National General Assembly in the works?

[Dunk]

http://www.businessinsider.com/occupy-wall-street-has-plans-for-a-coordinated-national-gathering-2011-10

As of right now, I'm unsure whether this is legit, but...


1. The Occupy Wall Street movement, through the local general assembly, should elect an executive committee comprised of 11 people or some other odd number of people that is manageable for meetings. Ideally this committee should represent each city in the U.S. that is being occupied.

2. The executive committee will then attend to local issues such as obtaining permits, paying for public sanitation and dealing with the media. More important, the executive committee shall plan and organize the election of the 870 delegates to a National General Assembly between now and July 4, 2012.

3. As stated in the 99% declaration, each of the 435 congressional districts will form an election committee to prepare ballots and invite citizens in those districts to run as delegates to a National General Assembly in Philadelphia beginning on July 4, 2012 and convening until October 2012.

4. Each of the 435 congressional districts will elect one man and one woman to attend the National General Assembly. The vote will be by direct democratic ballot regardless of voter registration status as long as the voter has reached the age of 18 and is a US citizen. This is not a sexist provision. Women are dramatically under-represented in politics even though they comprise more than 50% of the U.S. population.

5. The executive committee will act as a central point to solve problems, raise money to pay for the expenses of the election of the National General Assembly and make sure all 870 delegates are elected prior to the meeting on July 4th.

6. The executive committee would also arrange a venue in Philadelphia to accommodate the delegates attending the National General Assembly where the declaration of values, petition of grievances and platform would be proposed, debated, voted on and approved. The delegates would also elect a chair from their own ranks to run the meetings of the congress and break any tie votes. We will also need the expertise of a gifted parliamentarian to keep the meetings moving smoothly and efficiently (http://www.businessinsider.com/occupy-wall-street-has-plans-for-a-coordinated-national-gathering-2011-10#).

7. The final declaration, platform and petition of grievances, after being voted upon by the 870 delegates to the National General Assembly would be formally presented by the 870 delegates to all three branches of government and all candidates running for federal public office in November 2012. Thus, the delegates would meet from July 4, 2012 to sometime in early to late October 2012.

8. The delegates to the National General Assembly would then vote on a time period, presently suggested as one year, to give the newly elected government in November an opportunity to redress the petition of grievances. This is our right as a People under the First Amendment.

9. If the government fails to redress the petition of grievances and drastically change the path this country is on, the delegates will demand the resignation and recall of all members of congress, the president and even the Supreme Court and call for new elections by, of and for the PEOPLE with 99 days of the resignation demand.

10. There will NEVER be any call for violence by the delegates even if the government refuses to redress the grievances and new elections are called for by the delegates. Nor will any delegate agree to take any money, job promise, or gifts from corporations, unions or any other private source. Any money donated or raised by the executive committee may only be used for publicizing the vote, the National General Assembly, and for travel expenses and accommodation at the National General Assembly ONLY. All books and records will be published openly online so that everyone may see how much money is raised and how the money is spent each month. There will be no money allowed to "purchase" delegate votes as we have in the current government. No corporate "sponsorship".Holy. Shit.

[Jose Gracchus]

All delegates should be subject to instant recall by well-defined constituencies. They should be compensated at a rate of an average worker, plus expenses for executing their well-defined duties. And really, one should stick with representation by conurbation occupied, and then maybe have rural counties accorded representation. The existing Congressional Districts are fixed by partisan jerrymandering and systemic discrimination against urban and poor constituents in proportional terms. Acknowledging them means legitimizing the racial and wealth cantons by which the corrupt politician stratum select their own voters. Oh, and workers obviously have to be incorporated directly as such in local assemblies and councils. Current employees, that is, non-managers, and the unemployed should be the leading element.

[thesadmafioso]

Have you actually read the so called "99% declaration"? It's just a bunch of reformist and even mildly racist bullshit combined with a hint of fetishism for the American Revolution. And it's going to be completely ignored by the forces that be, to top things off.

Let's just say I'm not holding my breath on this one.

[Dunk]

All delegates should be subject to instant recall by well-defined constituencies.

I agree. I'm unsure whether this is happening at other Occupations, but in Cleveland, while I sat in on last Saturday's GA, they discussed organizing worker controlled committees based upon the work the occupiers did - tech, medical, etc. I can easily see some of the GA's following suit - for example, what could happen is the election of delegates from these committees - or from the wider Assembly, it doesn't matter, they all participate in them.

thesadmafioso, this doesn't strike you as an escalation of struggle? Do you know how threatening this is going to come across to the USG and capital?

[Jose Gracchus]

Have you actually read the so called "99% declaration"? It's just a bunch of reformist and even mildly racist bullshit combined with a hint of fetishism for the American Revolution. And it's going to be completely ignored by the forces that be, to top things off.


