Where Do We Go, How Do We Get There?

[S.Artesian]

So... I was disagreeing with Red Track Worker over on the original OWS thread, and as our disagreement developed, he suggested that we take it into a separate thread, as we ran the risk of derailing the original thread.

Good idea? I don't know, but let's find out. So here it is. While the original point of contention was RTW's endorsement of a "federal public works program," that disagreement is the vector for my criticism and opposition to the official Trotskyism of the various "official" Trotskyist groups-- groups that, IMO, reproduce as farce Trotsky's own tragedy.. being a bit too preoccupied with the "administrative side of things." [Please, that doesn't mean I think Trotsky isn't a Leninist, or support the "if only Lenin had lived" theory of history. Trotsky is, I am not, and I do not.].

So here are my take on those bigger issues:



Originally Posted by RedTrackWorker http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=2280312#post2280312)
As I said, if there were an actual movement for jobs, that movement would provide the basis for distinguishing the demand from the Democrat's demand. This was posed when I believe there was the potential to help start such a movement--a "united front" demand for a reform.
That's just not the case-- "that the movement would provide the basis for distinguished the demand from the Democrat's demand."

For an organization that adheres to the notion of the necessity, the indispensability of a vanguard party, that buys into the notion that the "crisis of humanity reduces itself to the crisis of proletarian leadership" to now come forward and say... "oh, the movement itself will distinguish this demand from the same demand made by a section of the bourgeoisie" is just too much self-contradiction for me to swallow. Now maybe it's just me, but if you don't see that as somehow "out of character" with what Trotsky argued in general, and what he proposed in his Transitional Program, then I think you should go back and study that program, and how Trotsky proposes to make distinctions.

Not that that means I'm an advocate of Trotsky's arguments concerning the vanguard party, or of vanguard parties themselves; or that I believe the "crisis of humanity reduces itself to the crisis of proletarian leadership; or that I think the Transitional Program is the way to go forward. I am not, it is not, and I don't think so.

But you and your organization are, do so believe and think. So you've got to explain it better than providing what is IMO a cop-out: "the movement will decide."

Furthermore, you mention a "united front" demand for "reform." Again you must be really confused to join "united front" to "reform," as it is the case, it has always been the case that the "united front" is not about reform at all. A united front is program for the entire class to embrace as a class, and thus is the transition of the workers and their struggle from "class-in-itself" to
"class-for-itself."

In this regard, the soviets, the workers' councils are the highest expression of united front, in their very organization regardless of their momentary expressions of political positions .

Where can you point to an example of the implementation, or the organization of a united front around issues of reform, around reform itself? Please don't say, "You just provided one... the soviets in the Russian Revolution".. as it was the uneven and combined development of Russia that placed the soviets, the working class united front, as being a revolutionary agent even as the initial manifestations of the class struggle were obscured by the demands for bourgeois democracy, for the so-called "bourgeois revolution."

I think it's pretty remarkable when so-called Trotskyist organizations miss the "revolutionary kernel" in Trotsky's analysis of capitalism and class struggle-- which is precisely "class-for-itself"-- but latch on wholeheartedly to the the fetish of "vanguard party."

United front for reform? Really? Please demonstrate how that is possible.



So when the Stella D'oro factory was being closed/moved, we raised the demand of "nationalize the failing industries"--not bail-out--as a means of posing a united struggle to preserve jobs. You counterpose...going beyond the unions and government? Again, sounds fine abstractly, but what is the path of development for workers to learn through struggle? They have to start by agreeing with the need to go against the government?
No, [I]we have to start by not kowtowing to union bureaucracies, capitalist politicians by appealing to the government to intervene. That's the point.

The point is not to raise the issue to the Stella D'Oro workers that the private equity firm's factory should be nationalized, but rather that their struggle against the asset-strippers has to be internationalized. And that's more than a mere technical difference. The struggle has to be expanded, not ceded to the government.

You want nationalization? We've just had billions of dollars of it. The govt. effectively nationalized AIG; the major banks; the auto industry. Oh... that's not the sort of nationalization you mean? We're right back where we started with your organization's inability to distinguish what it means from what the bourgeoisie do and with no movement to make that distinction itself.

[aty]

Where do you go? Look at Oakland, that is where you go. Schoolbook example of what you need to do.

