Did DOT Pass GA?

Categories: Discussion

I expect there will be more shortsighted dismissals of Hedges critique
and even more choosing to ignore it.  The problem, however won’t go
away.  The once great potential of Occupy Oakland has been greatly compromised
by the ineffective and immature tactics of the BB.   Josh Healy, Osha Neuman, the
Anonomyous post,  Hedges, John Reimann, and Joseph Anderson have all stuck their
necks out attempting to warn us.

If the BB has such an irrepressible need to battle the cops let them call
their own actions instead of using OO actions for their cover.  OO’s anti 1% message
has been loosing its  spotlight ever since  the BB  flocked to OO following the 10/25 raid.
Even today as we should be celebrating the contribution of Occupy Oakland and Portland
to the settlement of the EGT/ILWU struggle and the loading of the “Full Sources” by the ILWU
we are distracted by issues arising from cop battling.
I agree with John Reimann that there is a leadership in OO and they have subverted the problem
of dealing with the BB for months.  Often the claim is made that “diversity of tactics” was agreed on at a GA.
I was not at that GA but it was a  Mosswood Park GA and may not have had quorum.  Actually were any
definitions of quorum even written at that point. Now is the time to revisit the BB question before May Day
becomes another opportunity for them to degrade an OO activity.

18769

4 Responses to “Did DOT Pass GA?”

  1. Joseph Anderson -- Berkeley

    See:

    “The Activism Entry Point: Critiquing The Cancer in Occupy Debate”

    Longtime Berkeley activist Joseph Anderson weighs in on the ongoing debate around Occupy Oakland on the issue of diversity of tactics and the use of BlackBloc style tactics. He weighs in on the recent debate between Chris Hedges and Occupy Oakland organizer Kristof Lopaur.

    The Occupy movement, Anderson says, cannot have both a diversity of people and a ”diversity of tactics” at this time – and the movement can’t shortcut the process of attaining, and retaining, the first by jumping to the second.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Well, by now everyone in the Occupy movement is hotly debating “nonviolence” vs. “diversity of tactics”, as recently so in, “Chris Hedges and Kristof Lopaur of Occupy Oakland debate black bloc, militancy and tactics,” February 8, 2012, on KPFA in Berkeley, California.

    Both Lopaur and Hedges made some critically weak, flawed, at times somewhat disingenuous or self-contradictory and, in Lopaur’s case, often specious arguments in their radio debate. This so, even though I politically agree with Hedges, and although Hedges’ recent commentary, ”The Cancer in Occupy,” seemed poorly supported journalistically. But, Hedges is dead on about, ‘Go do violence under your own name, not the Occupy movement’s.’

    Hedges would have been better off just writing his opinion, presented analytically, but he deserves great credit for using his stature to get an “Anarchist”-suppressed, but mortally important, debate firmly out in the open and over progressive airwaves. Let me say that both of them have respectively done very good progressive work.

    This is my partial, but most important, analytical response to Kristof Lopaur’s (and those he represents) support for Black Bloc, or otherwise, ”diversity of tactics” in the Occupy Movement. My main point: Occupy Oakland, and the Occupy movement, cannot have both a diversity of people and a ”diversity of tactics” at this time – and the movement can’t shortcut the process of attaining, and retaining, the first by jumping to the second.

    ——————————

    Read more:

    http://daveyd.com/

    http://hiphopandpolitics.wordpress.com/2012/02/17/the-activism-entry-point-critiquing-the-cancer-in-occupy-debate/#comment-30137

    (with photos and comments section)

    ————————————————————————————————————————————————–

    http://berkeleydailyplanet.com/issue/2012-02-14

    http://berkeleydailyplanet.com/issue/2012-02-14/article/39305?headline=The-Activism-Entry-Point-Critiquing-The-Cancer-in-Occupy-Debate–By-Joseph-Anderson

    (plain text copy, good for printing)

    ————————————————————————————————————————————————–

    My great appreciation to Becky O’Malley, publisher of the Berkeley Daily Planet in Berkeley, CA, and San Francisco Bay Area-based journalist Davey D of KPFA, Berkeley, CA, and publisher of DaveyD.com.

    All Together in The Struggle,

    Joseph Anderson

    Berkeley, CA

  2. Joseph Anderson -- Berkeley

    WORD *CORRECTION* IN MY ABOVE POST (February 8, 2012):

    The “Anarchist”/Black Bloc contingent _couldN’T_ even agree to that! As one writer said, “If their real target actually was the cops and not the Occupy movement, the Black Bloc would make their actions completely separate from Occupy, instead of effectively using these others as a human shield.”

    [ I assume that would have otherwise been clear from the context.]

