'people's mic'?

[Devrim]

I see a lot of references to this phrase in articles about current US demonstrations. Could somebody explain what it means please?

Devrim

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

In New York City you cannot use a megaphone or speakers without a permit.

The "people's mic" was invented to get around that, so that speakers could be heard through the whole audience rather then just by the few people around them.

Basically what it means is whatever the speaker says is repeated by the crowd line by line.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Example:

Speaker - "Mic check"

Crowd - "Mic check"

Speaker - "We are going to..."

Crowd - "We are going to..."

Speaker - "March on the subway station."

Crowd - "March on the subway station."

In larger crowds it would be repeated in waves so that the message gets all the way to the edges.

Does this make sense?

(I should also note that it's sometimes oddly being used by some as a sort of symbolism when it is clearly uncalled for - like in meetings of 40 students indoors or in places where megaphones are allowed)

[Revolutionair]

For example:

eu9BWlcRwPQ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eu9BWlcRwPQ)

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

IDK, but I think Devrim said before that he can't watch youtube videos where he is. I'm sure he's not alone in that, growing abundance of smartphones not withstanding.

[Devrim]

In New York City you cannot use a megaphone or speakers without a permit.

The "people's mic" was invented to get around that, so that speakers could be heard through the whole audience rather then just by the few people around them.

Basically what it means is whatever the speaker says is repeated by the crowd line by line.
Thanks, as it is a demonstration though can't you do what you want?


IDK, but I think Devrim said before that he can't watch youtube videos where he is. I'm sure he's not alone in that, growing abundance of smartphones not withstanding.

No, I can. It has been unbanned.

Devrim

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Thanks, as it is a demonstration though can't you do what you want?

You mean .... like have a bullhorn?

No, as I said those are illegal without a permit; and they absolutely arrest you if you have one.

NYC has a lot of strict rules about these sorts of things: can't march in the street without a permit, can't block the sidewalk, can't use certain materials in your signs, can't wear masks, etc.

[Rafiq]

No, I can. It has been unbanned.

Devrim

Just on an unrelated note, why was Youtube banned in turkey?

[HEAD ICE]

Just on an unrelated note, why was Youtube banned in turkey?

i think it was because of this video (i am not even kidding)
DRhyNsizplk

[Rafiq]

i think it was because of this video (i am not even kidding)
DRhyNsizplk

Basically sums up all of the nationalist videos made on that site by people who can't speak English very well.

Usually a title with the name "Fuck" or something vile in front of "Insert Ethnicity/country/person" and the likes, with a video that makes absolutely no sense.

[Devrim]

You mean .... like have a bullhorn?

No, as I said those are illegal without a permit; and they absolutely arrest you if you have one.

NYC has a lot of strict rules about these sorts of things: can't march in the street without a permit, can't block the sidewalk, can't use certain materials in your signs, can't wear masks, etc.

Yes, but it is a demonstration. It is not as if the cops can just wade into it and arrest you for using a megaphone, is it?


i think it was because of this video (i am not even kidding)

I presume that is the one. I have obviously never seen the offending article, and this one doesn't come up for me now, which I suppose is supporting evidence.

Devrim

[zimmerwald1915]

Yes, but it is a demonstration. It is not as if the cops can just wade into it and arrest you for using a megaphone, is it?
That implies a certain strength to the demonstration, and cohesion to the crowd, that is not reliable enough at the moment to justify provoking a confrontation. Though as NHIA mentioned, the human mic has been, well, fetishized, such that even where megaphones or speakers are allowed, or when the human mic is unnecessary, some people still insist on using it to prove their horizontalist credentials.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Yes, but it is a demonstration. It is not as if the cops can just wade into it and arrest you for using a megaphone, is it?I'm not sure what the situation in New York is, but in Oakland, they just ignored the rule and got a PA system. I really hate the people's mic in discussions and General Assemblies, but I've been on a few unplanned marches now where people used it to make a collective decision of where to go next or for people to communicate something through the crowd and it was fantastic.

Re: NHIA talking about people using it in inappropriate settings, yeah I find that annoying, but I can appreciate that a lot of people are just very excited and so that's a good thing IMO. What was stranger - or a little more disingenuous - was that I went to a strike picket recently and they used the people's mic format - except it was the same top-down mid-day pep-talk from union leaders and local Democrats in content, just "people's mic" in form. It was bizarre and silly and proof that despite what many people in the movement think, "forms" are not decisive for creating true democracy and can be used bureaucratically or democratically.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Yes, but it is a demonstration. It is not as if the cops can just wade into it and arrest you for using a megaphone, is it?

