Carolina) sadly you have these new age hippy freaks with their "Spiritual Working Class." Not trying to judge anyone on their beliefs, morals or ethics. I mean really? Also, I have to say this, in the 99% there still are rich people, so it would probably be more correct to say 75% or so.

[Decommissioner]

The major issue here revolves around the word "occupy" and how it alienates indigenous people. We had a four-hour debate on whether to change the group's name today, with no resolution.

Interesting. We had a really big indigenous presence at Occupy Tulsa, in fact they were mainly represented side by side with the unions. I guess if any of them happened to find offense with the verbiage they didn't say anything.

Like other Occupy events the march here in tulsa was somewhat aimless, a lot of peoples stance being against "corporate greed". I am really surprised and please however, as this protest had a really big turnout and thats just something you never expect to see here. I was expecting it to be a handful of hippies and punks and my friends and I. But it was the complete opposite, tons of working people and "average" every day people came, and they were feisty and pissed off. It was quite exciting. Also it helps that I know the organizers of our event are socialists, which creates a real opportunity to bring class politics to the forefront of these events.

[Martin Blank]

As long as the movement is caught up in four hour no resolution debates over this sort of triviality, it will never get anywhere.

I don't think it's a "triviality" to listen to the concerns of oppressed nationalities like the Native Americans. I would consider that tantamount to calling the raising of anti-racist issues a "triviality". The real shame here is that there was a four-hour discussion with no outcome, not that the question was raised and discussed.


And the real issue is socialism. The answer to Wall Street rule is socialism, nothing more, nothing less, nothing else. For the Occupy Wall Street movement to explicitly adopt socialism as its objective will be the first step in the many needed to accomplish its goals.

You won't see anything like that happen until workers take control of the movement.


The facilitation committee for Occupy Detroit is run by a bunch of social workers and "professional" facilitators, and we have 5 hour meetings with nothing accomplished. First we make an agenda, discuss for an hour or so the order of the agenda, then discuss for another hour how much time we should spend on each agenda item (no joke, 10 minute discussions about whether a specific item should take 5 minutes or 10; it's absurd)! At that point, we barely get a chance to get to the agenda. This whole direct democracy, leaderless movement is making me become a Leninist.

I want to make a sign: SOCIALIST WORKERS, not social workers!

Anyone have any similar experiences?

I was really afraid of that happening to the OD group. I lived in Detroit until about a year ago, and I know all the people involved in organizing and leading the occupation there. Nothing good will come of that pack of fakers.

I'm having to deal with similar problems where I am right now. There is a leadership that elected itself at its first meeting (of seven people!), and most of it is either petty-bourgeois or lumpenized (dead serious!). I suppose, though, that's where the similarities end. They whipped through a pretty long agenda at the last meeting in an hour; of course, the reason they did it is so that the union reps. at the meeting could get to the monthly meeting of the local Democratic Party, which was being held across the street.

(Incidentally, we have a sign for the Occupy events calling for democratic accountability and a revolutionary workers' platform.)


You're assuming that this movement is against the bourgeois, it's not. It's against corporations and imperialism.

I'm well aware of that fact. It's the Achilles heel of the entire movement. That's what makes it ripe for being turned into a radical-liberal "people's front" behind the Democratic Party. Nevertheless, workers are being attracted to the Occupy movement and events, and that means it is incumbent on revolutionaries to raise issues that are relevant to the working class, including about the relationship between the class composition of the movement's leadership and how they are perceived by workers.


Can you elaborate on how this alienates indigenous people?

From the perspective of Native Americans, this country is already occupied territory. From their perspective, the fight is to take it back from the occupiers. Read this post (http://www.revleft.com/vb/indigenous-platform-proposal-t162623/index.html) for more information.


In occupy Asheville, (North Carolina) sadly you have these new age hippy freaks with their "Spiritual Working Class." Not trying to judge anyone on their beliefs, morals or ethics. I mean really? Also, I have to say this, in the 99% there still are rich people, so it would probably be more correct to say 75% or so.

We toyed with using the slogan, "Workers are 66 of the 99 percent -- for real majority rule!" We may still use it, but we'll have to see.

