Important ows structural document

[RED DAVE]

The Occupied Wall Street Spokes Council Proposal (http://www.nycga.net/spokes%20-council/)

The above document has been circulated at the OWS over the past few days.

It obviously represents a new development: a step beyond consensus and the mass meeting of the General Assembly as the only decision-making process. It will formalize what has already occurred informally, the emergence of not only a structure but also a leadership.

This document needs to be scrutinized and discussed. If anyone can copy the text and post it into this thread, that would be cool.

RED DAVE

[Catmatic Leftist]

***Reformatted to save people's eyes***

The Occupied Wall Street Spokes Council Proposal

Guiding Principles
»» Direct democracy
»» Non-hierarchy
»» Transparency
»» Accountability
»» Diversity
»» Anti-Oppression
»» Autonomy
»» Cooperation
»» Participation
»» Inclusion
»» Flexibility
»» Mutual Respect
»» Unleashing the revolutionary imagination!



Summary

Submitted by the Structure Working Group
With the unbelievable success and growth of our movement over the past month, we find ourselves in need of a more transparent, accountable and functional structure for Working Groups and Caucuses to communicate, collaborate, and make decisions together, including holistic budgetary decisions. This structure would not replace the General Assembly, the morning check-in or the occupiers meeting, but rather complement them.
In order to maintain the non-hierarchical and directly democratic nature of OWS, while encouraging more functional, accountable, and transparent processes, we propose that we institute a Spokes Council comprised of all Working Groups and Caucuses. This is a structure and process that we can evolve and change as our needs grow.


What is a Spokes Council?
A spokes council is a structure that has been used widely by democratic movements since the Spanish Revolution, and draws inspiration from many indigenous struggles such as the Zapatistas in Chiapas, Mexico. It was used effectively and for many years in Anti-Nuclear (80’s) and Global Justice (90s and 00s) movements in the US and internationally. The beauty of a spokes council is that it allows large numbers of people to participate in directly democratic decision-making, united in their desire for accountable, transparent and horizontal relationships. It is called a spokes council because it is structured like the spokes of a wheel.


» PROPOSAL IN DETAIL

Working Group Clusters

The OWS Spokes Council will be comprised of Clusters of Working Groups and Caucuses.

»» A Working Group is defined as a group that is contributing tangible work to the occupation in a way that is collectively agreed to be essential and additive to the operation of the occupation as a whole.
»» Thematic Groups are autonomous and do not have spokes in the Spokes Council, although they are encouraged to engage with the appropriate Working Groups to bring their ideas to the Spokes Council.
»» Each existing Working Group will submit a written charter to the Spokes Council including the following: a description of their mission and the work they are engaged in, where they meet, and how new people can get involved. A copy of their charter will be published on the NYCGA website.
»» Working Groups have the autonomy to make decisions relevant to their own needs, composition and operation.
»» Working Groups will be expected to join other Working Groups with similar missions to form a Working Group Cluster. Each Cluster will have one spoke person for each meeting of the Spokes Council.
»» New Working Groups present their proposed charters to the Spokes Council for approval and assistance in finding an appropriate Cluster.
»» Clusters are autonomous and are expected to check-in with each other between Spokes Councils.


Caucus Clusters
»» A Caucus is a self-determining group of people that share a common experience of being systemically marginalized in our society based on their real or perceived race,
gender identity, sexuality, age, or ability.
»» Each existing Caucus will submit a written charter to the Spokes Council including: a description of their mission, where they meet, and how new people can get involved. A copy of their charters will be published on the NYCGA wesbite.
»» Caucuses have the autonomy to make decisions relevant to their own needs, composition and operation.
»» Caucuses will be encouraged to join other Caucuses with similar missions into a Caucus Cluster. Each Caucus Cluster will have a Spoke on the Spokes Council.
»» Caucuses have all the rights of a Working Group. In addition, they have the ability to halt a proposal they deem to have potentially disproportionately adverse consequences for their constituency, and allowed reasonable time to bring the issue to their Caucus for deliberation.
»» New Caucuses present their proposed charters to the Spokes Council for approval and assistance in finding an appropriate Cluster.
»» It is not the responsibility of a Caucus to educate others about oppression.