[S.Artesian]

Where do you go? Look at Oakland, that is where you go. Schoolbook example of what you need to do.


And what has Oakland done? It has called for a general strike. It has received some explicit support for that strike. It's a bit too early to tell where calling for a general strike just on the basis of being pissed off in general, and at the police in particular is going to go.

I hope it marks a big inflection point, and really changes the direction, and class orientation of the struggle. Remains to be seen.

[RedTrackWorker]

The LRP initiated proposal for a mass march included as one of the demands a call for the government to provide jobs. S. Artesian noted that while of course we mean something different from the Democrats' jobs proposal, it will be interpreted as the same thing by and large. I said that was true in the abstract, which is why the League does not raise such demands in any and every context but was in this concrete context as a proposal for joint action and that a potential movement would provide the basis for distinguishing what we wanted from a jobs proposal and what the Democrats' wanted with theirs.

I did not say the movement would decide--a formulation S. Artesian is right to critique. What do I mean then that the movement would provide the basis for distinguishing them?

One of the things that distinguishes the League for the Revolutionary Party as a political tendency from the rest of those who claim Trotskyism is this take on the Transitional Program (see Myth and Reality of the Transitional Program (http://lrp-cofi.org/PR/TPSV8.html))--that one does not raise such demands constantly in the abstract but as specific proposals for action when there is a movement or potential movement, because our program is socialist revolution, not reform demands as such however transitional. Transitional demands are a tool to use as part of using "all political tactics and slogans to prove to the mass of the working class that this goal [socialist revolution] is the only way forward". The two keys for such tactics and slogans proving the need for overthrowing the capitalist state are:
1) a revolutionary party that participates in the struggle to explain through action-dialogue the need for such a revolution
2) a movement that means those slogans and tactics can be learned from.

So in a situation of low struggle, to constantly raise a demand like "jobs" would be to play into the hands of the Democrats, but when you could have a 100,000 workers marching in the streets around such a demand--that feeling of their collective power and sense of unity means that discussing what kind of jobs program is needed and why that's different than Obama's jobs act is not just an abstract distinction. It would mean that our literary arguments against the Democrats and the union leaders' fake jobs program would actually have far more fertile soil to fall on.

With the demand to nationalize the failing industries, it's not an "appeal" for government intervention but a proposal for joint action of workers around a demand that "expresses a need of the broad masses, even if they are not consciously in favor of the dictatorship of the proletariat" (see LRP article on Stella (http://lrp-cofi.org/statements/stelladoro090811.html)).

S. Artesian counterposes "internationalizing" their struggle. I don't know what that means. Factories were closing across the country--we proposed a joint struggle to stop those job losses. How could those jobs losses be stopped? Sure a struggle--massive action--was needed, but what demand could point a way forward to address those closing factories? What demand could help develop and concentrate such a massive struggle? I think it was "Nationalize All Union-Busting and Failing Industries!" I think that even a failed attempt at such a joint struggle could've had international significance.

As for the stuff on the united front, I'll again suggest that it be put in a separate thread as what the united front is or should be is a separate, and for this discussion, subordinate point in the argument.

[S.Artesian]

I did not say the movement would decide--a formulation S. Artesian is right to critique. What do I mean then that the movement would provide the basis for distinguishing them? [/QUPTE]

I used the word "decide" only after I used your word "distinguish." You have not answered the fundamental issues as to 1) how does the "movement itself" distinguish between the LRP "jobs program" demand, and that of trade union bureaucrats linked to the bourgeoisie? 2) how do you reconcile that with your allegiance to "vanguard party" and "crisis of leadership"?

This:

One of the things that distinguishes the League for the Revolutionary Party as a [QUOTE]political tendency from the rest of those who claim Trotskyism is this take on the Transitional Program (see Myth and Reality of the Transitional Program (http://lrp-cofi.org/PR/TPSV8.html))--that one does not raise such demands constantly in the abstract but as specific proposals for action when there is a movement or potential movement, because our program is socialist revolution, not reform demands as such however transitional. Transitional demands are a tool to use as part of using "all political tactics and slogans to prove to the mass of the working class that this goal [socialist revolution] is the only way forward". The two keys for such tactics and slogans proving the need for overthrowing the capitalist state are:
1) a revolutionary party that participates in the struggle to explain through action-dialogue the need for such a revolution
2) a movement that means those slogans and tactics can be learned from.


does not answer the question.