[tir1944]

The Native studies critique of the U.S. nation-state as essentially illegitimate connects pleasantly with anarchist/communist analysis and promotes radicalization. It's something revolutionary leftists should get behind.
Please say how exactly does "the Native studies critique..." "connect pleasently" with "communist analysis"? I'm really interested...

[khlib]

I was really afraid of that happening to the OD group. I lived in Detroit until about a year ago, and I know all the people involved in organizing and leading the occupation there. Nothing good will come of that pack of fakers.

Great, now Occupy Detroit "facilitators" are kicking people out of the PUBLIC park that are promoting messages that "have nothing to do with our movement"... aka, socialists, communists, and anarchists. How can we fix this? I am so discouraged.

[Martin Blank]

Great, now Occupy Detroit "facilitators" are kicking people out of the PUBLIC park that are promoting messages that "have nothing to do with our movement"... aka, socialists, communists, and anarchists. How can we fix this? I am so discouraged.

I'll contact you over PM to talk specifics.

[Tablo]

That is fucked up. How can the Occupy Detroit facilitators do that?

[Martin Blank]

That is fucked up. How can the Occupy Detroit facilitators do that?

I imagine it's because they have the permits ... and backing from the local government and state forces.

[RED DAVE]

You're assuming that this movement is against the bourgeois, it's not. It's against corporations and imperialism.Uhh, Comrade, I understand that there's cognitive gap at the Occupation[s].

But I you understand that the corporations are owned and controlled by the bourgeoisie for their benefit and that imperialism is the modern form of capitalism, the society that the bourgeoisie has created in its own image.

RED DAVE

[A Marxist Historian]

I don't think it's a "triviality" to listen to the concerns of oppressed nationalities like the Native Americans. I would consider that tantamount to calling the raising of anti-racist issues a "triviality". The real shame here is that there was a four-hour discussion with no outcome, not that the question was raised and discussed.

This was not the concerns of Native Americans, but the concerns of stupid white petty-bourgeois New Left leftovers under the great misimpression that what they thought had anything to do with what Native Americans thought.

Just read the posting from Tulsa. Oklahoma is the great Native American center in America. It was originally supposed to be Native American territory, and it still has by far the largest Native American population percentage of any state.

And, as somebody else pointed out, "occupy" is the traditional Native American protest slogan, as embodied in the high point of Native American rebellion during the Sixties, namely the occupation of Alcatraz.

-M.H.-




You won't see anything like that happen until workers take control of the movement.



I was really afraid of that happening to the OD group. I lived in Detroit until about a year ago, and I know all the people involved in organizing and leading the occupation there. Nothing good will come of that pack of fakers.

I'm having to deal with similar problems where I am right now. There is a leadership that elected itself at its first meeting (of seven people!), and most of it is either petty-bourgeois or lumpenized (dead serious!). I suppose, though, that's where the similarities end. They whipped through a pretty long agenda at the last meeting in an hour; of course, the reason they did it is so that the union reps. at the meeting could get to the monthly meeting of the local Democratic Party, which was being held across the street.

(Incidentally, we have a sign for the Occupy events calling for democratic accountability and a revolutionary workers' platform.)



I'm well aware of that fact. It's the Achilles heel of the entire movement. That's what makes it ripe for being turned into a radical-liberal "people's front" behind the Democratic Party. Nevertheless, workers are being attracted to the Occupy movement and events, and that means it is incumbent on revolutionaries to raise issues that are relevant to the working class, including about the relationship between the class composition of the movement's leadership and how they are perceived by workers.



From the perspective of Native Americans, this country is already occupied territory. From their perspective, the fight is to take it back from the occupiers. Read this post (http://www.revleft.com/vb/indigenous-platform-proposal-t162623/index.html) for more information.



We toyed with using the slogan, "Workers are 66 of the 99 percent -- for real majority rule!" We may still use it, but we'll have to see.

[Lucretia]

Great, now Occupy Detroit "facilitators" are kicking people out of the PUBLIC park that are promoting messages that "have nothing to do with our movement"... aka, socialists, communists, and anarchists. How can we fix this? I am so discouraged.

As I said, it's a struggle over the struggle. That's usually how movements are defeated, through a little friendly co-opting and internal policing.

[blake 3:17]

Which seems an awful lot to me like letting consensus in the back door.