Yeah, they absolutely can. They absolutely will. They absolutely do.

See example:

pSM9p-fC-s4

Also see: http://www.thevillager.com/villager_108/takngfreespeech.html

I'm not sure where you're getting most of your info, but your ideas about the stuff going on here may be different from what's actually occurring brother.


NHIA talking about people using it in inappropriate settings, yeah I find that annoying, but I can appreciate that a lot of people are just very excited and so that's a good thing IMO.

Sometimes it's just fucking weird. And a lot of non "regular" participants who have showed up for particular events around Occupy have not been shy about saying it. (For example I saw a group of around 16 people using it in a building.... for no reason). Also questioned a lot: jazz hands voting.


What was stranger - or a little more disingenuous - was that I went to a strike picket recently and they used the people's mic format - except it was the same top-down mid-day pep-talk from union leaders and local Democrats in content, just "people's mic" in form. It was bizarre and silly and proof that despite what many people in the movement think, "forms" are not decisive for creating true democracy and can be used bureaucratically or democratically.

The best was when some of the first speakers at the big November 17 rally / funeral march controlled by the union bureaucrats and assorted reformists seeking to derail and bury it (and hailed by your group by the way) tried to do people's mic from the stage, with their professional sound systems. But no one was having it and so it didn't work, at all.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Also questioned a lot: jazz hands votingLol. The hand signals: by far the most annoying aspect of these protests. It's not hard to deal with heckling and the hand-signals don't seem to prevent it anyhow, so come-on "yeah" and "uh-huh" or "hiss" and "boo" have worked pretty well long before the invention of these hand-signals.

[Devrim]

That implies a certain strength to the demonstration, and cohesion to the crowd, that is not reliable enough at the moment to justify provoking a confrontation.

Obviously so.


Yes, but it is a demonstration. It is not as if the cops can just wade into it and arrest you for using a megaphone, is it?
Yeah, they absolutely can. They absolutely will. They absolutely do.

Yes, perhaps I didn't realise how weak the demonstration were. Here in Turkey people do things such as sell illegal newspapers openly on demonstrations unless they are absolutely tiny.


I'm not sure where you're getting most of your info, but your ideas about the stuff going on here may be different from what's actually occurring brother.

No, I think that the things that are going on in the US are very weak. I don't really think that it would get half of the attention that it is if it were somewhere else, both because the US is obviously an important country, and also because nothing big has happened there for years.

Incidentally I read your piece about Wall Street the other day. You didn't mention how many people were there/involved.


Though as NHIA mentioned, the human mic has been, well, fetishized, such that even where megaphones or speakers are allowed, or when the human mic is unnecessary, some people still insist on using it to prove their horizontalist credentials.

It sounded pretty ghastly to me.

Devrim

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Yes, perhaps I didn't realise how weak the demonstration were. Here in Turkey people do things such as sell illegal newspapers openly on demonstrations unless they are absolutely tiny.
Keep in mind, the protesters believe in non-violence and passive resistance, and aren't even roused to defense when police thugs are pepper spraying their fellow protesters in the face.

[Psy]

Keep in mind, the protesters believe in non-violence and passive resistance, and aren't even roused to defense when police thugs are pepper spraying their fellow protesters in the face.

Labor union decades ago learned if you have lines of workers having line formations with the megaphone in the center prevents police from getting at mega phones as police officers easily since as long the protesters keep formation a police officer would get encircled and overwhelmed long before they got close as the megaphone.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Yes, perhaps I didn't realise how weak the demonstration were. Here in Turkey people do things such as sell illegal newspapers openly on demonstrations unless they are absolutely tiny.I think it has more to do with the strength of the police than the weakness of the demonstrations (not to say that they are incredibly strong). One thing you have to remember is the level of militarization of police here (especially in place like New York) is unmatched in a lot of the world. That's a result of the lack of a national police force (instead we have state police, county police, city police, sheriffs, etc., etc.) and prohibition against the use of the military for law enforcement on U.S. soil or against citizens (in "normal" periods), among other factors.

In Korea, as repressive a place as it is, even regular people view the cops as bumbling old grandpas, for example. They don't fear them, often publicly criticize them and refuse their orders. Forget militarization, cops there don't even carry guns.