And this:


So in a situation of low struggle, to constantly raise a demand like "jobs" would be to play into the hands of the Democrats, but when you could have a 100,000 workers marching in the streets around such a demand--that feeling of their collective power and sense of unity means that discussing what kind of jobs program is needed and why that's different than Obama's jobs act is not just an abstract distinction. It would mean that our literary arguments against the Democrats and the union leaders' fake jobs program would actually have far more fertile soil to fall on.

is nonsense as shown time and time again by the course of actual struggles. If what you are positing had the slightest validity then every popular front that ever was would have morphed, or been transformed simply by the thousands of "marching charging feet boy" into proletarian revolution. Of course just the opposite occurred, because that's what the popular front is designed to do-- obscure the independent class activity, demands, needs, and power of the working class though collaboration with the bourgeoisie and articulating that collaboration through demands, slogans, etc etc that are pretty much indistinguishable. on the basis of class, from a program FOR capitalism rather than opposed to capitalism.


With the demand to nationalize the failing industries, it's not an "appeal" for government intervention but a proposal for joint action of workers around a demand that "expresses a need of the broad masses, even if they are not consciously in favor of the dictatorship of the proletariat" (see LRP article on Stella (http://lrp-cofi.org/statements/stelladoro090811.html)).

That's what you think nationalization is. That is not what nationalization means to those you rely upon to distinguish these things themselves. Better to not even raise the demand for nationalization, to not introduce the possibility for this confusion [see above].


S. Artesian counterposes "internationalizing" their struggle. I don't know what that means.

Priceless. Trotskyists not knowing what "internationalizing" a struggle means. It means moving beyond national boundaries, "nationalizing" a factory, to linking the struggle itself to a international, global struggle against capitalism.

Take all of the below and put it in a global context:



Factories were closing across the country [around the globe]--we proposed a joint struggle to stop those job losses. [joint struggle with whom, where? How about with textile workers in India, Africa? Tekel workers in Turkey? Women workers in maquiladoras in the Caribbean, Central and South America? ] How could those jobs losses be stopped? Sure a struggle--massive action--was needed, but what demand could point a way forward to address those closing factories? What demand could help develop and concentrate such a massive struggle? [Remember the Republic Window factory workers? How about occupying the factory. It's not always, or simply a question of demands, slogans, particularly when the slogan has such limited appeal: Nationalize 'union-busting' factories? Where does that leave the non-unionized workers, the overwhelming majority of workers in the world?


As for the stuff on the united front, I'll again suggest that it be put in a separate thread as what the united front is or should be is a separate, and for this discussion, subordinate point in the argument.

Nope. The issue of "demands" and the so-called Transitional Program are not separate from what a united front truly is, what "class-for-itself" means.

If you want to start a thread to separate them.... it's a free country.

[Ele'ill]

Regarding Oakland's general strike and what I thought this thread was going to be about- where do we go from here? I think it's an ideal time (at least here on the west coast) to pick up the pace a little bit so that the general strike efforts don't become just another memory. I'd like to see something this coming week and every week to come. I think we need to break the spell that this is a seasonal event like christmas tree shopping or hunting for the perfect pumpkin. It isn't- it has to keep going.

[S.Artesian]

Regarding Oakland's general strike and what I thought this thread was going to be about- where do we go from here? I think it's an ideal time (at least here on the west coast) to pick up the pace a little bit so that the general strike efforts don't become just another memory. I'd like to see something this coming week and every week to come. I think we need to break the spell that this is a seasonal event like christmas tree shopping or hunting for the perfect pumpkin. It isn't- it has to keep going.


I think we all agree on that. How do we do that. The OWS seems to be congenitally opposed to raising demands-- like abolish the debt etc. So if that's the case, if there are no real demands that can attract people, that can lead to some consideration of programmatic change in the organization of the economy, with the change requiring a specific agent of change-- like workers [in the broad sense], then who long do we think a movement can be sustained just on the basis of general pissed-off-ed-ness?