  3. Joseph Anderson -- Berkeley

    WORD CORRECTION FOR MY ABOVE POST (February 8, 2012) :

    The “Anarchist”/Black Bloc contingent _couldN’T_ even agree to that! As one writer said, “If their real target actually was the cops and not the Occupy movement, the Black Bloc would make their actions completely separate from Occupy, instead of effectively using these others as a human shield.”

    [I assume that would have been otherwise clear from the context.]

  4. Joseph Anderson -- Berkeley

    FYI — for the record, so you know:

    “Nonviolence” resolution proposal presented to the Occupy Oakland General Assembly participants present on the night of Novemeber 20, 2011, by Joseph Anderson, Janet Kobren, Elizabeth Adler and other co-presenters

    Occupy Oakland General Assembly resolution proposals require a GA vote of *90%* of just those participants present to pass (even if it’s a smaller group due to the lateness of night or fairly cold &/or rainy winter weather). This proposal was REJECTED by primarily “Anarchists” and Black Bloc types — Occupy Oakland’s left-wing ‘Tea Party’, as it were, of primarily wanna-be young white “Revolutionaries” who think that they’re going to start The Worldwide Revolution To Overthrow Global Capitalism And Western Imperialism — *that day* — by smashing a few windows, vandalizing nearby coffeeshops, in the course frightening store patrons, indiscriminately graffitiing, and setting one or two overturned trash bins on fire on a street.

    The “Anarchists”/Black Bloc steadfastly show up indeed as a block and ideologically vote against ANY ‘nonviolence’ proposal, thus they have a STRANGLEHOLD against ANY such scheduled proposals, giving the 1% and its media a perfect public alienation propaganda weapon to use against us.

    Our ‘nonviolence’ resolution proposal couldn’t have been more generous. It, in formal language said, ‘We co-presenters aren’t even commenting or judging whether “diversity of tactics” (code words for primarily gratuitous property destruction/vandalism, regularly goading the cops, and lately includes American flag-burning on the steps of city hall after vandalizing part of it [what a perfect, public-alienating, photo op for the mainstream media]) are good or bad — we’re not even saying that you can’t commit violence/vandalism [we certainly can’t stop anyone]. All our proposal is just saying is don’t do it on our (Occupy Oakland’s) time, in our space (including during our events), under our dime, especially using us and the participating public as human shields, under our name!’ Our proposal was a proposed minimal agreement so that all of us in the larger Occupy Oakland movement and the public know what to safely expect, and not provocatively expose the rest of us and, especially, physically and legally vulnerable participants, to excessive and/or brutal police action pretexts, when we participate in Occupy Oakland events.

    This resolution proposal was also so that the mayor, the police chief, the chamber of commerce, and the mainstream media can (could) not distinctively attribute Occupy Oakland for every act of crime that occurs anywhere in, near or around downtown Oakland, as though violence and crime had never been an all-to-regular feature in downtown Oakland before. [As we now know, crime in Oakland actually dropped 20% during the Occupy Oakland encampment and the police chief and the mayor hid that information.]

    The “Anarchist”/Black Bloc contingent could even agree to that! As one writer said, “If their real target actually was the cops and not the Occupy movement, the Black Bloc would make their actions completely separate from Occupy, instead of effectively using these others as a human shield.”

    _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

    Proposal on ‘Action Agreements’

    We Occupy Oakland believe in agreements that allow for a diversity of participants from the 99% needed to build a strategic mass movement that is radically inclusive and capable of standing up to and overthrowing the rule of the 1% and to advance an agenda of national and global political, economic and social systems and processes that meet human and ecological needs and not corporate greed;

    We make agreements about how we take action together at our General Assemblies, beyond which individuals and groups are autonomous. We are not addressing here any philosophical or political requirements or judgements about the validity of some tactics over others, just minimal agreements to create a basis of trust to work together and participate in as diverse communities, to know what to expect from each other and consent to our involvement in and support of our actions.

    Therefore, be it resolved that:

    Occupy Oakland action participants agree not to engage in physical assaults against other people, except as one chooses in the case of self-defense or the defense of Occupy Oakland action participants or innocent bystanders from physical threats and assaults; and

    Occupy Oakland participants agree not to engage in destruction or damage of physical property; and

    Occupy Oakland shall not deem the following to be considered as property destruction or damage: measures taken to access, enter, maintain and/or physically secure vacant buildings, empty lots or other spaces such as public parks, so as to engage in or make habitable an occupation of such buildings, lots or public spaces; and

    While Occupy Oakland recognizes that some individuals or groups may nevertheless engage in activities that are not in accordance with the above definition, those who do so will be acting autonomously and not in the name of Occupy Oakland.