The same goes in Japan and a lot of other places I can think of.

There's also the fact that in much of the world the state isn't as strong and/or doesn't have the reach of law enforcement here.

It's entirely different. The U.S. has the strongest military in the world. Tons of secret police and similar agencies. The NYPD has the latest weapons and military training, regularly engages in all sorts of shootouts, "anti-terrorism," surveillance/spying, etc., etc. The city also has an absurd concentration of cameras. So maybe they'll just wait until the march is over to come grab you up.

Of course a positive change in the balance of forces would allow for things to change.

And I think a lot of people don't want to blow a lot of time and energy on battling some of the best trained and most powerful cops in the world over the megaphones, especially when other means are available (keep in mind too that when this whole thing started, the groups participating were very tiny).

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Keep in mind, the protesters believe in non-violence and passive resistance, and aren't even roused to defense when police thugs are pepper spraying their fellow protesters in the face.

Oh really?

So you've been involved the whole time right?

Sorry, you don't know what you're talking about. Certain forces have been arguing for pacifism at all costs, but many others have argued for the exact opposite, with some going as far as picking fights with cops on an individual basis and/or trying to provoke police attacks.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Incidentally I read your piece about Wall Street the other day. You didn't mention how many people were there/involved.

Yeah, actually I did. A few hundred were camped out in Zuccotti early on. A few thousand participated in the first march after Bologna maced the young women. A few hundred joined the picket at Sotheby's. A few thousand came out during/after the eviction. A few thousand came out on the morning of the "day of action" and tens of thousands came out for the mass rally / march that evening.

But it extends well beyond that to the marches, actions, meetings, GAs, etc., that have been taking place across the city for the last two months.

[ellipsis]

Yes, but it is a demonstration. It is not as if the cops can just wade into it and arrest you for using a megaphone, is it?
Devrim

You would think, but the occupy movement's ranks are filled with coward liberals who listen to cops and try to negotiate with cities.

on that topic, shameless plug:

http://therevolutionscript.blogspot.com/2011/11/critique-of-authoritarian-peace-police.html

[Psy]

I think it has more to do with the strength of the police than the weakness of the demonstrations (not to say that they are incredibly strong). One thing you have to remember is the level of militarization of police here (especially in place like New York) is unmatched in a lot of the world. That's a result of the lack of a national police force (instead we have state police, county police, city police, sheriffs, etc., etc.) and prohibition against the use of the military for law enforcement on U.S. soil or against citizens (in "normal" periods), among other factors.

The protesters don't control their lines because their formation is too lose. Again militant worker clashes with riot police have had better results in the USA as they formed a line against the police and acted as a formation. It is a matter of taking advantage of superior numbers to the police.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Yeah, great. And the miners that show up armed at picket lines in the coal fields usually fair even better. But guess what? Most of the people showing up at Occupy here haven't had military drill training. Neither have most of the people on earth.

[Psy]

Yeah, great. And the miners that show up armed at picket lines in the coal fields usually fair even better. But guess what? Most of the people showing up at Occupy here haven't had military drill training. Neither have most of the people on earth.
We are talking basic formations that basically is getting everyone to line up close together (linking arms helps) facing all sides police can attack the formation. Then it is just a matter of preventing police from breaking the line, if a officers grabs someones the people behind the front lines pulls them back, so now the officers are pulling against hundreds of pounds of forces that is not letting the person move forward (also chaining protesters together ensures police can't pick off protesters) away from the front lines. With more coordination the front line facing the officers can move forward encircling the officers while those behind them established a secondary line keeping the officers trapped into the formation till the formation knocks the police out of the fight (meaning the police officers encircled are too badly hurt and have to retire from their deployment).

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

We are talking basic formations that basically is getting everyone to line up close together (linking arms helps) facing all sides police can attack the formation.

That's exactly happened on the morning of November 17.

Were you there?

Anyway, I don't think the progression of this is dependent on megaphones or crowd formations.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Sorry, you don't know what you're talking about.
I made a generalization, and you're right to call me on that, but by your own rebuttal I'm partly right about elements promoting pacifism.

[ellipsis]

Anyway, I don't think the progression of this is dependent on megaphones or crowd formations.

This.

IMO it is necessary for veteran radicals and activists to help guide this movement(s) and facilitate its progression.