[RedTrackWorker]

1) How do you propose revolutionaries should point to as a potential way to fight for jobs?
2) Again, I agree that a mass movement doesn't automatically go over into revolutionary consciousness, which your example of the Popular Front addresses.
3) I don't think the overheated rhetoric about "Priceless. Trotskyists not knowing what "internationalizing" a struggle means" helps anyone. I know what I mean by that but I have no idea what you mean by that in the context of the struggle for Stella D'oro.

And the part where you say "Nationalize 'union-busting' factories? Where does that leave the non-unionized workers, the overwhelming majority of workers in the world?"--the slogan in question is "Nationalize All Union-Busting and Failing Industries!" or "Nationalize the Union-Busters! Nationalize the Failing Industries!" And while most factory workers are non-union, the "union-busting" slogan addressed a very real reality that union factory workers were being specifically targeted, in the case of both Republic and Stella work was moved from union to non-union plants.

To that slogan, you counterpose the example of the Republic occupation. I don't think you really thought about what you're saying as those workers lost their jobs. The occupation won them their legally due backpay and it was inspiring but it is not a good example of how to win and keep jobs. A Stella occupation could've presented an opportunity to take the struggle to a higher level, but where was it going to go? Was the private owner going to not close because they were occupying it? Perhaps pressure would've been brought on them...perhaps. Would you tell workers to rely on that possibility? Perhaps pressure would've been brought on the government to nationalize to stop the example from spreading...but then not raising the demand means to let themselves be an isolated victory without pointing a way forward and setting a clear example to and for other workers in the same situation.

If Republic or Stella had raised the slogan "Nationalize the failing industries" as a demand of a factory occupation, I think that would've been a meaningful way to "internationalize" their struggle--by learning from the workers of especially Argentina and being an example to workers facing factory closings across the world.

I still don't know what you mean by "internationalizing" the Stella struggle or how you would've participated in the strike support meetings or rallies.

[S.Artesian]

RTW-- you still haven't answered the original, and critical IMO, issue: Exactly how do you propose that the movment itself will distinguish your endorsement of a federal public works jobs program from that of bureaucrats, Democrats, populists, etc. etc?

As for the Republic Workers-- yeah they lost their jobs, as did the Stella D'Oro workers. But they occupied their factory-- an essential break with previous practice.

And you still don't answer the question, again, about your demand "Nationalize failing and union-busting industries"-- where does that leave unorganized workers in industries that aren't failing, but are simply "adjusting" to "market realities"?

What your demands seem to do is perpetuate divisions, fractionalization within the working class.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

As I understand the Oakland GA brought up the occupation of foreclosed properties as a next step. California I believe has the highest housing foreclosure rate in the country.To start the Occupy movement could target a small number of the most absurd examples of people who have been kicked out of their homes and send a few thousand people over.This could ramp up the struggle a notch.

Ohio may be ripe for the next step if SB 5 passes.I could see a call for the same unofficial general strike as in Oakland.Perhaps the same for much of the northern midwest which is in worse economic shape than the rest of the US.

[ckaihatsu]

Weakened though they may be, and with all the limitations of their sedentary bureaucracies, unions are still the most democratic membership organizations in the United States, with established activists and infrastructures in cities across the country that possess the practical skills and resources necessary to carry on the fight...

Only through following this long-term organizing approach can OWS begin to harness the anger and energy it has made visible and translate it in into a dynamic, class-conscious movement. And only the labour movement has the experience and organizational capacity to take on the challenge.


http://www.socialistproject.ca/bullet/564.php


The B u l l e t
Socialist Project • E-Bulletin No. 564
November 3, 2011

Organized Labour and the Occupations Movement
Samir Sonti


The Occupy Wall Street (OWS) phenomenon has achieved a stature and longevity unrivaled by recent demonstrations in the United States, and has understandably struck a chord with a wide range of people dismayed by the barbaric level of inequality that is the defining feature of contemporary American society. As the small encampment in lower Manhattan has swelled and spread to cities across the country, the rallying cry of the “99%” has at least momentarily introduced the mainstream discourse to a conception of class, which is usually missing from the political theater showcased on corporate news outlets. The risks posed by an over-reliance on mass media coverage notwithstanding, the organizers’ ability to attract the public eye has been impressive and is an encouraging reminder that most people are yearning for a political vision that resonates with the material anxieties they feel. As the most brutal economic crisis in over a generation grinds on for the third consecutive year, perhaps most surprising is that it has taken so long for such an upsurge to occur.


