Radical Caucus

[benbrucato]

We need to develop a unified voice that:

1) Develops a revolutionary vision for the movement.

2) Draws explicit connections between the issues this movement is addressing and capitalism.

3) Organizes along consensus and direct democratic principles.

4) Respects the diversity of radical politics among a variety of socialists, anarchists and postleftist revolutionaries.

5) Affirms a diversity of tactics and encourages autonomy of action.

6) Challenges "left colorblindness" and "white democracy." (See: www.bringtheruckus.org/?q=node/146 )

7) Demands an end to police brutality, approaches the police with ambivalence, and opposes close relationships between them and the occupation.

8) Addresses criminalization, mass incarceration and calls for the abolition of prisons.

9) Builds relationships among radicals at other regional occupations.

10) Works toward material goals both as a caucus and to introduce to the entire occupation.

With these ten points, I propose the founding of a Radical Caucus at Occupy Albany.

In solidarity,

Ben

[benbrucato]

My personal reasons for proposing this:

The Occupy movement began as a revolutionary movement, and it has the potential to remain a revolutionary movement.

There have been elements at various occupations - including this one - that demand a reformist approach to politics. These elements would demand radicals quell our revolutionary fervor. Many radicals and revolutionaries across the country have already left the movement, chastising its tendency to put forward concerns most relevant to whites, the middle class and those interested in preserving both representative democracy and capitalism. Others have criticized a central leadership that either launched the movement and maintained their authority, or emerged and now dominate it. There have been some power grabs here in Albany, with limited success; but they have universally been from people who would have the movement pacified, liberalized, and stuck in a reformist approach.

There is ample reason for perseverance within this movement and opportunity to achieve revolutionary ends. I strongly encourage radicals not to abandon it and instead to band together. While at present, some radical aspects of the occupations are being closed off, the establishing of a caucus for radicals to collaborate on proposals, actions, and maintain spaces for our politics in this movement will help to expand those spaces that remain.

We need not see ourselves as "outside" the general occupation and the emerging politics. In fact, we ought to see ourselves as central to it. This caucus would not be a withdrawal, but an opportunity to challenge those tendencies that would keep us isolated.

I have seen an important tension. On one side of this tension are those who would have this movement be explicitly about nothing clearly defined. On the other side are those who want the movement to be about nearly everything that poses a challenge to the 1%. The former tacitly approves of the status quo. The latter lacks vision. This caucus should oppose those demands to abandon advocacy for specific issues that are important to us, especially when those demands are for the purpose of presenting the facade that this movement doesn't have any politics, purpose or vision.

My politics fit in very poorly with any easily identifiable group. I critically appreciate the post-leftists, CrimethInc, anti-civilizationists, Frankfurt School neo-marxists, bioregionalists and neo-Luddites. I used to consider myself an anarchist, but prefer "anti-authoritarian" these days.

I hope to hear from others who want to work together on this.

Cheers,

Ben

[benbrucato]

I announced the caucus at the GA tonight. About 15-20 people met afterward. I talked to at least another dozen or so who are interested. I discussed the 10 points above as a general frame that can serve as an idea of what kinds of things this caucus could be, but that it would ultimately be determined through dialog.

A lot of ideas were tossed around, general introductions made, and we decided we would meet beginning this Tuesday at 8pm, and every Tuesday and Thursday at 8pm indefinitely.

I'll work on something that I think captures some of the interests we talked about and bring it to Tuesday night to see if we can hash it out to be a sort of "mission statement." I may be able to provide with that a general organizational framework. This would be used as a discussion point to be amended, added to, discarded or whatever, either at the meeting or a future meeting.

I will also put together some literatures that we could use for discussion purposes. If you have stuff you want to include, let me know. I'm thinking of having "study guides" printed up. I have a printer I have used before that can print 50 copies of a 60 page 8.5"x11" perfect bound book (like a standard paperback book) with a laminated cover for $215 + shipping. So I imagine the books would cost $5 a piece. I'm willing to front this if people think they would be able to help out and reimburse me. I can do the layout, but it will be very rough - it will be easy to read, but nothing pretty to look at, as I just don't have the time for much more.

[shage]

I have some extra copies of "recipes for disaster" I can contribute to a table and the library. I also seem to remember crimethinc having some relatively inexpensive flyers available in bulk quantities. I may have some of those, or be willing to obtain them for Albany.