[Devrim]

Yeah, actually I did. A few hundred were camped out in Zuccotti early on. A few thousand participated in the first march after Bologna maced the young women. A few hundred joined the picket at Sotheby's. A few thousand came out during/after the eviction. A few thousand came out on the morning of the "day of action" and tens of thousands came out for the mass rally / march that evening.

Thanks, I read it on the phone when I was on holiday a couple of weeks ago, so maybe I just missed it.

Devrim

[Devrim]

I think it has more to do with the strength of the police than the weakness of the demonstrations (not to say that they are incredibly strong). One thing you have to remember is the level of militarization of police here (especially in place like New York) is unmatched in a lot of the world.

In Korea, as repressive a place as it is, even regular people view the cops as bumbling old grandpas, for example. They don't fear them, often publicly criticize them and refuse their orders. Forget militarization, cops there don't even carry guns.

But I was comparing with Turkey where the Police do have guns and have used them against crowds of demonstrators much more recently than those in the US have. Looking at the numbers that you gave above, I think that the actual size of the demonstrations is important. By Turkish standards, the numbers are tiny, and when you are dealing with six figure crowds (there was a demonstration of 140,000 to 170,000 in Ankara last year, over 1,000,000 in Istanbul this year) I think even the most tooled up police behave a little differently than when there is only a few thousand.

Devrim

[Yazman]

I think it has more to do with the strength of the police than the weakness of the demonstrations (not to say that they are incredibly strong). One thing you have to remember is the level of militarization of police here (especially in place like New York) is unmatched in a lot of the world. That's a result of the lack of a national police force (instead we have state police, county police, city police, sheriffs, etc., etc.) and prohibition against the use of the military for law enforcement on U.S. soil or against citizens (in "normal" periods), among other factors.

In Korea, as repressive a place as it is, even regular people view the cops as bumbling old grandpas, for example. They don't fear them, often publicly criticize them and refuse their orders. Forget militarization, cops there don't even carry guns.

The same goes in Japan and a lot of other places I can think of.

There's also the fact that in much of the world the state isn't as strong and/or doesn't have the reach of law enforcement here.

It's entirely different. The U.S. has the strongest military in the world. Tons of secret police and similar agencies. The NYPD has the latest weapons and military training, regularly engages in all sorts of shootouts, "anti-terrorism," surveillance/spying, etc., etc. The city also has an absurd concentration of cameras. So maybe they'll just wait until the march is over to come grab you up.

Of course a positive change in the balance of forces would allow for things to change.

And I think a lot of people don't want to blow a lot of time and energy on battling some of the best trained and most powerful cops in the world over the megaphones, especially when other means are available (keep in mind too that when this whole thing started, the groups participating were very tiny).

Amazing. The way you describe it sounds awfully like a fascist state's police force, not that I am describing the US as one of course.


But I was comparing with Turkey where the Police do have guns and have used them against crowds of demonstrators much more recently than those in the US have. Looking at the numbers that you gave above, I think that the actual size of the demonstrations is important. By Turkish standards, the numbers are tiny, and when you are dealing with six figure crowds (there was a demonstration of 140,000 to 170,000 in Ankara last year, over 1,000,000 in Istanbul this year) I think even the most tooled up police behave a little differently than when there is only a few thousand.

Devrim

Their demonstrations still, in relative terms, dwarf those in Australia. People here are even more apathetic and depoliticised than Americans seem to be.

[Psy]

That's exactly happened on the morning of November 17.

Not to the extent of union marches, union banners across the whole line is not just so they can have a large banner it creates a barricade preventing the police from snatching anyone on the line as they are behind the pole holding the banner so as the police pull them out of the line they are being held in the line by the rest of the line through the pole like a safety bar in a roller coaster.



Were you there?

I've seen videos of the human chains of occupy wall street and they don't have long poles as a barricade like union marches, they also don't use placards as weapons like during the Greek riots.



Anyway, I don't think the progression of this is dependent on megaphones or crowd formations.
Yes it is, give everyone a passive (non-electric) megaphone (like those cheerleaders use) they are cheap enough for every protester to have thus you speed up communications compared to playing telephone down the protest.

http://thesaunachick.wordpress.com/2011/10/10/dear-occupy-wall-st-its-called-a-traditional-megaphone/

As for crowd formations, if you can't keep your lines then you can't push police back that is required to occupy means of production as you need to push police away so you can seize property.

