Tlahtolli’s respectfully stated perspectives are appreciated, but I strongly disagree: destructive behavior IS the “make or break” issue for OO and perhaps for the movement, because growing the movement is the most critical need for success (by success I mean radically changing the economic and political system) and such behavior is the biggest threat to increasing the numbers that we must have (already our support is slipping, latest poll 30% support, 39% oppose; and if OO doesn’t oppose destructive behavior, many people will drop out). I believe Occupy is the last hope for turning the world around. If it fails were doomed to economic and environmental collapse, and it’s possible we’re already too late.
I respectfully, but strongly, disagree: OO, as a first step, MUST take a stand against destructive behavior, but that’s not enough. Discussions should happen with those participating and supporting such behavior (at the 11/7 GA an anarchists meeting was announced [not that all anarchists believe in destructive action] Thu 11/10 at 5:00, I believe to the right of City Hall as you face it), folks who feel comfortable should non-violently intervene at actions, and when such behavior happens, because it’ll still happen no matter what’s done to try and minimize it (hopefully not as much otherwise), OO must make statements that it opposes the behavior. I strongly disagree with reporting people to the police, that’s way too divisive and would result in strong backlash,
There’s no doubt that a significant majority oppose destructive behavior, but it’ll be very difficult to get OO approval for taking a stand against it because the policy is 80% is the minimum threshold for “consensus” (“diversity of tactics,” however, is also unlikely to be approved), but we have to try.
As you probably know, there are efforts being planned to develop and advocate for a position against destructive behavior (I’m trying to get involved in that), so look for such announcements and join in.
For more of a perspective of where I’m coming, here’s a link to my recent Oakland Tribune “My Word” op-ed: http://www.insidebayarea.com/opinion/ci_19014446
I assume this point is moot after last night(with 2 non-violence proposals being presented that evening by the FWG), but everyone that I have interacted with in the FWG is interested in making sure that proposals are presented as clearly as possible to allow for positive and fruitful discussion. Before condemning a group in public, a group which is composed if individuals, humans like you and me, it might be more useful to follow up with why such questions were asked. What was the intent? How can I make my proposal better such that it has a higher likelihood of passing? More likely than not they are confused about some point and are giving a form of feedback as that confusion would only be amplified in a GA.
Also, they are rumored to be organizing the biggest demonstration ever for Nov 14th. Anniversary of the 1973 Polytechnic uprising in Athen which was brutally suppressed by the then US-backed Greek military junta.
I understand your concern with gaining more and more support. However you must realize that threatening actions taken by OWS protesters have so far not hindered in gaining supporters. After each police raid or scuffle with OWS protesters somewhere in the US, the occupations grow. Even after some NY protesters stormed the police barricades some weeks ago and some people decried their actions, more people organized their own Occupation and the movement gained support.
Take Greece for example, the just had the largest demonstration in decades during the Athens General Strike a couple weeks ago. Get this; for the past 5 or 6 years, there has been violence between police and protesters at nearly every demonstration or strike since then and instead of alienated the movement, thousands upon thousands of people support the momentum towards some sort of social and economic change.
i learned tonight that black bloc tactics are not necessarily immoral or violent. black bloc is radical to be sure, but can be utilized in different ways. if people really want to organize, someone should make the call for black bloc’ers to act strategically in defense of the camp. it is totally and completely possible. the black bloc can stage any action really, as a group…it’s not necessarily a violent thing.
What sounds “inappropriate” is the facilitation committee calling you and asking such questions. Disturbing, indeed.
tlahtoli: again i am compelled to respond but let me say i am not speaking for the FWG. it is customary for this group to vet proposals to be sure that they are clearly written and are in fact, proposals that the GA as a body will support, endorse, or act upon. i’ve seen it happen for different kinds of proposals. i have a question though: did you submit your proposal, and did it go before the GA? if you’ve been waiting for a while and it still hasn’t gone through, then i would do some follow up…just to ensure that there is no bias here. contact them and ask when your proposal might go before the GA. when things start on time, usually 2 proposals are heard. in rare instances, there are 3. i do not know for sure, but i am guessing that there are probably 10 proposals or so in queue. i could be wrong on that.
Hi Tony. This is not about our personal feelings about violence. It is about sacrificing our personal agendas for the greater good. In the case of the Occupy Movement, the greater good is to gain as much support from the rest of the 99% as we can. Otherwise, we fade into oblivion and nothing is accomplished.