This is a crucial caucus to have present. I will be out of the region during the week, for good reasons, but want to thank everyone involved in advance. Keep the occupation strong and radical!

[pjoshh]

Ben,

We spoke today briefly before the GA. I'm a socialist and interested in forming this caucus with you and others. 8pm is a difficult time for me to meet, but I'll see what I can do.

[dylan]

I do not understand the idea of a radical caucus. What happened to the direct action working group?

A caucus, from what I understand it, is formed by groups that are underrepresented somehow in the occupy albany movement. To say that radicals aren't heard, doesn't that somehow devalue the importance of other caucuses?

Also what is wrong with you all joining and strengthening the Direct Action working group? The fact that people in this group are ignoring or abandoning the DA group leads me to believe this is going to be more about theory. I'm not sure I really see the value of a theory working group or caucus.

Finally, if I do not join this 'caucus', or if I vote, does that mean I'm not 'radical'? By whose definition?

[anonanon]

dylan,

The DA WG is meeting tomorrow at 1pm at the coffee shop by GSCA on madison if you care to make it.

I thought the organizing basis was free association? so are you saying a group of people who feel their view is underrepresented is not allowed to get together and meet if you decide they are not legitimate? just trying to understand this post. nobody is copywriting the word 'radical' if you want to use it.

[benbrucato]

Great questions all around.

Oct 29, 2011 21:46:51 GMT -5 dylan said:

I do not understand the idea of a radical caucus. What happened to the direct action working group?

The Direct Action WG plans and coordinates a variety of direct actions, such as protests, marches, street theater, etc.

This caucus is more of a think-tank or discussion circle that additionally serves the purposes of radical analysis and advocacy.

Oct 29, 2011 21:46:51 GMT -5 dylan said:

A caucus, from what I understand it, is formed by groups that are underrepresented somehow in the occupy albany movement.

I would say that radical politics are certainly underrepresented. I find most of the politics and framing of this movement very alienating, and have had to constantly encourage myself to keep pursuing involvement. OA is almost exclusively representing the reformist politics of the establishment, has elected officials and reform organizations at the center of it. Radical politics are sidelined at best.

Oct 29, 2011 21:46:51 GMT -5 dylan said:

To say that radicals aren't heard, doesn't that somehow devalue the importance of other caucuses?

I don't understand this question. Would you please elaborate?

Oct 29, 2011 21:46:51 GMT -5 dylan said:

Also what is wrong with you all joining and strengthening the Direct Action working group? The fact that people in this group are ignoring or abandoning the DA group leads me to believe this is going to be more about theory. I'm not sure I really see the value of a theory working group or caucus.

As we discussed in the meeting today, we would be working issues of material and practical importance to the occupation. This particular DA WG is more narrow in scope, and encompasses a wide range of political aspirations, very little of which is explicitly radical or revolutionary. This caucus is a revolutionary caucus.

Oct 29, 2011 21:46:51 GMT -5 dylan said:

Finally, if I do not join this 'caucus', or if I vote, does that mean I'm not 'radical'? By whose definition?

I am interpreting in these questions a degree of hostility and passive-aggressiveness. I'm sure that's not your intention. Would you care to rephrase them?

Thanks for asking these clarifying questions. I'm sure it's helpful for more people than just you.

Cheers,

Ben

[dylan]

I'm not making any statements, I'm asking questions. What is a caucus? Are 'radical' voices underrepresented? What is 'radical'?

It is my understanding that working groups are made by free association, but that caucuses, due to their voices being unheard, deserve special attention. Therefore I wonder, should anybody be able to come up with a caucus? Does that potentially devalue the power of caucuses in general?

I'm not saying that I should have the power to decide who creates caucuses, but I do think it's something we should all be thinking about.

How is 'radical'-ness outside of the scope of Direct Action? Is this difference related to the discussion of theory? What exactly is a 'revolutionary vision'?

I also wonder what it is about my questions that leads you to accuse me of making decisions for you. I am suggesting that claiming to be underrepresented is a very powerful statement, since it grants those people a special voice. I would think that people claiming to be radical would be wary of taking advantage of this special voice to the potential detriment of the other caucuses, which, yes, in my humble opinion (do I need to say this before everything I ever say?) I do believe are more deserving. I care less what 'radical' people think, in general, than what, for example, women of color think and I do not want their voices to be drowned out by 'radical' white men's.