[Lucretia]

I do find the "people's mic" method annoying. I can understand its use in situations where other options aren't available, but why on earth would other groups that do have the prerogative to use electric amplification use it instead?

[Psy]

I do find the "people's mic" method annoying. I can understand its use in situations where other options aren't available, but why on earth would other groups that do have the prerogative to use electric amplification use it instead?
Buy why even use electric amplification, plastic megaphones are less then a $1 per unit when ordered in bulk, the labor value invested in plastic megaphones production is so dinky they are expendable who cares if the police take your plastic megaphone as it only costs $1 per unit thus everyone can be issued one that would create a logistical nightmare for police trying to confiscate them as they have to tag them so you can get it back meaning the police will be spending more money confiscating your cheap ass plastic megaphone then it cost you to acquire.

Of course it is possible to mass produce them with very little means of production so it is very possible for a occupation that actually had productive capacity to mass produce plastic megaphones themselves without straining limited resources.

[Jimmie Higgins]

The best was when some of the first speakers at the big November 17 rally / funeral march controlled by the union bureaucrats and assorted reformists seeking to derail and bury it (and hailed by your group by the way) tried to do people's mic from the stage, with their professional sound systems. But no one was having it and so it didn't work, at all.

Sigh, yes we "hailed" this if what you mean by "hail" is condemn and criticize:
Co-opt-upy Wall Street? (http://socialistworker.org/2011/11/30/co-opt-upy-wall-street)



New York City activists from OWS spent weeks planning the November 17 day of action alongside organizers from unions and community organizations, including the Service Employees International Union (SEIU). But when the Occupiers showed up for the day's culminating rally and march over the Brooklyn Bridge, they found a completely different event from the one they had planned.

Instead of a series of platforms for coordinated "people's mics" that had been agreed to at planning meetings, there was a blaring sound system, an emcee and a series of people pre-selected to tell their stories.
...
For most protesters, the SEIU takeover of the event probably only registered as a series of oddities. Why were people shouting "Mic check!" over a deafening sound system? Why were marshals chanting, "Whose streets? Our streets!" as they worked with police to keep us on the sidewalks?




Which brings us back to what the SEIU was doing on the night of November 17.

No matter how disappointing the Democrats have been in defending working people from the budget-cutters and social reactionaries--much less promoting positive measures to make unions stronger--organized labor will be devoted to electing Democrats in 2012. Union leaders may be happy to see the mass mobilizations of the Occupy movement, but they don't want them to get too militant--and they want the movement's enthusiasm benefit their drive to elect Democrats next year.

Thus, the SEIU's marshalling operation to make sure Occupy demonstrators didn't take the streets on November 17 is connected to the union leadership's devoted support of Obama and the Democrats.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

You mean you made some criticisms two weeks later in your paper, after participants and others displayed mass disenchantment with what happened? You mean after you realized that it wasn't going to "catch on" and build a liberal protest movement, but instead fizzle out and die?

Is that why you took a week to reply to that part of my post?

'Cause on the day after the event (November 18), the ISO positively gushed over the event (http://socialistworker.org/2011/11/18/occupy-on-the-march) (that they were of course well prepared for; unlike the Occupiers who had been attacked by police earlier in the day; they had a huge tent, professional signs, etc., just like their SEIU friends):
Some 35,000 people filled lower Manhattan's Foley Square in the early evening hours, and thousands more spilled onto the surrounding streets as the culmination of a day of action that began with civil disobedience aimed at disrupting the opening of the New York Stock Exchange.

The day showed the potential of the Occupy movement to gather new supporters, as hundreds gathered at transit hubs in New York City's outer boroughs, conducting a people's microphone on subway cars on their way to the convergence at Foley Square.

...

As Foley Square filled for the 5 p.m. convergence, a light show projected the words "We are the 99 percent," and "Another world is possible, we are unstoppable" onto the Verizon headquarters building, as thousands took up the chants. A series of speakers gave moving accounts of their personal plight--of unemployment, debt and impoverishment--that resonated with the demonstrators.

The huge, multiracial and working-class crowd--including many thousands of union members--reaffirmed the broad popularity of the Occupy movement in the wake of Mayor Michael Bloomberg's police crackdown on the Occupy encampment. While politicians in Washington are negotiating a deal to slash Medicare and other social programs, Occupy's message of stopping the cuts and taxing the rich has captured the imagination of working people across the U.S.