How It Works

»» Before each Spokes Council, each Cluster selects a “spoke” to sit with the other “spokes” in a circle in the middle of the meeting space.
»» The spokes are not representatives, as they do not make decisions alone and are accountable to all the members of their cluster who are in attendance and seated directly behind them. Though they are the only individuals to speak at that meeting, when a proposal is made, they must confer with and reflect the collective sentiment of the attending members of their Cluster before speaking for them.
»» A Cluster can recall their spoke at any time if they are failing to adequately reflect the will of the Cluster.
»» Clusters will rotate their spoke from meeting to meeting, making space for marginalized voices to spoke more often.
»» Clusters in a Spokes Council participate as a unified voice. They deliberate and craft their proposals in their Cluster prior to bringing their proposal to the Spokes Council as a whole. This helps ensure that proposals are thoughtful and well crafted.
»» When deliberating on a proposal, a Cluster will bring their decision to the Spokes Council as a whole. This also means that if a member of a Cluster wants to block the Spokes Council from moving forward, they must first appeal to the wisdom of their Cluster, trusting that if their block is truly based on a serious ethical or safety concern, their Cluster will hear their wisdom and block the proposal. This relieves the Spoke Council from having to evaluate the merit of blocks and safeguards it from being obstructed by individuals that wish our movement harm.


Decisions & Decision-Making
»» The main function of the Spokes Council is coordination, in the form of working group report backs and agenda items.
»» Proposals for the Spokes Council must be relevant to other
Clusters.
»» Proposals to the Spokes Council come fully formed from a Cluster. If an individual wants to make a proposal they must present the idea to a Cluster they’re actively involved in. That Cluster must go though a democratic process before the proposal can go to the Spokes Council.
»» Like the GA, Spokes Council decisions are made by modified consensus. We attempt to reach consensus and if consensus cannot be reached, and block cannot be addressed, a vote will be taken. To stop a proposal, one-tenth of all Clusters present must vote against it.
»» All decisions made in the Spokes Council (financial and otherwise) are completely transparent and posted on the NYCGA website.
»» The four types of decisions that the Spokes Council attend to are:
1. Decisions related to the functioning and well-being of the occupation.
2. All budgets and capital expenditures
» Budgets are submitted to the finance committee on weekly basis and presented to the Spokes Council in a consolidated form for approval.
3. Working Groups and Caucus charters and their affiliation with the Spokes Council
4. All declarations that propose to represent OWS as a whole (principles of unity, demands, etc).
»»These are brought first to the Spokes Council, as this is a more empowering space for caucuses to voice ethical concerns, and then they go to the GA for ratification.


Relationship to the General Assembly
The General Assembly embodies the heart of our movement. It is a constantly evolving body that enables participation and horizontal process. The Spokes Council will not replace the GA. The GA will continue to make decisions that concern the relationship of the occupation as a whole to the broader movement.


Open Access
»» The Spokes Council is open to all to witness, but to participate, one must be an active participant in a Working Group or Caucus.
»» The Occupiers Meeting will be given a spoke at the assembly for those camping but not involved in any formal Working Groups.
»» Meeting minutes will be transparent and posted on the NYCGA website through open-source technology.


Proposed Schedule
»» In order to maximize access and participation, the Spokes Council will meet at 7PM Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays.
»» The GA will continue to meet at 7pm on Saturdays and Sundays, when the broadest potential for movement building is possible.
»» Tuesday and Thursday nights will be open for cultural events, including speakers, discussions, music and other performances. Prior to these cultural events, there will be time for public announcements.


Initiation of Spokes Council
»» During the inaugural Spokes Council, all Working Groups and Caucuses will bring their charters for ratification by the Spokes Council.
»» This inaugural meeting will operate initially as a Spokes Council of un-ratified Working Groups/Caucuses and, through its own process, will move towards ending as a Spokes Council of ratified Clusters.
»» Working Groups will be encouraged to cluster with similar groups, such that the total number of Clusters do not exceed 20 now (and in the future will not exceed 30).
»» Groups that do not make this meeting will propose charters at subsequent meetings.
»» Additional process details will be worked out in subsequent Spokes Councils.

**History of this Proposal – This proposal has undergone many revisions, taking into account a wide range of concerns and amendments.

It has been workshopped in the Facilitation Working Group, in the GA, in 2 large, public meetings, and 3 structure working group meetings.

[ВАЛТЕР]

A vanguard in a sense?

[agnixie]

A vanguard in a sense?

We just don't use the word ;)

[RED DAVE]

No matter how much you may disagree with this document, and there is, in my opinion, much to disagree with it in its muddled approach to structure and morbid fear of organization and of leadership. I beg of you to go to post 2 of this thread and read it.

However, if you don't read it and spend some time considering it and, hopefully, commenting on it, consider yourself an armchair revolutionary, hug yourself and take a nap.

Seriously, Comrades, a mass movement is breaking out in front of our eyes. This is more important than the latest flyspecks from the Kronstadt Mutiny.

RED DAVE

[Decolonize The Left]

Catmatic Leftist, will you copy and paste your second post (the formatted version) onto your first post? This way you can just delete your second post and have the first one be the one people read.

Thank you for posting it and reformatting it - the next step is to simply delete the first one and move the second into its place. If you don't know how to do this, please PM a mod/admin.

Thanks again.