I also do not think the presence of 'reformist' views necessarily means the 'radical' viewpoint is diminished, which is what was suggested tonight.

[benbrucato]

I have compiled and have ready to print a study guide that contains the following. If these selections seem relevant and okay with everyone, please let me know. I can order them right away. I'd like to know that I can get at least 20 people to commit to reimbursing me. I'll get some clarification on this at the meeting on Tuesday and will place the order on Wednesday if everyone is cool with it. I should have them then to distribute the following Tuesday.

-Ben


Thoughts on Revolution
-Fighting In The New Terrain by CrimethInc
-Our Lives Are Not Negotiable by Phoenix Class War Council

Radical Perspectives on the Occupy Movement
-David Graeber, the Anti-Leader of Occupy Wall Street by Drake Bennett
-On Playing By The Rules – The Strange Success Of #OccupyWallStreet by David Graeber
-The Occupy Wall Street image that marks the end of the global consensus by Jonathan Jones
-“How Can You Occupy an Abstraction” by Ben Brucato
-The Crisis and The Way Out Of It: What We Can Learn From Occupy Wall Street by Ben Brucato

Race & Gender
-Why I support Occupy The Hood by Lorenzo Kom'boa Ervin
-Whiteness and the 99% by Joel Olson
-What are we saying when we call for diversity in the Occupy movement? by Ben Brucato
-The Tyranny of Structurelessness by Jo Freeman

Diversity of Tactics
-What ‘Diversity of Tactics’ Really Means for Occupy Wall Street
-Statement of Solidarity from Cairo
-The Revolutionary Politics of Self-Defense by ABCF-TDC

Police
-Seven Myths of the Police by CrimethInc

[benbrucato]

Oct 29, 2011 23:01:44 GMT -5 dylan said:

I'm not making any statements, I'm asking questions. What is a caucus? Are 'radical' voices underrepresented? What is 'radical'?

It is my understanding that working groups are made by free association, but that caucuses, due to their voices being unheard, deserve special attention. Therefore I wonder, should anybody be able to come up with a caucus? Does that potentially devalue the power of caucuses in general?

I'm not saying that I should have the power to decide who creates caucuses, but I do think it's something we should all be thinking about.

How is 'radical'-ness outside of the scope of Direct Action? Is this difference related to the discussion of theory? What exactly is a 'revolutionary vision'?

I also wonder what it is about my questions that leads you to accuse me of making decisions for you. I am suggesting that claiming to be underrepresented is a very powerful statement, since it grants those people a special voice. I would think that people claiming to be radical would be wary of taking advantage of this special voice to the potential detriment of the other caucuses, which, yes, in my humble opinion (do I need to say this before everything I ever say?) I do believe are more deserving. I care less what 'radical' people think, in general, than what, for example, women of color think and I do not want their voices to be drowned out by 'radical' white men's.

I also do not think the presence of 'reformist' views necessarily means the 'radical' viewpoint is diminished, which is what was suggested tonight.

Political radicalism (from Wikipedia):

The term political radicalism (or simply, in political science, radicalism) denotes political principles focused on altering social structures through revolutionary means and changing value systems in fundamental ways. Derived from the Latin radix (root), the denotation of radical has changed since its eighteenth-century coinage to comprehend the entire political spectrum — yet retains the “change at the root” connotation fundamental to revolutionary societal change.

Caucus (from Wikipedia):

A caucus is a meeting of supporters or members of a political party or movement, especially in the United States and Canada.

Caucuses typically work toward a specified issue or on specified problems. When I was in the ABCF, we had a Tactical Defense Caucus, in addition to the Prisoner's Caucus, Men Against Sexism Caucus and the Women's Caucus.

There were several people who met today that expressed many concerns about how alienating the politics have been at OA. Some of them came out for the first time today after having left the movement because I told them the caucus would be announced and meeting today.

[dylan]

I am not sure this definition of caucus meets the definition of how we are using caucuses in occupy albany, which is to allow underrepresented voices in the movement be heard. A large group of white men claiming this under-representation makes me nervous and suspicious. That is my opinion, take it or leave it.

As a former Maoist I will be perfectly frank. This caucus reeks of vanguardism and sectarianism to me. That is also my opinion. I would rather see us take part in actions that all types of political views can get behind, like the bank withdrawal day, rather than discuss political ideologies so that we may all see where we disagree and fight over who is more 'down for the revolution'. I thought the whole point of this was to find where we can agree, which I would suggest is a great number of issues, and work together on those and push our collective agenda using direct action.