The November 17 protests emphasized the point made on the Occupy Wall Street website as the Zuccotti raid shut down the encampment: You can't evict an idea whose time has come.
(Not a lick of criticism .... and this one is co-authored by Sherry Wolf, who's a leading member of the group).

You mean the ISO is tailing? No way, I don't believe it!

[wunderbar]

I do find the "people's mic" method annoying. I can understand its use in situations where other options aren't available, but why on earth would other groups that do have the prerogative to use electric amplification use it instead?

Because to a lot of the Occupy crowd, symbolism is just as (if not more) important than action and politics.

[Jimmie Higgins]

You mean you made some criticisms two weeks later in your paper, after participants and others displayed mass disenchantment with what happened? You mean after you realized that it wasn't going to "catch on" and build a liberal protest movement, but instead fizzle out and die?

Is that why you took a week to reply to that part of my post?

"'Cause on the day after the event (November 18), the ISO positively gushed over the event (http://socialistworker.org/2011/11/18/occupy-on-the-march) (that they were of course well prepared for; unlike the Occupiers who had been attacked by police earlier in the day; they had a huge tent, professional signs, etc., just like their SEIU friends):"

(Not a lick of criticism .... and this one is co-authored by Sherry Wolf, who's a leading member of the group).



From the same article you criticize for being silent about the SEIU:


Occupy activists who participated in planning for the Foley Square rally were also upset that the agreed-upon plan for several decentralized speakouts was scrapped. Instead, a single sound stage was set up, apparently controlled by the SEIU, thereby limiting the number of people who could speak.

The move raised questions among Occupy Wall Street activists who have helped develop what has been a powerful and productive alliance between the movement and organized labor.

One issue will be the movement's attitude to the 2012 elections. The day before the November 17 protests--which were mostly driven by the SEIU across the U.S.--the union announced its endorsement of President Barack Obama for re-election. Many of the core Occupy activists, by contrast, joined the movement because it targeted the corporate dominance of both political parties.

The issue will come to the fore soon, as SEIU calls for a tent city encampment on the National Mall in Washington, D.C. to advocate for Obama's jobs legislation. This signals an effort by the SEIU to shift the focus of the movement away from Wall Street and corporate power--and toward the Republican-controlled House of Representatives, to the benefit of Democrats, who control the White House and the Senate.


Yeah, not a full editorial, but as it says at the top, it's a report on the action, not an editorial and analysis. Of course then when there is a full editorial published, it's not fast enough for you -- so it must be some kind of conspiracy that SW wasn't publishing tons of new material over Thanksgiving! Or, more likely, the ISO is not the Obama-loving straw-man you insist against all editorials, the basic points of agreement for becoming a member, and what members themselves have to say.

My view is that radicals need to work with and help radicalize the rank and file and for the rank and file in the bureaucratic unions to organize their own caucuses and this will help workers defend themselves both from the bosses and the collaborationism of the union leadership. We may not do this gracefully at all times but we are trying to learn how to navigate in a time of hopefully more class fight back.

Occupy - and the lip-service that bureaucratic unions heads have given it for their own interests, opens up the possibility for rank and file workers to begin to network with each-other and community members outside of the union hierarchy - also the energy and democracy of the occupy movement will also potentially teach union workers about the power of fighting at the point of production (Oakland port shut down and the upcoming west cost shut-down). Symbiotically the participation of workers in the occupy movement helps the occupy movement to connect with working class communities and take working class issues seriously. So on the one hand, if union bureaucrats give an inch we want to take a mile and then use occupy's connections inside unions to force unions to bow to pressure from below. On the other hand we also have to sperate out the militant from the accommodation approach while making sure that union leaders don't co-opt the movement and make it into a vehicle for the same bullshit politics Democratic party politics that most in the movement are at least suspicious of if not outright opposed to.

So union involvement and lip-service from the Almeda Labor Council and whatnot helps in the sense of making it easier to push these organizations from below and more importantly in bringing out union people who want to fight back and probably like the occupy movement's goals and open atmosphere. At the same time it's important to show that the union heads have a different strategy, one for electing Democrats - a loosing strategy.

I think rank and file workers involved in things like the port-shut-down will begin to clearly see the difference between the politics arguing to hit-back at the 1% and the politics of "legal strategies" and winning/relying on friends in high places... much more clearly than any rhetoric anyway. The union heads have been able to use the low-struggle to argue that the only "realistic" path to defending rights and workplace conditions is through official politics - I think struggle, along with arguments by militants and revolutionaries specifically, will show that the only realistic option is for people to organize themselves and fight.