Where's the link?

EDIT: https://sites.google.com/site/the99percentdeclaration/

Ugh. This is crap. The Naomi Kleins and left Democrats are trying to take control. The working-class's involvement must expand, though the idea of more thoroughly organizing the occupations is good.

[Fawkes]

http://nycga.cc/2011/09/30/declaration-of-the-occupation-of-new-york-city/

[thesadmafioso]

I agree. I'm unsure whether this is happening at other Occupations, but in Cleveland, while I sat in on last Saturday's GA, they discussed organizing worker controlled committees based upon the work the occupiers did - tech, medical, etc. I can easily see some of the GA's following suit - for example, what could happen is the election of delegates from these committees - or from the wider Assembly, it doesn't matter, they all participate in them.

thesadmafioso, this doesn't strike you as an escalation of struggle? Do you know how threatening this is going to come across to the USG and capital?

We are watching an outburst of material motivated political disdain towards the standing social order, which is certainly encouraging, I will be quick to admit that much.

That being said, there is a difference between ill defined liberal activism and a revolutionary struggle. Yes, the revolutionary struggle will certainly be strengthened once this movement is seen as incapable of enacting any sort of substantive gains for the working class, but we should not falsely conflate this particular string of demonstrations as a revolutionary movement itself. As its approach of unrequited reformism and clear isolation from the forces of labor show, these protests themselves will certainly not act as a revolutionary agent any time soon.

And as anecdotal flourish, the GA I sat in on in Albany took about 3 hours to pick a date, a time, and a park for occupation. Just imagine siting in a room of 300 or so politically advanced (relatively speaking) individuals, and not hearing a word of politics spoken directly for that time. Instead I was treated to a chaotic spectacle wherein a collection of workers and other assorted individuals were forced to use comments on park selection as proxy's for political statements, which was really fucking excruciating to watch. How precisely am I to consider such ineffectual leadership to be capable of revolution or even of threatening the standing forces of capital?

In its current form, the occupy movement is not a threat to any real institutions of the bourgeoisie dictatorship and all of its various institutions, we should harbor no illusions on that reality. Until the crisis of proletarian leadership is overcome, I am hesitant to overstate the value of these demonstrations.

[Martin Blank]

I don't buy this, either. Sounds more like the beginning of a bait-and-switch: they begin by calling for a "third party" and end with the "compromise": a Get-Out-The-Vote machine for Obama 2012.

[agnixie]

This thing in businessinsider is complete bullshit. The only call to action we did was for occupations to grow and popular assemblies to form, a constitutional convention is mostly a Paulista fetish.

[Dunk]

This thing in businessinsider is complete bullshit. The only call to action we did was for occupations to grow and popular assemblies to form, a constitutional convention is mostly a Paulista fetish.

Would the GA endorse the construction of a National General Assembly? Or block it? I think the Cleveland GA would endorse it. I haven't yet been to the Akron, although I think it's really tiny.

thesadmafioso, I don't think the movement has been decidedly isolated from the forces of labor. I think that's inaccurate, although it may simply be too strongly worded. We've had examples of worker organizations and the movement expressing solidarity with the other, and the showing of the leaders of large unions to the Occupations should be evidence enough that the rank and file support the movement so much that those labor leaders cannot afford to not show or express support.

But this list of suggested grievances or solutions isn't what really interests me. It's the creation of a direct democratic structure on a nationwide scale which interests me. What also interests me is that the way GAs operate around the world are the exact same, so, in the development of struggle, there is no real barrier between a GA in Buffalo and a GA two hours away in Toronto. It's that the economy is going to go nowhere for the coming decade and the Eurozone stands on the brink while this structure is going to possibly be built.

If you're looking for a movement brought on by a crises of capitalism, people, this is it - though I should also add that I think the movement in response to the crises began long before the Occupations did. I have to admit I find it distasteful when there are those of us who critique this as being devoid of revolutionary potential when it is so obviously a class movement - the only thing capable of revolutionary change. You don't like their evocations of American Revolution imagery? I may not like it much, either, but this movement isn't made up of people discussing revisionism or whether Trotsky's farts smelled better than Stalin's, this is everyday working class people in the process of moving in their own interests.

If our enemies see it as a threat, shouldn't those of us on the side of our class see it as a strength? I can personally guarantee you all the construction of a General Assembly of General Assemblies is going to be viewed as a potential threat to power by those in power.

[Decolonize The Left]

I don't buy this, either. Sounds more like the beginning of a bait-and-switch: they begin by calling for a "third party" and end with the "compromise": a Get-Out-The-Vote machine for Obama 2012.