That being said I want everyone to feel included, and I appreciate your listening to my views.

[benbrucato]

Oct 29, 2011 23:34:55 GMT -5 dylan said:

I am not sure this definition of caucus meets the definition of how we are using caucuses in occupy albany, which is to allow underrepresented voices in the movement be heard.

THIS is how caucuses are being used at Occupy Albany

Caucus: a faction within a legislative body that pursues its interests through the legislative process.

Back up to the main board list and you can see it there. I don't know where this wording came from, but again it points to the reformist nature of how things get framed.

As for the rest of your divisive post, I'll kindly leave it.

Also, I find your posts HUGELY disrespecting of the many women in the caucus, and of Dan who is Black. This is the typical behavior of the white liberal who make invisible the many non-white, non-males taking part in the movement, and especially employing it as a rhetorical tactic to dismiss an entire group that you disagree with. When you refer to "a bunch of 'radical' white men," you are writing out of existence the women and people of color who will be participating. Not cool.

[denmarkvesey]

I agree with Dylan as well, as a former member of the YCL and having extensive interactions with the SWP and MIM I am very hesitant to this proposal. There have been radical groups here in Albany besides communists I remember when Grand Street had a stron Anarchist collective that did not sit around and talk but did shit like we are doing now such as cop watch, FNB, skillshares etc etc as far as I could tell all these socialist and communist groups DID NOTHING but try and sell their shitty papers. Further they hate each other on the left. Ben if you think you can tackle getting consensus between anarchists, socialists, and communists more power to you frankly I think this is a waste of time and as an anarchist with post left tendencies I will not be there, I will be doing shit all the left does is fucking talk talk talk. This seems like a distraction from DA and other more pertinent matters like winterizing the occupation. If you want to have your meeting by all means. Further If you want some insight into what has gone on in Albany we can talk f2f. I remeber when there was a really strong anti-war movement in Albany it started out in 2001 with myself and like four other people in a room at the SJC and took us two years to get anywhere near a protest with 100 people. After war started in Iraq the liberals stepped in and hi-jacked our movement with their moveone bullshit in my opinion and we dropped out because our voices were droned out people such as myself, Ironweed people, Barbara Smith, and Naomi left cause we did not like the direction things were going. This is what we need to be on guard against espcially with a presidential election coming up in 2012. Futher the groups your talking about such as Party Communists did more damage to the Anti-War movement than anything ANSWER was AWFUL organization. We do not need factions or vanguards we are all the "vanguard" and your voice is certainly heard here and at the GA. If you want to be radical there is better ways to do it than the way you have been in my opinion. Clearly this is a radical movement, look ADBUSTERS was the one of the key players. Like my grandma always said you get more bees with honey than you do with vinegar. If you want to do a teach-in on Anarchism, Marxism whatever that seems to be more appropriate in my opinion. Frankly, a meeting with a bunch of radical anarchists, socialists, and communists sounds like an awful meeting to go to. I foresee little consensus and people sitting their quoting Marx like the fucking bible on petty issues which I am sick of debating, like whether the "lumpen" can be a revolutionary force, duh take a look around Occupy Albany whom is living there stop reading shit that was written over a hundred years ago and trying to apply it to the 21st century that is so fucking stupid, communist parties seem more like religions than anything to me and in my opinion are the Opium of the Radicals.

[denmarkvesey]

That being said, Ben you don't really know Dylan as you just moved here there are a lot of "radicals" here even self-described anarchists like yourself. Honestly I think the way you have been tackling radical issues is not the best way if you want to radicalize the "people" whatever that means there are WAY BETTER ways to do it then to form a FACTION and talk about self defense BS. I don't need to go around telling people I AM A RADICAL or Anarchist frankly I usually tell people I am a REAL CONSERVATIVE, and explain issues on an issue by issue basis without the need to quote Bakunin, Marx, Goldman, Prodhoun, Kropotkin etc etc

[dylan]

I apologize to Dan and to the women who were at the radical caucus meeting, but I stand by my statement that I think the radical caucus's existence is problematic as it proposes that there is a 'right' way to do what we are doing, and everyone else is a 'reform'-ey 'liberal'.

Personally I do not think that radical voices are unheard and for them to take on the mantle of a caucus the way we're using it, so they can have a stronger voice, is exactly the opposite of what I think a real radical does, which is to listen to the people in the group, like the women, LGBT members and POC who's voices often go unheard and support them.