[RedTrackWorker]

My view is that radicals need to work with and help radicalize the rank and file and for the rank and file in the bureaucratic unions to organize their own caucuses and this will help workers defend themselves both from the bosses and the collaborationism of the union leadership. We may not do this gracefully at all times but we are trying to learn how to navigate in a time of hopefully more class fight back.

Where is the evidence of this? Any motions raised on OWS in unions the ISO is active in, such as the UFT here in NYC which probably been the only union in NYC with something of a "progressive" image that drug its feet on OWS?

I've yet to see one word of criticism over my union leadership TWU Local 100, which was the first to endorse OWS and due to that and its overall key role in NYC, has therefore played a key role in blocking any further development of struggle. The ISO articles I've seen (both in terms of the current leadership's election and in their relationship to OWS) have had only praise--nothing on the layoffs last year and nothing warning of what their role would be in OWS.

You call the bureaucrats' endorsement lip service--well this ISO editorial (http://socialistworker.org/2011/10/05/against-wall-street) quoted the lip service at length without nary a word of caution, warning, qualification or anything else and instead called the "lip service" "highly significant"; similar with this article (http://socialistworker.org/2011/10/03/heat-on-wall-street); Sustar before N17 (http://socialistworker.org/2011/11/10/unions-weigh-in-for-occupy) has a hint of criticism and qualification but if you read it, certainly doesn't seem to consider the talk "lip service" nor warn that N17 would in all likelihood be the event the "Co-opt-upy" describes it as....two weeks later.

So what has the ISO done to "[make] sure that union leaders don't co-opt the movement"? Wrote an article a few days ago? Done a bunch of stuff but forgot to publicize it? Stood down union officials toe-to-toe in every union they're active in and...just forgotten to publicize that too?

[Jimmie Higgins]

You call the bureaucrats' endorsement lip service--well this ISO editorial (http://socialistworker.org/2011/10/05/against-wall-street) quoted the lip service at length without nary a word of caution, warning, qualification or anything else and instead called the "lip service" "highly significant";You mean this one...

The union's response at this point was to pour money and resources into electing Barack Obama in 2008, in the hopes that he would champion pro-labor legislation and pursue economic policies that created jobs. But Obama, of course, made bankers his priority instead.


Certainly union leaders will again pressure their members to organize for Obama in the 2012 election--if not on the basis of hope, than because of fear of the Republican alternative.



similar with this article (http://socialistworker.org/2011/10/03/heat-on-wall-street); Sustar before N17 (http://socialistworker.org/2011/11/10/unions-weigh-in-for-occupy) has a hint of criticism and qualification but if you read it, certainly doesn't seem to consider the talk "lip service" nor warn that N17 would in all likelihood be the event the "Co-opt-upy" describes it as....two weeks later.
You mean the one that says...

At the same time, it's important to recognize that many union leaders--such as UAW President Bob King--offer enthusiastic support for Occupy Wall Street while pushing through union contracts that lock in the devastating concessions made by autoworkers in recent years.


And while union leaders complain about being betrayed by Democrats, the entire labor leadership will push hard to elect Democrats in next year's elections--and will often counterpose work around elections to other kinds of activity, such as contract campaigns or organizing the unorganized.


But despite the hesitancy of most union officials to match their rhetoric with action, there are unmistakable signs of a new fighting mood among the rank and file in many unions. Southern Illinois University faculty went on strike (http://socialistworker.org/2011/11/09/siu-faculty-on-strike) November 3 in a battle over the "corporate education" model, among other issues.

So what has the ISO done to "[make] sure that union leaders don't co-opt the movement"? Wrote an article a few days ago? Done a bunch of stuff but forgot to publicize it? Stood down union officials toe-to-toe in every union they're active in and...just forgotten to publicize that too?

We've been writing about the role of Democrats and talking about NGOs and their involvement, the contradictory role of union heads etc. We have pushed for democracy in the movement here locally. We've been working with other groups in building labor committees in the occupies. Here in Oakland our members in unions pushed the unions to turn their early lip-service into real turnouts for events such as the port shut down on Nov 2nd.

So what is the argument here? Are you arguing that the ISO supports union leaders? Are you saying we publish articles too late? Are you saying we don't argue our positions clearly enough? That our articles don't specifically say "lip-service" when I do?