Chicago police arrest members of National Nurses United, and tear down their first aid tent at Occupy Chicago. [Photo: National United Nurses.]


Staying Power?

However, while an inner-core of participants may remain for months, with time the size of the direct occupations will likely wane and media attention will slowly gravitate to more profitable ventures. The travesty that unfolded in Wisconsin over the past ten months should serve as a painful reminder of that inevitability. And though the moment's political salience may briefly persist, it will be fleeting unless anchored in something more durable than a demonstration, throwing into sharp relief the need for a level of organization that can sustain and expand upon the Occupy energy.

The slogan of the “99%” may have tremendous rhetorical currency, but history shows that there is no shortcut to the long-term, painstaking task of generating a real movement: meeting people where they are, building trust and struggling with them over the issues they're worried about, connecting those anxieties to a coherent political program, and consolidating those efforts into a force to be reckoned with. While many of the Occupy working groups may be beginning this project, most of the millions who constitute the “99%” have been unable or unwilling to participate and need to be reached by some other means. OWS can be an opportunity to start this process, but it is not a spark that will spread on its own.
Years of Struggle

Here the civil rights movement, which is often invoked in relation to OWS, is instructive. Unmentioned in most grade school lore on the subject, the struggle for racial justice grew out of a deeply rooted organizational apparatus that had been constructed through decades of diligent labour and community organizing. Rosa Parks was a seasoned activist who had been trained at the legendary leftist organizing academy, the Highlander Folk School, and Martin Luther King Jr. owes his beginnings to veteran trade unionists who recruited him. No miracles initiated this historic fight; it was planned and executed by individuals and their organizations who through years of struggle in pursuit of concrete demands had cultivated powerful bases of support in specific communities.
Weakened though they may be, and with all the limitations of their sedentary bureaucracies, unions are still the most democratic membership organizations in the United States, with established activists and infrastructures in cities across the country that possess the practical skills and resources necessary to carry on the fight...

Only through following this long-term organizing approach can OWS begin to harness the anger and energy it has made visible and translate it in into a dynamic, class-conscious movement. And only the labour movement has the experience and organizational capacity to take on the challenge. Weakened though they may be, and with all the limitations of their sedentary bureaucracies, unions are still the most democratic membership organizations in the United States, with established activists and infrastructures in cities across the country that possess the practical skills and resources necessary to carry on the fight, particularly when it becomes less visibly exciting. Though union density has precipitously declined in recent decades, still today millions of people have experienced real improvements in their lives through workplace struggles led by existing labour unions, a much larger and more representative cross-section of the population than is likely to turn out at any “Occupy” event.

It's important to remember that historically, organized labour has been the most effective vehicle for challenging economic inequality; it is an empirical reality that when unions are weak wealth concentrates in the hands of the few, and when they're strong it is at least a bit more evenly distributed. A recent study demonstrated that between 1973 and 2007 private sector unionization decreased by over 75 per cent and inequality increased by 40 per cent. In this spirit, OWS might best be considered as an opportunity to push the mainstream labour movement toward a more aggressive organizing strategy and, hopefully, an alternative political vision.

Rank-and-file militants in a variety of unions have engaged in this grueling project for decades, with some successes and many setbacks, and perhaps the most encouraging feature of OWS is the space it might create for more work of this sort. However, an opportunity is only as valuable as the concrete steps taken to capitalize on it, and unless the strategic thinking needed to orient and initiate that process begins in earnest, this wave of activism will likely join the recent anti-globalization and immigrants’ rights demonstrations in the annals of modern left history while neoliberalism continues its plunder unscathed.

A number of unions have taken up the OWS mantle and some inspiring labour-community partnerships have grown out of it. The New York City Transport Workers Union (TWU) Local 100 was an early supporter, and even went to court to prevent police from ordering union drivers to bus arrested demonstrators to jail. The National Nurses United (NNU), one of the most progressive and militant unions, has been present at occupations around the country administering flu shots and providing basic medical assistance. And the courageous art handlers of Teamsters Local 814 who have been locked-out of Sotheby's auction house – a quintessential symbol of the “1%” – have cultivated a remarkable level of solidarity with the New York occupation, turning out bus loads to their rallies and gaining international attention in the process.