Indeed. The whole reason why the Occupy phenomenon hasn't been overtly co-opted is the fundamentally decentralized nature of the protests. The second a 'committee' gets established we have a hierarchy in place and there's a given number of people for the Dems to go after. Right now, the people are too spread out and difficult to reach with a concentrated message. Yet once a system gets established, they need only go after those in positions of authority and the whole thing goes down from top to bottom...

- August

[The Douche]

Indeed. The whole reason why the Occupy phenomenon hasn't been overtly co-opted is the fundamentally decentralized nature of the protests. The second a 'committee' gets established we have a hierarchy in place and there's a given number of people for the Dems to go after. Right now, the people are too spread out and difficult to reach with a concentrated message. Yet once a system gets established, they need only go after those in positions of authority and the whole thing goes down from top to bottom...

- August

Vote for me in the national assembly, I'll share buy off money with you.

[Decolonize The Left]

Vote for me in the national assembly, I'll share buy off money with you.

I would have voted for you anyway, just because you're pretty.

- August

[Die Neue Zeit]

Indeed. The whole reason why the Occupy phenomenon hasn't been overtly co-opted is the fundamentally decentralized nature of the protests. The second a 'committee' gets established we have a hierarchy in place and there's a given number of people for the Dems to go after. Right now, the people are too spread out and difficult to reach with a concentrated message. Yet once a system gets established, they need only go after those in positions of authority and the whole thing goes down from top to bottom...

- August

Right now there is a tyranny of structurelessness. With a system in place, I still think it would be hard for the Dems to try to co-opt. A few knowledgeable folks can point to the mixed tent of the "Democratic" "Party" and the bad records of, say, the Blue Dogs.

An easier scenario would be for the Occupy movement to "co-opt itself" into a Progressive Green Labor Party.

[Jose Gracchus]

Electoral third parties are not viable under the U.S. electoral system framed under the Constitution and various case law precedent.

[CornetJoyce]

The USA has had over 2,000 "third parties."

[Decolonize The Left]

Right now there is a tyranny of structurelessness. With a system in place, I still think it would be hard for the Dems to try to co-opt. A few knowledgeable folks can point to the mixed tent of the "Democratic" "Party" and the bad records of, say, the Blue Dogs.

An easier scenario would be for the Occupy movement to "co-opt itself" into a Progressive Green Labor Party.

I disagree. I think the structurelessness is the only thing that's keeping OWS afloat at the moment. There is no doubt in anyone's mind that it can't stay this was forever - a leadership will emerge at some point, a structure of organization will be formed, and we will see where it goes from there.

All I was saying in regards to the co-opting possibility is that it's almost impossible for Dems/Libertarians/Greens/whoever to co-opt OWS because there's no structure to co-opt. Just a bunch of people in the street. But when a structure is formed there will be specific people for the Dems/etc... to focus their attention upon. That's all.

- August

[Die Neue Zeit]

My two questions for any potential National General Assembly in the works are as follows:

1) Will the movement get past the cacophony of "no demands" and commit to a political platform listing demands from as many of the participants as possible?
2) Will the movement institute dues and dues equivalents to support itself financially?

[agnixie]

My two questions for any potential National General Assembly in the works are as follows:

1) Will the movement get past the cacophony of "no demands" and commit to a political platform listing demands from as many of the participants as possible?
2) Will the movement institute dues and dues equivalents to support itself financially?

1 - "No demands" is only what the media parrots, what we mean is "no demands from congress", "no concessions from the bourgeoisie", of course the media has a vested interest in making it sound like there are no demands at all, because if we are the demand, if popular and workers' assemblies are the demand, then it's not something they can coopt because it would completely destroy the tools people like Hamilton and Madison created for their dominance 200 years ago. We have a demand that's being worked on, which is a call for general strike and occupations of not only public spaces but workspaces. A demand to the people.

2 - We can do one better. The project is still in the early drafting phase but we've been working on it for a while.

As for a national general assembly, it's no less parliamentarism when you add "people's" in front, until we have a large enough mass there will be no national general assembly.

[thesadmafioso]

Electoral third parties are not viable under the U.S. electoral system framed under the Constitution and various case law precedent.

The Bolsheviks were not exactly what most any contemporary would of considered a viable party under the Tsarist electoral system, that didn't exactly put too much of a damper on their parade though. You can't use the mind of a one sided bourgeois politico to comprehend the nature of revolutionary politics.

[jmlima]

...

thesadmafioso, this doesn't strike you as an escalation of struggle? Do you know how threatening this is going to come across to the USG and capital?

It depends, it might turn in to another husy-mushy PR exercise for a couple of cronies, or might very well be the start of a new movement with an interesting perspective or modus-operandi.

It's hard to tell at this point what is it going to be.

[RED DAVE]

In five admittedly brief visits to OWS, I have heard absolutely no discussion of a national GA, nor have I seen any document that in any way resembles the above. I'm not saying it's bogus, but I would like to know who wrote it and where it emanates from.