- August

[Catmatic Leftist]

No matter how much you may disagree with this document, and there is, in my opinion, much to disagree with it in its muddled approach to structure and morbid fear of organization and of leadership. I beg of you to go to post 5 of this thread and read it.

However, if you don't read it and spend some time considering it and, hopefully, commenting on it, consider yourself an armchair revolutionary, hug yourself and take a nap.

Seriously, Comrades, a mass movement is breaking out in front of our eyes. This is more important than the latest flyspecks from the Kronstadt Mutiny.

RED DAVE

Make that Post #2. :)


Catmatic Leftist, will you copy and paste your second post (the formatted version) onto your first post? This way you can just delete your second post and have the first one be the one people read.

Thank you for posting it and reformatting it - the next step is to simply delete the first one and move the second into its place. If you don't know how to do this, please PM a mod/admin.

Thanks again.

- August

Got it. :)

[Kotze]

This is very long considering how vague it is. What is meant by decisions being completely transparent, all votes linked to names?

In general, I don't understand the following very common proposal: First, we try to reach consensus. If that doesn't work out, we try (super)majority. Something approved by everybody is automatically approved by a (super)majority.
To stop a proposal, one-tenth of all Clusters present must
vote against it.Good luck with getting anything done.

[Decolonize The Left]

This is very long considering how vague it is. What is meant by decisions being completely transparent, all votes linked to names?

In general, I don't understand the following very common proposal: First, we try to reach consensus. If that doesn't work out, we try (super)majority. Something approved by everybody is automatically approved by a (super)majority.

I think that means that they try a consensus, and if it so happens that everyone cannot agree, then they go to a supermajority.

- August

[RED DAVE]

The bold, bracketed numbers are added. Hopefully, the notation system will make it easier for people to post comments on the individual items.



The Occupied Wall Street Spokes Council Proposal

Guiding Principles
»» Direct democracy
»» Non-hierarchy
»» Transparency
»» Accountability
»» Diversity
»» Anti-Oppression
»» Autonomy
»» Cooperation
»» Participation
»» Inclusion
»» Flexibility
»» Mutual Respect
»» Unleashing the revolutionary imagination!
Okay, but they forgot Kitten Liberation. In general, this is what we can expect from here on in: a "desperate" attempt to provide ideology by inclusion rather than analysis by consensus rather than by democracy. (In my opinion, consensus is extremely undemocratic in that it allows one individual or small group to dmoniate, at least negatively, a group of any size.)


Summary

[1] Submitted by the Structure Working Group



It's important to realize that OWS has got its shit together enough to produce a document as extensive and detailed as this. It would be nice to know who actually wrote this.


[1A] With the unbelievable success and growth of our movement over the past month, we find ourselves in need of a more transparent, accountable and functional structure for Working Groups and Caucuses to communicate, collaborate, and make decisions together, including holistic budgetary decisions.So the perceived problems that produced this document have to do with the ability to function. Notice that the word "democracy" is not used.


[1B] This structure would not replace the General Assembly, the morning check-in or the occupiers meeting, but rather complement them.This means, at very least, that there important functions that the named institutions are not performing adequately


[1C] In order to maintain the non-hierarchical and directly democratic nature of OWS, while encouraging more functional, accountable, and transparent processes, we propose that we institute a Spokes Council comprised of all Working Groups and Caucuses. This is a structure and process that we can evolve and change as our needs grow.This is a fantasy that an organization can have a division of labor and responsblity without hierarchy.



[2] What is a Spokes Council?

[2A] A spokes council is a structure that has been used widely by democratic movements since the Spanish Revolution, and draws inspiration from many indigenous struggles such as the Zapatistas in Chiapas, Mexico. It was used effectively and for many years in Anti-Nuclear (80’s) and Global Justice (90s and 00s) movements in the US and internationally.Does anyone know anything about this history?


[2B] The beauty of a spokes council is that it allows large numbers of people to participate in directly democratic decision-making, united in their desire for accountable, transparent and horizontal relationships. It is called a spokes council because it is structured like the spokes of a wheel.The difference between this and any other organization that has a committee structure is that the committees are not the basis of function but the structure of power itself.



[3] PROPOSAL IN DETAIL

Working Group Clusters
[3A] The OWS Spokes Council will be comprised of Clusters of Working Groups and Caucuses.So we have three levels of organization: the Spokes Council itself, the Working Groups, which are organized in Clusters and the Caucuses, which are organized in Clusters:


SPOKES COUNCIL
CLUSTERS
WORKING GROUPS/CAUCUSES



[3B] A Working Group is defined as a group that is contributing tangible work to the occupation in a way that is collectively agreed to be essential and additive to the operation of the occupation as a whole.So we have a group that is, on the one hand, self-appointe an organized but it must be "agreed" to.