These three examples represent elements of the most dynamic and forward-looking wing of an otherwise rather glacial labour establishment that always seems to be on the defensive. The best chance OWS has to become the kind of force necessary to win a more just society lies in following their lead. •

Samir Sonti is a graduate student at Cornell. He has worked for SEIU. This artilce first appeared on the Viewpoint Magazine website.« Previous ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~(((( The B u l l e t ))))~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
• ISSN 1923-7871 • Next »


Share:
Download the latest issue of Relay ^ Back to Top ^

[ckaihatsu]

[LaborTech] FW: Urgent Call for Labor Defense of Occupy Oakland

URGENT -- MEDIA ANNOUNCEMENT -- URGENT

Who: Ad Hoc Labor Activist Assembly of veteran Oakland area labor organizers
What: Urgent Call to Alameda Labor Council for Labor Defense of Occupy Oakland
Why: Threat of Imminent Police Action to Attack and Evict Occupy Oakland
When: November 12, 2011

The following urgent proposal was unanimously adopted today at an ad hoc Labor Activist Assembly, and signed by more than 30 veteran labor activists:

We, the Ad Hoc Labor Activist Assembly, in light of the imminent threat of police action to evict Occupy Oakland, call on the Alameda Labor Council Executive Board to adopt and implement the following:


The Alameda Labor Council declares the Occupy Oakland encampment to be a sanctioned picket line. The Council's Executive Board calls on every one of its affiliates to immediately mobilize members to defend the encampment, dispatching pickets in shifts, beginning tonight (November 12) and continuing as long as the threat persists.

SIGNATURES (organizations listed for identification only)

Jack Gerson, OEA retired
Zev Kuithy, CFT
Susan Schacher, Peralta Federation of Teachers
Bob Mandel, OEA/AFT retired
Peter Brown, Peralta Federation of Teachers
Steve Miller, OEA
Loretta Franke, Operating Engineers retired
Jack Heyman, ILWU Local 10 retired
Stan Woods, Transport Workers Solidarity Committee
Richard Tan, Librarian
Pete Turner, IFTPE 21
Henry Johnson
Richard Mellor, AFSCME 444 retired
Robert Irminger, IBU/ILWU
Caray Dau,ILWU 6
Adam Balou, Occupy Oakland
Jenna Woloshyn, IBT 10
John Reimann, IWW
Matt Meyer, BFT
Marcus Holder, ILWU 10
Mary Beth Schuler
Mike Parker, UAW 1700
Bill Balderston, OEA
Bill Cherneau, SEIU 1021
Ruth Maguire, Grandmothers against the war
Ying Lee, BFT retired
Ann Weills, National Lawyers Guild
Michael Rubin, SEIU
Rosalind Makris OEA
Dave Welsh, Letter Carriers 214
Frank Martinez Campo, SEIU 1021

[Binh]

http://www.socialistproject.ca/bullet/564.php

The slogan of the “99%” may have tremendous rhetorical currency, but history shows that there is no shortcut to the long-term, painstaking task of generating a real movement: meeting people where they are, building trust and struggling with them over the issues they're worried about, connecting those anxieties to a coherent political program, and consolidating those efforts into a force to be reckoned with. While many of the Occupy working groups may be beginning this project, most of the millions who constitute the “99%” have been unable or unwilling to participate and need to be reached by some other means. OWS can be an opportunity to start this process, but it is not a spark that will spread on its own.



Occupy IS a real movement. This is vague and abstract. There are no concrete examples or suggestions presented.

[ckaihatsu]

Occupy IS a real movement. This is vague and abstract. There are no concrete examples or suggestions presented.


I agree that Occupy is a real movement -- I don't think the author is being *dismissive* of that as much as he is agitating for a qualitative *improvement* in the nature of the movement.

If "we are the 99%" is as far as Occupy's political message goes, then all the energy contributed to the movement will not make much of a long-lasting impact on society.

The author notes that people have very real anxieties about where the world is headed, and about their own personal situations -- the political task remains of addressing those concerns with a movement with a clear program, so that it is better-abled to (hopefully) achieve actual social change for the better.