RED DAVE

[Dunk]

1 - "No demands" is only what the media parrots, what we mean is "no demands from congress", "no concessions from the bourgeoisie", of course the media has a vested interest in making it sound like there are no demands at all, because if we are the demand, if popular and workers' assemblies are the demand, then it's not something they can coopt because it would completely destroy the tools people like Hamilton and Madison created for their dominance 200 years ago. We have a demand that's being worked on, which is a call for general strike and occupations of not only public spaces but workspaces. A demand to the people.

This is fantastic.


As for a national general assembly, it's no less parliamentarism when you add "people's" in front, until we have a large enough mass there will be no national general assembly.

A GA of GAs is bourgeois parliamentarism, but once a critical mass builds a GA of GAs might be built? What you're saying is coming across as inconsistent to me and I apologize if I'm misunderstanding you. The reason why a GA of GAs can be different from bourgeois parliamentarism is the delegates are necessarily subject to immediate democratic recall because any GA could propose recall to reach consensus on it, and that within such a structure there is no seperation of powers. I have to agree with Zizek here that local participatory democracy is not the universal answer, that global society cannot be organized this way. If we are enterning the time when GAs are considering and building toward a call to striking actions on this kind of scale, this is precisely the time when we should be discussing how a federation of GAs can be built and how to maximize the control of it from below.

[Commissar Rykov]

In five admittedly brief visits to OWS, I have heard absolutely no discussion of a national GA, nor have I seen any document that in any way resembles the above. I'm not saying it's bogus, but I would like to know who wrote it and where it emanates from.

RED DAVE
Likely from Democrats hoping to coop the movement. Right now the Democrats are probably the only ones able to capitalize on it and will likely try their damnedest to do so. As Miles said it will likely be a bait and switch from progress to lets vote for Obama.

[agnixie]

This is fantastic.



A GA of GAs is bourgeois parliamentarism, but once a critical mass builds a GA of GAs might be built? What you're saying is coming across as inconsistent to me and I apologize if I'm misunderstanding you. The reason why a GA of GAs can be different from bourgeois parliamentarism is the delegates are necessarily subject to immediate democratic recall because any GA could propose recall to reach consensus on it, and that within such a structure there is no seperation of powers. I have to agree with Zizek here that local participatory democracy is not the universal answer, that global society cannot be organized this way. If we are enterning the time when GAs are considering and building toward a call to striking actions on this kind of scale, this is precisely the time when we should be discussing how a federation of GAs can be built and how to maximize the control of it from below.

I mean that we'll figure out how to federalize and coordinate over time, but making a single big supreme assembly is not only premature but likely to mess with the democratic intent. We need to be global and I agree, and there have been assembly to assembly delegations, but there is a point where we need to be before it actually is more than just parliamentarism, we need to assemblies to start being more than a would be democracy and actually start to take over: basically until we have something massive like a general strike I think a congress of the assemblies is premature.

Also I have had little sleep over the past week and my ideas may not always make sense.


In five admittedly brief visits to OWS, I have heard absolutely no discussion of a national GA, nor have I seen any document that in any way resembles the above. I'm not saying it's bogus, but I would like to know who wrote it and where it emanates from.

The various listservs we use for organization were similarly puzzled as to who exactly that person was.

[RedTrackWorker]

"No demands" is only what the media parrots, what we mean is "no demands from congress", "no concessions from the bourgeoisie"
[snip]
We have a demand that's being worked on, which is a call for general strike and occupations of not only public spaces but workspaces. A demand to the people.

I think a perspective for building for a general strike and other types of workplace action is key. I don't think the OWS General Assembly putting a "demand to the people" will do much for it right now though.

Consider the commercial building workers around the occupation organized by 32BJ. Most of them are the lowest paid members of the union movement. Many of them are immigrants supporting a family here, and often family members where they came from as well. Many if not most of them are probably more class conscious than the average young protester at Wall Street, but they have a family to feed and a life to live and are still willing to risk that for certain goals, but a demand-less general strike without preparation is probably not one of them.

If one of those workers is laid off, what do they do and want people to do? Raise a demand for re-hiring on the boss and organize action to back that demand up.

How did they form a union in the first place, which provides this some kind of protection on the job and room for maneuver? They raised a demand on the boss for collective bargaining and organized action to back that demand up.

And how will workers feel confident that if they go on strike, they have back-up? That's it's not just them running out and then looking back behind them and they're left alone--what's the development to a general strike, which I think is very possible and definitely needed? I propose working for a march of hundreds of thousands--which will take hard work to achieve and will help workers feel their strength in unity and make more possible further actions such as striking, which is why I'm working very hard for this proposal (http://lrp-cofi.org/statements/clc_march_wallstreet_102011.html).