[3C] Thematic Groups are autonomous and do not have spokes in the Spokes Council, although they are encouraged to engage with the appropriate Working Groups to bring their ideas to the Spokes Council.It's not clear what a Thematic Group is.


[3D] Each existing Working Group will submit a written charter to the Spokes Council including the following: a description of their mission and the work they are engaged in, where they meet, and how new people can get involved. A copy of their charter will be published on the NYCGA website.There is no apparent procedure for reviewing a charter other than the accetance or rejectioon of the Group by a prcedure that isn't specified.


[3E] Working Groups have the autonomy to make decisions relevant to their own needs, composition and operation.[NO COMMENT YET]


[3F] Working Groups will be expected to join other Working Groups with similar missions to form a Working Group Cluster. Each Cluster will have one spoke person for each meeting of the Spokes Council.[NO COMMENT YET]


[3G] New Working Groups present their proposed charters to the Spokes Council for approval and assistance in finding an appropriate Cluster.
»» Clusters are autonomous and are expected to check-in with each other between Spokes Councils.[NO COMMENT YET]


[4] Caucus Clusters
[4A] A Caucus is a self-determining group of people that share a common experience of being systemically marginalized in our society based on their real or perceived race, gender identity, sexuality, age, or ability.[NO COMMENT YET]


[4B] Each existing Caucus will submit a written charter to the Spokes Council including: a description of their mission, where they meet, and how new people can get involved. A copy of their charters will be published on the NYCGA wesbite.[NO COMMENT YET]


[4C] Caucuses have the autonomy to make decisions relevant to their own needs, composition and operation.[NO COMMENT YET]


[4D] Caucuses will be encouraged to join other Caucuses with similar missions into a Caucus Cluster. Each Caucus Cluster will have a Spoke on the Spokes Council.[NO COMMENT YET]


[4E] Caucuses have all the rights of a Working Group. In addition, they have the ability to halt a proposal they deem to have potentially disproportionately adverse consequences for their constituency, and allowed reasonable time to bring the issue to their Caucus for deliberation.[NO COMMENT YET]


[4D] New Caucuses present their proposed charters to the Spokes Council for approval and assistance in finding an appropriate Cluster.
»» It is not the responsibility of a Caucus to educate others about oppression.[NO COMMENT YET]


How It Works
[5A] Before each Spokes Council, each Cluster selects a “spoke” to sit with the other “spokes” in a circle in the middle of the meeting space.[NO COMMENT YET]


[5B] The spokes are not representatives, as they do not make decisions alone and are accountable to all the members of their cluster who are in attendance and seated directly behind them. Though they are the only individuals to speak at that meeting, when a proposal is made, they must confer with and reflect the collective sentiment of the attending members of their Cluster before speaking for them.[NO COMMENT YET]


[5C] A Cluster can recall their spoke at any time if they are failing to adequately reflect the will of the Cluster.[NO COMMENT YET]


[5D] Clusters will rotate their spoke from meeting to meeting, making space for marginalized voices to spoke more often.[NO COMMENT YET]


[5E] Clusters in a Spokes Council participate as a unified voice. They deliberate and craft their proposals in their Cluster prior to bringing their proposal to the Spokes Council as a whole. This helps ensure that proposals are thoughtful and well crafted.[NO COMMENT YET]


[5D] When deliberating on a proposal, a Cluster will bring their decision to the Spokes Council as a whole. This also means that if a member of a Cluster wants to block the Spokes Council from moving forward, they must first appeal to the wisdom of their Cluster, trusting that if their block is truly based on a serious ethical or safety concern, their Cluster will hear their wisdom and block the proposal. This relieves the Spoke Council from having to evaluate the merit of blocks and safeguards it from being obstructed by individuals that wish our movement harm.[NO COMMENT YET]


[6] Decisions & Decision-Making
[6A] The main function of the Spokes Council is coordination, in the form of working group report backs and agenda items.[NO COMMENT YET]


[6B] Proposals for the Spokes Council must be relevant to other
Clusters.[NO COMMENT YET]


[6C] Proposals to the Spokes Council come fully formed from a Cluster. If an individual wants to make a proposal they must present the idea to a Cluster they’re actively involved in. That Cluster must go though a democratic process before the proposal can go to the Spokes Council.[NO COMMENT YET]


[6D] Like the GA, Spokes Council decisions are made by modified consensus. We attempt to reach consensus and if consensus cannot be reached, and block cannot be addressed, a vote will be taken. To stop a proposal, one-tenth of all Clusters present must vote against it.[NO COMMENT YET]


[6E] All decisions made in the Spokes Council (financial and otherwise) are completely transparent and posted on the NYCGA website.[NO COMMENT YET]


[6F] The four types of decisions that the Spokes Council attend to are:

1. Decisions related to the functioning and well-being of the occupation.
2. All budgets and capital expenditures
» Budgets are submitted to the finance committee on weekly basis and presented to the Spokes Council in a consolidated form for approval.
3. Working Groups and Caucus charters and their affiliation with the Spokes Council
4. All declarations that propose to represent OWS as a whole (principles of unity, demands, etc).[NO COMMENT YET]


[6G] These are brought first to the Spokes Council, as this is a more empowering space for caucuses to voice ethical concerns, and then they go to the GA for ratification.[NO COMMENT YET]


[7] Relationship to the General Assembly
[7A] The General Assembly embodies the heart of our movement. It is a constantly evolving body that enables participation and horizontal process. The Spokes Council will not replace the GA. The GA will continue to make decisions that concern the relationship of the occupation as a whole to the broader movement.[NO COMMENT YET]


[8] Open Access
[8A] The Spokes Council is open to all to witness, but to participate, one must be an active participant in a Working Group or Caucus.[NO COMMENT YET]


[8B] The Occupiers Meeting will be given a spoke at the assembly for those camping but not involved in any formal Working Groups.
»» Meeting minutes will be transparent and posted on the NYCGA website through open-source technology.[NO COMMENT YET]


[9] Proposed Schedule
[9A] In order to maximize access and participation, the Spokes Council will meet at 7PM Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays.[NO COMMENT YET]


[9B] The GA will continue to meet at 7pm on Saturdays and Sundays, when the broadest potential for movement building is possible.[NO COMMENT YET]


[9C] Tuesday and Thursday nights will be open for cultural events, including speakers, discussions, music and other performances. Prior to these cultural events, there will be time for public announcements.[NO COMMENT YET]


[10] Initiation of Spokes Council
[10A] During the inaugural Spokes Council, all Working Groups and Caucuses will bring their charters for ratification by the Spokes Council.[NO COMMENT YET]


[10B] This inaugural meeting will operate initially as a Spokes Council of un-ratified Working Groups/Caucuses and, through its own process, will move towards ending as a Spokes Council of ratified Clusters.[NO COMMENT YET]


[10C] Working Groups will be encouraged to cluster with similar groups, such that the total number of Clusters do not exceed 20 now (and in the future will not exceed 30).[NO COMMENT YET]


[10D] Groups that do not make this meeting will propose charters at subsequent meetings.[NO COMMENT YET]


[10C] Additional process details will be worked out in subsequent Spokes Councils.[NO COMMENT YET]


[10D] History of this Proposal – This proposal has undergone many revisions, taking into account a wide range of concerns and amendments.[NO COMMENT YET]


It has been workshopped in the Facilitation Working Group, in the GA, in 2 large, public meetings, and 3 structure working group meetings.RED DAVE

[RedTrackWorker]

I don't see how this would be a step forward in fostering accountability in leadership. Segmenting off minority disagreement into clusters does mean things can flow more smoothly but means that there is less ability for a minority opinion to influence direction and win support because it must be filtered through to the "spoke." This is the tyranny of structure.

One can say, "But they can take it to the General Assembly." Well...then we're back to square one of the tyranny of structurelessness (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=tyranny%2Bof%2Bstructurelessness&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCAQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.jofreeman.com%2Fjoreen%2Ftyra nny.htm&ei=yyyiTt67NqbW0QGy-NCPBQ&usg=AFQjCNEQx6u8HzXymHYNn_tRJq_aOXpsXg&sig2=K014kdqiLP2j0QEAUWiRng).

[thesadmafioso]

The structure (or rather lack thereof) of OWS is unabridged shit. Coercing the group to a conclusion is simply a matter of getting yourself onto a facilitation committee and getting a megaphone in your hand at the GA. Ask the right questions, use the right language, use the people taking 'stack' to stifle debate, get some jazz hands, and you have just assumed an inordinate amount of invisible power over the group. And all without a single proper vote being held! The order for adopting measures and positions is so flexible and open to contortion that it is really not even worth having a good laugh.

And to make things even better, these all powerful committees of 'facilitation' are generally staffed by a collection of apolitical liberal types who just want to have mass meetings without any serious political discussions. Oh, but you can't be on their committees unless you are among the ranks of their activist cliques.

Oh the endless joys of an invisible leadership.

[RED DAVE]

This is very long considering how vague it is. What is meant by decisions being completely transparent, all votes linked to names?

In general, I don't understand the following very common proposal: First, we try to reach consensus. If that doesn't work out, we try (super)majority. Something approved by everybody is automatically approved by a (super)majority.To stop a proposal, one-tenth of all Clusters present must vote against it.[/QUOTE]
Good luck with getting anything done.
I think that means that they try a consensus, and if it so happens that everyone cannot agree, then they go to a supermajority.