[ckaihatsu]

(Just came across the following post that contains detailed demands from the Occupy movement.)


http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2289916&postcount=4








http://www.ctvbc.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20111104/bc_occupy_vancouver_demands_111104/20111104?hub=BritishColumbiaHome&utm_source=ctvbc.ca

A draft list of "demands" has emerged on the Occupy Vancouver website, with 60 items ranging from the closure of tax loopholes for the wealthy to the release of non-violent prisoners.

The authors of the list, which was posted Friday on the website's message board, are not named, but it is said to have been compiled over the course of several days by members of the Occupy general assembly.

Occupy Vancouver press liaison Sarah Beuhler told ctvbc.ca that the list is "definitely not official," and was formed by a group of about six individuals.

"Certain people found it very important that a list of demands be generated, though others disagreed," Beuhler said.

"I have personally heard a lot of discontentment with this particular list, in that it's not particularly well-crafted and it seemed to have some people's pet issues on it."

Beuhler confirmed that the list was written by members of the general assembly, but said that body includes anyone who chooses to protest at the site. She estimated between 200 and 300 people show up on a daily basis.

An official list of demands could be voted on in the future, Beuhler added, and would likely be boiled down to a few key issues that a majority of the general assembly could agree on.

The so-called "draft list" appears below in its entirety:

Rough Draft of Demands for Occupy Vancouver

In sum, we demand the creation of a just and sustainable society.

If we remove too many demands from the final version we risk having an unjust and unsustainable society. That is unacceptable .

Economic demands

1. We demand that the wealthiest 1% pay their fair share by the closing of tax loopholes such as dark pools of liquidity and employer-side payroll taxes. Progressive taxation principles must prevail, income from capital must be taxed at the same level as wage income.

2. We demand that the banks be nationalized and limit interest payments to 1%. The Board of Directors of the Bank of Canada and top tier of management must now include at least 50% representatives for Labor/wage earners and the balance must contain a mix of academics, as well as business people. The mandate of the Bank of Canada must now include the pursuit of low unemployment in addition to low inflation. (An alternative demand to nationalization of the banks is: "We demand a cap on interest rates at 5% plus prime.")

3. We demand that crimes committed by banks and corporations be prosecuted more rigorously – a dedicated justice fund for white-collar crimes must be created. Canadian corporations must also be held accountable for crimes (such as bribery and pollution) committed abroad.

4. We demand that all income tax for those who make less than the living wage be eliminated.

5. We demand that a "ministry of whistle-blowing" be created with the power to protect any whistle blower – corporate or otherwise – from harm of any kind. We need to be able to safely call attention to injustice. Previous failed attempts to do this should be learned from.

6. We demand a higher minimum wage – one that equals a living wage. Those unable to work due to disability or infirmity should have a guaranteed income which will allow a dignified existence.

7. We demand that Canada pulls out of all free trade agreements - including repealing NAFTA - which are actually "investors rights" agreements and have little to do with trade. We demand an end to future attempts at "free trade" agreements and/or the North American Union. All monopolies – national or international – must be prohibited.

8. We demand that EI payments from people not eligible to receive from the program be eliminated.

9. We demand that supply management of agricultural products be ended.

10. We demand that the federal government keep out of private sector union negotiations.

11. We demand the prohibition of self-regulation by large-scale industries.

12. We demand that corporate person-hood is repealed.

Political demands

13. We demand the influence of lobbyists and influence peddlers be reduced by requiring all lobbyists and corporate representatives conduct all meetings with representatives out in the open, with records of what was said and what was spent easily accessible to the public.

14. We demand the electoral playing field be leveled by limiting each political party to equal small amounts of taxpayer money. We demand the elimination of campaign contributions entirely.

15. We demand the installation of a proportional representation system in all municipal, provincial and federal elections. We demand the adoption of Swiss-style direct democracy and Nunavut-style consensus-decision-making into all political processes.

16. We demand an immediate end to Canada's role in the war in Afghanistan. We demand Canada pulls out of NATO.

17. We demand the government makes sure the CBC is independent from influence by powerful groups by getting enough funding so it can go commercial free so it no longer must depend on big business for advertizing, and that it becomes immune from future budget cuts.

18. We demand the elimination of the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2001, which criminalizes activities similar to the ones conducted by the French Resistance in WW2 and Nelson Mandela's ANC in South Africa.