Which it is. People are trying to build some real unity coming from different left and activist cultures & some of that won't be overcome -- which is fine -- but if a 1/3 of the group is left out then whole thing splinters.

I've been a part of splits and a part of unity campaigns and the latter are much much harder. If people come away feeling like they've been treated badly it takes a looooooonnnnngggggggggggg time for people to get active again. Bad feelings build up, rumours spread, people burn out.

I've had bad experiences with consensus processes, but also seen people be freaking nasty with 50+1 decision making -- stacking meetings, creating procedural delays, deliberately losing quorum, etc.

[agnixie]

I'll contact you over PM to talk specifics.

I would really love PM, we're trying to get things running and radicalize the message.

Also - khlib - get people, form groups and burn the fuckers internally, break confidence in their bullshit, etc. PM me with specifics, please.

[Olentzero]

I've had bad experiences with consensus processes, but also seen people be freaking nasty with 50+1 decision making -- stacking meetings, creating procedural delays, deliberately losing quorum, etc.I'm not arguing that going by simple majority is a magic cure-all for these kind of problems, but it does put more focus on making decisions and getting down to action than fetishizing some abstract number (70% have to agree or we'll never get anything done).

People are always gonna have to be on the lookout for bullshit that wrecks and derails discussions. Like agnixie says, their shenanigans have to be nipped in the bud so they don't have the confidence to keep it up. One simple little trick is direct and immediate recall - if someone's in a position of authority and is clearly not taking the movement's best interests to heart, simple majority vote at a general assembly removes them. The ones that get all butthurt and storm off in a fuss - movement is, in my opinion, better off without 'em. Those that stick around and try to learn lessons from their experience - those are the people the movement needs.

[Fawkes]

Also, I have to say this, in the 99% there still are rich people, so it would probably be more correct to say 75% or so.

Ultimately, it would be far more correct to say "the working class" rather than some vague number that is pretty useless in terms of a solid, materialist critique. We're working on that though, but at least an attempt at identification of oppressive forces is occurring, even if misguided.

[YSR]

At least here in MN, the movement was initiated by what appear to be ex-MPIRG types and liberal activists, and then the progressive unions and socialists and other more organizing-focused people showed up second. This has meant that the hippies, as some like to call them, continue to have both formal power (like who controls the website) and informal power (like making consensus unchallengable in a straight up discussion). Has anyone else noticed this? Basically it means that we're playing against a stacked deck, because the rules and culture were established by a group of people before we even started having pre-occupation planning meetings, and so we don't even have a process to challenge the process, short of straight out pulling our ranks together and telling them to go home, which we're not in any position to do.

Has this gone down similarly in other spots?

[Makaru]

I didn't attend Occupy Shreveport's protest on Saturday but I did keep up with it and I have to say I was pretty disappointed. The Shreveport Times posted a story on it and provided a video link. I know that living in the Deep South the prospects for a genuinely Leftist, internationalist attempt to assert worker solidarity and some sense of injustice at the capitalist system are relatively slim, but I was aghast that there was more than one sign that exhorted people to 'Buy American' with anger directed at corporations who ship jobs overseas. To put that in context, though, Shreveport hosts a GM plant that will be closing soon, so I guess I can somewhat understand the sentiment. Still, it seems ridiculous to be nationalistic about this. Workers all over the world are experiencing the same problems that we are here in the United States and I find it incredibly selfish and disingenuous to pretend as though we're more special than someone on the other side of an artificial border. Then again, like it's been mentioned, the tone was anti-corporate, not anti-capitalist. Nevermind that capitalism inevitably leads to corporatism. :rolleyes:

I was also a little peeved that the Facebook page for Occupy Shreveport showed a picture of graffiti that said "Occupy S'port" and "ANON, Expect Us" and then said that Occupy Shreveport condemns such action and will never attempt to break any laws in getting its message out. Seriously? What is civil disobedience (OK, I get condemning graffiti to try to avoid alienating people, but still)? I've seen a similar attitude coming from other cities. If protesters aren't willing to break laws if necessary to prove their strength and stand their ground, then what's the point? A protest without the ability to resort to civil disobedience is just a bunch of people allowing themselves to be herded and shuffled while screaming about it.