Ben I've heard you call people liberals and use 'reform' like it's a curse word. I don't hear anyone saying that radicals and anarchists are bad in any way. I think you are the one who is creating this division and I am hoping to point this out. The people reading these posts can make up their own minds what they think.

Some people had problems with the speaker list yesterday. The reason why McEneny spoke isn't because OA is reformist, it's because the person who put in the work to organize the speaker's event asked him to be there. I would suggest to all the would-be radicals who want your voices heard to join a working group, get your hand on a plough and set a good example of how a radical acts and prove through persuasion the value of a radical frame of mind rather than using this caucus.

[matthew]

I'll tell you what my understanding of a "caucus" is, as informed by my participation in the Facilitation WG and in the GA, including the research that I've done on Peoples' Assemblies in order to participate.
A caucus is a group whose unique interests, concerns, perspectives, etc. are at risk of not being represented at the meetings of the GA, or within the WGs and the other activities of the GA, because of the demographic makeup of the assembly and the privilege that certain other groups enjoy at the meetings and within the assembly, at large. This includes the privilege of feeling safe to participate in the meetings (to the point of abusing the process, in some cases), and the self-assurance that their voice will be heard and their interests will be considered.
I also understand that a caucus emerges to empower anybody who identifies as a member of the disenfranchised group, whether they participate in the meetings of the caucus or not (just as the Occupy movement emerged to empower the 99%, whether they participate in occupations or not), and that you can ONLY participate in meetings of the caucus if you identify as a member of that group.
So yes- a caucus is "a faction within a legislative body that pursues its interests through the legislative process," but I fail to understand how "radical interests" aren't already being represented at the meetings of the GA.
I also think it's problematic to force people to ask themselves whether they identify as radicals or not, and to look at the membership of this proposed "radical caucus"and wonder if their personal radical interests, concerns, perspectives, etc. are going to be represented if they don't go to the meetings of the caucus.
Finally, I feel very strongly that we would devalue the caucus, as an instrument of empowering the disenfranchised, by proposing that radicals need one. I don't think anybody did this or wants to do this on purpose- I think we just haven't had this conversation about what caucuses ARE yet, or what they are for. I don't think caucuses are for this.
I think that the people, and the passions that I see coming together in this group should be directed into a Working Group. I'm not sure why Direct Action and Political & Electoral Reform aren't a good fit for these people / passions, and I'm worried about creating some redundancies among these groups by introducing another, but I'd sooner support the creation of another WG than the creation of a caucus for this.
Please understand that I probably share the majority of the radical views of the people who are coming together in this group, I just don't think that these views are having a hard time being heard within the assembly, and MY passion is for the application of the organizational structure of the Peoples' Assembly to empowering people to participate in the political process- I want to reserve the caucus, as an instrument, for those groups that really need it.

[benbrucato]

Denmarkvesey said:

if you think you can tackle getting consensus between anarchists, socialists, and communists more power to you
Frankly, a meeting with a bunch of radical anarchists, socialists, and communists sounds like an awful meeting to go to. I foresee little consensus and people sitting their quoting Marx like the fucking bible on petty issues

Since we’ve already had a meeting, your hypothetical scenario has an empirical situation with which to compare it. And so far your prediction is nothing like what we shared. First, it was encouraged among us all to speak from our hearts, not from books, from Marx, Mao, Lenin, Trotsky, Kropotkin or whoever else. And everyone seemed very enthused to have such a radical space to talk about politics and come up with ways that we can apply them to material situations. There was incredible political diversity, “pet issues,” but also a lot of unity on a number of issues. I am not as cynical as the statement you express here, but even I was surprised.

I have considerable experience with coalition building among a variety of groups. When I was doing Anti-Racist Action, we were able to get the RCP, SWP, and others to participate and they knew very quickly how little their papers and party line were appreciated, while we appreciated their work and their personal stories and commitments. I think we can build such unity here with this caucus. If Communist parties want to push papers, party lines, etc., this won’t be a very good caucus for them, I'm afraid. If they want to provide material aid to the occupation and work to find points of unity with which we can provide some radical direction both within the caucus and the movement, then they are welcome. I have a feeling the people already in parties, who feel they have developed their Revolutionary Strategy(c), and want to sell it to us won’t be interested or very welcome.