19. We demand Canada pulls out of the SPP – the "Security and Prosperity Partnership" – the military and economic harmonization between Canada and the United States. Canada must remain sovereign.

20. We demand the return of the long form census and an end to the practice of outsourcing census work to multinationals such as Lockheed Martin.

21. We demand that Statistics Canada and the Parliamentary Budget Office be made arms-length organizations outside the direct jurisdiction of partisans.

22. We demand that publicly funded science be made available to the public. No tax-payer-funded scientists should be gagged or censored in any way.

23. We demand that the science minister be replaced with an MP who recognizes the realities of evolution and global human-caused climate change.

24. We demand an end to all gag-orders on public servants.

25. We demand an independent investigation into 9/11 which will examine all evidence including that which would support a false-flag explanation.

26. We demand that "none of the above" be an option on all electoral ballots.

Societal demands

27. We demand - as Bertrand Russell suggested - there be two police forces – one to prove your guilt and another to prove your innocence. We demand lawyers be required to work in pairs so that a lack of resources won't be a factor in deciding a case. (Alternative: We demand increased funding for legal aid.)

28. We demand a majority of the defense budget be redistributed to health, education and housing.

29. We demand massage, dental and eye care be covered under the health care system.

30. We demand an end to gender and racial discrimination in the workplace. We demand pay equity and employment equity. We demand equal pay for different but equivalent work.

31. We demand the right of self-determination for all indigenous nations. We demand a speedy resolutions to all outstanding land claims acceptable to all parties concerned.

32. We demand the repeal of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. All synthetic drugs and hard drugs (including cocaine and heroin) must be distributed by prescription through a pharmacist.

33. We demand that all botanical drugs be distributed like coffee beans. Human medical autonomy must now be respected by all.

34. We demand that all harmless people be protected in the constitution. If a new law is written and a new set of people are to be criminalized, the burden of proof will now be on the government to provide evidence that this new group of criminals is inherently harmful to others. This will end scapegoating.

35. We demand that post-secondary education be free with no hidden user fees. We demand that most outstanding student loans should be forgiven based upon income.

36. We demand that herbalists and naturopaths have their services covered by the health-care system.

37. We demand that judicial sentencing discretion should be preserved.

38. We demand that the omnibus crime bill be eliminated.

39. We demand that prostitution be legalized and regulated as it is in New Zealand.

40. We demand public universities and colleges stop taking money from the corporate sector.

41. We demand the release of all non-violent prisoners.

42. We demand an end to the corporate funding and control of collages and universities.

Environmental demands

43. We demand that subsidies shift from fossil fuel and nuclear energy to renewable resources such as sun, wind, wave, geothermal and cellulose-based ethanol.

44. We demand that GMO's – extra-natural genetic modification - be banned because there is no consensus that they increase yield, are safe to consume, are safe for the environment and pose no threat to global food security but there is general agreement that they allow seed monopolies and lawsuits based upon pollen drift. The patenting of life must be illegal and terminator seeds banned from sale in Canada.

45. We demand that chemical fertilizers and pesticides be phased out over the next five years while farmers learn to use organic methods because chemical fertilizers and pesticides are unnecessary and kill the soil vitality needed for human survival.

46. We demand that "open-net/open water" fish farming be banned.

47. We demand that environmental laws be enforced more rigorously.

48. We demand that soil vitality be a priority.

49. We demand that the nuclear industry be phased out.

50. We demand that the health and environmental costs be factored into the cost of each product, and taxed appropriately.

51. We demand the shutting down of the Tar Sands project.

52. We demand that fracking – hydraulic fracturing - be prohibited.

53. We demand the removal of all the red tape around the growing of industrial hemp.

54. We demand Canada pull out of the Keystone Pipeline.

55. We demand the prohibition of all off-shore drilling. We demand maximum liability on all oil spills.

56. We demand a national ban on products and packaging that can't be recycled locally.

57. We demand a ban on factory farming or CAFO's (concentrated animal feeding operations).

58. We demand an end to all logging in old-growth forests and an end to clear-cutting everywhere.

59. We demand protection of water rights and transparency in all Canadian water deals.

60. We demand Canada adopts the Bolivian Earth Charter.