- August
I don't see how this would be a step forward in fostering accountability in leadership. Segmenting off minority disagreement into clusters does mean things can flow more smoothly but means that there is less ability for a minority opinion to influence direction and win support because it must be filtered through to the "spoke." This is the tyranny of structure.

One can say, "But they can take it to the General Assembly." Well...then we're back to square one of the tyranny of structurelessness.
The structure (or rather lack thereof) of OWS is unabridged shit. Coercing the group to a conclusion is simply a matter of getting yourself onto a facilitation committee and getting a megaphone in your hand at the GA. Ask the right questions, use the right language, use the people taking 'stack' to stifle debate, get some jazz hands, and you have just assumed an inordinate amount of invisible power over the group. And all without a single proper vote being held! The order for adopting measures and positions is so flexible and open to contortion that it is really not even worth having a good laugh.

And to make things even better, these all powerful committees of 'facilitation' are generally staffed by a collection of apolitical liberal types who just want to have mass meetings without any serious political discussions. Oh, but you can't be on their committees unless you are among the ranks of their activist cliques.

Oh the endless joys of an invisible leadership.All of the Comrades above make points that are, more or less correct. But they all make the common mistake of not seeing what is going on as a moment in a process.. Nothing is easier than criticizing the structural document. And then what? Does anyone think that going down to OWS with the tone of criticism being evinced here will accomplish anything?

Comrades, this is a petit-bourgeois radical movement at this point, with all the virtues and sins of the breed. It is not a labor-based movement yet. It is certainly not a socialist movement. So to expect it to adhere to the standards we might, or would like, to expect, is foolish.

Once again, I suggest that Comrades start using their noodles and start thinking about what is happening at OWS and at the other Occupations, what is happening in the Occupation movement, and what the next concrete moves should be for the Left, the labor movement and the OWS itself. Nothing is cheaper than complaining without action. Go back to the original document at post 2 or my annotated version at post 10 and start doing brainwork and get ready for legwork.

Unless you'd rather stay at home in your wonderfully left-wing brain and feel superior to those schmucks who are out there in sleeping bags.

RED DAVE

[ВАЛТЕР]

Establishment of a leading group in the movement means it's been compromised. Once a leadership is established, compromises can be made with the movement by the bourgeoisie under the table. Which is what the ruling class wants, they want to make a compromise so that these people will leave.

[thesadmafioso]

To stop a proposal, one-tenth of all Clusters present must vote against it. All of the Comrades above make points that are, more or less correct. But they all make the common mistake of not seeing what is going on as a moment in a process.. Nothing is easier than criticizing the structural document. And then what? Does anyone think that going down to OWS with the tone of criticism being evinced here will accomplish anything?

Comrades, this is a petit-bourgeois radical movement at this point, with all the virtues and sins of the breed. It is not a labor-based movement yet. It is certainly not a socialist movement. So to expect it to adhere to the standards we might, or would like, to expect, is foolish.

Once again, I suggest that Comrades start using their noodles and start thinking about what is happening at OWS and at the other Occupations, what is happening in the Occupation movement, and what the next concrete moves should be for the Left, the labor movement and the OWS itself. Nothing is cheaper than complaining without action. Go back to the original document at post 2 or my annotated version at post 10 and start doing brainwork and get ready for legwork.

Unless you'd rather stay at home in your wonderfully left-wing brain and feel superior to those schmucks who are out there in sleeping bags.

RED DAVE

My legs are still sore from about 8 hours of straight standing at my nearest occupation yesterday, so I think that I am speaking from a combination of experience from grunt work and leftist theory.

I would suggest that comrades intervening in these protests go prepared with some leftist literature from whatever particular socialist group you align with most closely and just use that as a jumping point to discuss the direction of the movement and the need for the insertion of leftist analysis and theory to its sort of activist culture. If anyone can get a tendency of a few like minded people together to take the hall of a GA or two, that could also be productive as like minded people may seek you out afterwards. Also, if anyone addresses a point in support of the application of a solid socialist political platform to the movement, seek them out and discuss the matter further.

Essentially, I think our primary goal should not be to actually try to save the Occupy movement from the follies on crippling undemocratic procedures which are purported as the exact opposite of such, but rather to just put the case out there for other modes of political action and organization. That way, when the movement does begin to falter from a decline in activist momentum or as a result of the hindrance of 'consensus' voting, people are aware that other modes of organization do in fact exist and that there are other channels through which to continue the struggle. All we can really hope to do is build our own networks of potential revolutionists at this point.

[RedTrackWorker]

All of the Comrades above make points that are, more or less correct. But they all make the common mistake of not seeing what is going on as a moment in a process.. Nothing is easier than criticizing the structural document. And then what? Does anyone think that going down to OWS with the tone of criticism being evinced here will accomplish anything?