The issue at hand is that we need to achieve a critical mass of support. The only way to do this is if the rest of the 99% can relate to us. Most people don’t relate to the media images of people in masks breaking windows and destroying property.This actually will be a turn-off to the public. Again, this is not about a personal moralistic position. It is about what will work to gain more support, so our movement will succeed rather than fail. Lets bypass our emotions here and use our minds to come up with the best strategy to change this country.
keith: if you were asked to direct your commentary toward the portion that was being discussed – example: you were trying to give an opinion about destruction when it was time for clarifying questions – then it was appropriate for the facilitator to redirect you. however, if you were giving an opinion during pros and cons or general announcements and you were told that your opinion was inappropriate, then that was incorrect on the facilitator’s part. i’m not speaking for the committee, but i am just speaking on behalf of the “process.”
i am not speaking on behalf of the facilitation working group, but i am speaking as a new participant in this movement with some skepticism (lessened now) about the process.
i also thought at first that the FWG acted as a single body and controlled things. while i still do believe that this committee holds a lot of power in the encampment, i also see that this committee is made of very different individuals. they have different personalities and approach things in different ways. you may have had an encounter with a member of that group who might need more work on facilitation skills and impartiality. i’ve had some shitty experiences with this committee, and some awesome experiences with this committee.
while the aim is to work toward a standard of fairness and equality, realize that it is a process. the structures of inequality and bias that we fight in our everyday lives will carry over into the movement. the only way to combat it is to raise awareness and get involved.
it might put you in an uncomfortable space, but i urge you to give direct feedback OFTEN and get involved in the best way you can when you see something that needs to be improved upon. try it for a while and see what happens. you might get flak or you might be looked at as a rabble rouser, but at least people will start to see what you are seeing.
hmm, Would you suggest we consider black bloc tactics, and destroy the “lifeless” tents and other equipment of folks with whom we disagree? Keep driving away “outsiders” and eventually you will be able to “vote” for whatever you want, just like in the good ol’ days before all this interference from the nuisance of public support.
I keep reading lots of flack aimed at ‘violent behavior’ (at lifeless glass windows no less) and how ‘the vast majority of OO protesters oppose violence’ and yet it’s so hard to pass a statement condemning the behavior by the General Assembly by a majority vote. Is this not a sign that the ‘majority’ of OO is opposed to adopting a completely non-violent stance? Perhaps a minority of self righteous pacifists that are not comfortable that the movement is not going THEIR way are attempting to impose their dogmatic will upon the majority? Doesn’t that sound a bit ‘undemocratic’ and not decision-making through consensus?
Tlahtolli,
The Guideline for General Assembly and its Decision Making Process
says “if 90% approval is not reached, consider friendly amendments and repeat steps 1-3 and try for 80% approval to pass proposal.” Even if it’s 80% that’s still very difficult.
Thanks for the insight about the facilitation committee, sounds like it operates in contradiction to OO’s general principles e.g. participatory democracy. The call you received from them is disturbing. I was at the GA on Fri 11/4 and was told by the facilitator while in line to speak at the open forum that comments opposing destructive behavior were “inappropriate.”
As mentioned, I believe from informal conversations at the GA and online comments that a strong majority oppose such behavior, so hopefully the facilitation committee will also be overwhelmed to put a proposal, sounds like several have been drafted, on the GA agenda. At the GA’s I’ve attended, the agenda wasn’t announced so how do you know if proposals are to be heard?
Keith
Hi Keith,
The threshold for consensus is actually 90%. It’s quite the challenge.
I’m hopeful that we will be able to overwhelm the GA and get a resolution passed condemning violence as a tactic.
There is just one other challenge standing in our way: the facilitation committee.
The facilitation committee, if we all haven’t noticed by now, has the power to decide what gets talked about at any given GA. There doesn’t seem to be any outside input on the topics, and they all seem to be busy.
Interestingly enough, when I submitted a proposal condemning non-violence, I received a call from a facilitation committee member asking me to clarify a point, namely where did I get the impression that the Occupy movement is a non-violent social movement. This raised a flag for me because I would have expected it at the GA during the “clarifying questions” round.
I just want all you non-violent folks out there working hard to get a proposal passed that the facilitation committee still has the power to decide what gets discussed at the GA. It’s not clear what the decision-making process is like in the facilitation committee in terms of what gets said.
Just a heads-up.
Cheers,
Tlahtolli