Comrades, this is a petit-bourgeois radical movement at this point, with all the virtues and sins of the breed. It is not a labor-based movement yet. It is certainly not a socialist movement. So to expect it to adhere to the standards we might, or would like, to expect, is foolish.

Once again, I suggest that Comrades start using their noodles and start thinking about what is happening at OWS and at the other Occupations, what is happening in the Occupation movement, and what the next concrete moves should be for the Left, the labor movement and the OWS itself. Nothing is cheaper than complaining without action. Go back to the original document at post 2 or my annotated version at post 10 and start doing brainwork and get ready for legwork.

Unless you'd rather stay at home in your wonderfully left-wing brain and feel superior to those schmucks who are out there in sleeping bags.

What? Red Dave, what is your point here? Are you implying that the document, however limited, is a progressive step and should be critically supported? If so, I disagree but you could flesh out your case.

The demands working group appears to have been undemocratically removed from the OWS website and activities. Some League comrades will be there this weekend to further investigate and to intervene about it if possible, as the demand for democratic control (majority rule) and for having a demand like "jobs for all" can help spark a broader movement. That seems to be a lot more critical and helpful right now than this structure proposal.

[RED DAVE]

All of the Comrades above make points that are, more or less correct. But they all make the common mistake of not seeing what is going on as a moment in a process.. Nothing is easier than criticizing the structural document. And then what? Does anyone think that going down to OWS with the tone of criticism being evinced here will accomplish anything?

Comrades, this is a petit-bourgeois radical movement at this point, with all the virtues and sins of the breed. It is not a labor-based movement yet. It is certainly not a socialist movement. So to expect it to adhere to the standards we might, or would like, to expect, is foolish.

Once again, I suggest that Comrades start using their noodles and start thinking about what is happening at OWS and at the other Occupations, what is happening in the Occupation movement, and what the next concrete moves should be for the Left, the labor movement and the OWS itself. Nothing is cheaper than complaining without action. Go back to the original document at post 2 or my annotated version at post 10 and start doing brainwork and get ready for legwork.

Unless you'd rather stay at home in your wonderfully left-wing brain and feel superior to those schmucks who are out there in sleeping bags.
What? Red Dave, what is your point here? Are you implying that the document, however limited, is a progressive step and should be critically supported? If so, I disagree but you could flesh out your case.First of all, you get bragging rights as your group, the LRP, is actually involved.

Your use of the words "critically support" I believes shows that your head is still back in the "old days." No, I am not calling for critical support for a piece of pseudo-libertarian crap that will actually promote bureaucracy and undemocratic leadership because of its unworkability.

What I am saying is that instead of comrades just dismissing the document as a piece of crap, that it be taken seriously. This is the best that this movement can do right now, with all its shortcomings and contradictions. The monstrosity needs to be studied, taken seriously, pulled apart and at some point soon, hopefully put out of its misery.


The demands working group appears to have been undemocratically removed from the OWS website and activities.Obviously, you are privy to stuff the rest of us doesn't know. Plz share this.


Some League comrades will be there this weekend to further investigate and to intervene about it if possible, as the demand for democratic control (majority rule) and for having a demand like "jobs for all" can help spark a broader movement.Yes it can, but coming down there occasionally to "intervene" doesn't strike me as a particularly good approach.


That seems to be a lot more critical and helpful right now than this structure proposal.My point is that you are not taking this structure proposal seriously. Why, for instance, is such a monstrous document around in the first place? Why problems is it designed to solve or what situations is it designed to cope with? These problems and situations have to be analyzed so that any alternative is not just dismissive of this document but begins to be a replacement for it.

RED DAVE

[RedTrackWorker]

In response to Red Dave, I do understand your point now, but I disagree that an alternative to the groups internal structure needs to begin as a replacement of this document.

Perhaps I'm not taking it seriously, but before I was a Trotskyist, I was an anarchist immersed in "process" issues like this, participated and facilitated consensus stuff (on a tiny scale), etc. I did learn things from that experience, sure, but the most important thing I learned is that it's anti-accountability hogwash.

The basic organizational principles in my opinion are rank-and-file control (majority rules) and the right of minority opinions to be heard and have the chance to convince people. I also think Jim Cannon was and is right on defending professionalization of leadership (which Freeman's tyranny of structurelessness document still has a bias against).

But organization flows from political outlook and class base, not the other way around, so I am not in favor of working on the OWS organizational structure in a general or abstract way as a point of intervention from the outside by us. Our focus is agitating for building a mass workers' march that can seize the opportunity OWS has created but expand it from the milieu it is mostly confined to still and propagandistically explaining the role of the working class, capitalism, socialism, etc. (very quick thoughts)

But you're right this discussion would've been better had I shared more information (I don't see how the spokescouncil would help this issue, instead it would confine the already limited protest to one 'cluster' as best I can tell) (also, I have no way to vouch for the accuracy of this report but it seems plausible and at least worthy of investigation):
Further on the Demands group, from their email list:

To All Demands Working Group/OWS supporters,

I attended last night’s General Assembly (GA) meeting of Occupy Wall Street (OWS)/Liberty Plaza that was discussing the new spokespersons council organizational structure that the self-appointed GA leadership was presenting.

I spoke out against adopting the new organizational structure before the movement addressed the gross violation of democratic norms that have occurred under the present system. I then ATTEMPTED to explain how the treatment of the Demands Working group was a prime example of anti-Democratic behavior meted out by the GA leadership. I was cut off before I could elaborate by the ‘facilitators’, including one, Nicole, who had been sent to ‘assist’ us at our last Demands Working Group meeting on Tuesday, October 18.

If I had been allowed to express myself, I would have refuted the false statement made against the Demands working group, namely that 1. We claimed, to the New York Times and other news-outlets that the ‘Jobs for All, through Public Works’ demand was the demand of the entire OWS 2. That we expelled people from a Demands WG meeting.

Based on these false accusations, the self-appointed leadership, without any vote--consensus, majority-based, or otherwise-- took coercive actions against the Demands Working group and its members without giving an opportunity to the Demands working group or individual members to respond to the baseless charges. These sanctions have included: 1. A broadside on the front page of the OWS web site repeating lies 1 and 2 above, 2. eliminating the demands working group discussion forum from the OWS website—which was one of the most popular, 3. removing several demands working group members registration accounts from the web site.

I agree with Chavisa that we should use the accountability forum page of OWS to register our opposition to this gross violation of Democratic norms. The Demands Working group will be discussing further on how to respond to these anti-Democratic attacks and violations, ones that present a serious threat to this important movement. I encourage everyone who cares about Democracy and this movement to attend the next meeting of the Demands Working Group — Sunday, 6 PM, Tompkins Square Park (meet at the circular area, right off E. 7th street, between avenues B and C).

Jay Arena

[RED DAVE]

In response to Red Dave, I do understand your point now, but I disagree that an alternative to the groups internal structure needs to begin as a replacement of this document.Again, I think you're missing my point. It's merely that people should take this document seriously as one indication of the existing consciousness, criticize it, and put forth alternatives.


Perhaps I'm not taking it seriously, but before I was a Trotskyist, I was an anarchist immersed in "process" issues like this, participated and facilitated consensus stuff (on a tiny scale), etc. I did learn things from that experience, sure, but the most important thing I learned is that it's anti-accountability hogwash.I agree that it's bullshit. I had to deal with it often enough in the 60s. I have never understood where people are coming from with this consensus crap. However, an understanding of it is necessay, including, and I don't think we have this, an understanding as why this particular fungus keep popping up.


The basic organizational principles in my opinion are rank-and-file control (majority rules) and the right of minority opinions to be heard and have the chance to convince people.To which I would add the right to form factions.


I also think Jim Cannon was and is right on defending professionalization of leadership (which Freeman's tyranny of structurelessness document still has a bias against). I think there are a lot of problems with "professionalism" that have never been addressed. As far as I'm concerned, the whole Cannon/SWP tradition has a very strong lingering odor of stalinism in its organizational practice.


organization flows from political outlook and class base, not the other way aroundYeah, but that puts a lot of the Trot tradition in a very bad light. How do you explain the constant growth of bureaucracy and authoritarian leadership? It's just not that easy.

Trotsky said in, I believe, "In Defense of Marxism," that every split in a revolutionary organization represents, in the end a class division. The SWP, backed by Trotsky, was never able, after WWII, to get any new footholds in the working class, while, by the mid-60s, the left Shactmanite faction, which became the IS, and later the LRP, the ISO and Solidarity, did have, and still has, some success in that area while the SWP is still wandering in the wilderness.


so I am not in favor of working on the OWS organizational structure in a general or abstract way as a point of intervention from the outside by us.Neither am I, but I still think that a discussion of that document is in order both in and out of the OWS.


Our focus is agitating for building a mass workers' march that can seize the opportunity OWS has created but expand it from the milieu it is mostly confined to still and propagandistically explaining the role of the working class, capitalism, socialism, etc. (very quick thoughts)Basically, we agree here.


But you're right this discussion would've been better had I shared more information (I don't see how the spokescouncil would help this issue, instead it would confine the already limited protest to one 'cluster' as best I can tell) (also, I have no way to vouch for the accuracy of this report but it seems plausible and at least worthy of investigation):Let's keep the discussion open and flowing. The doc you posted is important.

RED DAVE