If you want to do a teach-in on Anarchism, Marxism whatever that seems to be more appropriate in my opinion.
frankly I think this is a waste of time and as an anarchist with post left tendencies I will not be there, I will be doing shit all the left does is fucking talk talk talk.
Honestly I think the way you have been tackling radical issues is not the best way if you want to radicalize the "people" whatever that means there are WAY BETTER ways to do it then to form a FACTION and talk about self defense BS.

None of us seemed to interested in –isms. I know I’m not, and many others said they are beyond that. I stressed the importance of problem-oriented approaches, and I think there was unity on that. So, for instance, how are we going to approach people who are consciously or unconsciously asserting their race/gender/class privileges from a radical perspective (rather than the liberal point of ‘tolerance,’ for instance). Another example is having a practical discussion of diversity of tactics and what that will mean for our occupation, and how we can better communicate this to the occupation as a whole. Another issue would be to examine ways that the unacknowledged and insidious hierarchies are developing within the movement and this occupation, and how to better address that to the broader group. Another problem-oriented discussion was how to address the issue of curfew and camping in a radical way (the city council is trying to pass an exemption for us, which I and others are happy about, but not if it does not address repealing curfew for all). Another one that was discussed was the issues of donations, and how we can challenge the community to avoid consumer-activism and get involved at the next level. Another issue raised by someone interested in the caucus that did not make it to the meeting is the ways in which we are recreating the divisions of labor in our organizational strategies, and how that is problematic (i.e. maybe we should reconsider having people permanently assigned to specific WGs, and instead have everyone rotate around). There’s a lot of stuff already being tossed around after just one meeting that has nothing to do with what you seem to be imagining. I’ve already been impressed with some of the awesome suggestions tossed out there. I think we have a vital service we can provide.

If you want some insight into what has gone on in Albany we can talk f2f.

I really appreciate that, and would look forward to it.

After war started in Iraq the liberals stepped in and hi-jacked our movement with their moveone bullshit in my opinion and we dropped out because our voices were droned out people such as myself, Ironweed people, Barbara Smith, and Naomi left cause we did not like the direction things were going.

This is exactly what many of us already see happening and are in part trying to prevent.

self-described anarchists like yourself.

I do not describe myself as an anarchist. I consider myself an anti-authoritarian.

I don't need to go around telling people I AM A RADICAL or Anarchist frankly I usually tell people I am a REAL CONSERVATIVE, and explain issues on an issue by issue basis without the need to quote Bakunin, Marx, Goldman, Prodhoun, Kropotkin etc etc

See, I find this really disrespectful. You’re projecting impressions on me and others that have no basis. I haven’t heard anyone quoting anything like this. I don’t conduct myself that way, and I don’t know anyone else in OA who does. I kindly ask that you not objectify me and others, and respect our subjectivity – look at who we really are and what we’re really doing and then I’ll be happy to hear a very specific and conscientious criticism. This, though, is disrespectful and not the kind of criticism I can respect.


Dylan said:

Ben I've heard you call people liberals and use 'reform' like it's a curse word. I don't hear anyone saying that radicals and anarchists are bad in any way.

Really? The first comment raised when the caucus was announced was that it violates our position on nonviolence.

I think the understanding of caucuses that was projected by Matthew is a very limited and limiting definition. Working Groups should be around issues related to "working" - to developing specified projects under an identifiable category: i.e. Arts, Direct Actions, Comfort, Humane Resources, Safety, etc. Caucuses should be for people with points of unity. That could be identity-related, but it could also be related to politics. An example: the Fracking Working Group works on issues related to fracking; but a group of environmentalists who want to not only work on environmental campaigns but develop ways of "greening" the movement in general sounds to me more appropriate for a caucus.

Finally, I’m not looking "to radicalize" anyone. I’m looking to find like-minded people who can generate some unity around issues we can work on together. The first part entails discussion and talk, but we all agreed we would be focused primarily on material aid to the occupation. denmarkvesey, you say that the BLM etc. "did stuff." I know a lot of people from the BPP, BLM, AIM, etc., and provided material aid for PP/POWs from these groups. They always stressed the importance of action being informed by careful discussion, deliberation and study. I think portraying them as people who only "did stuff" is inaccurate, and portraying us as only talking is disrespectful. denmarkvesey has effectively said "I'm doing stuff, and you're just talking." Now THAT my friend is sectarianism! You're the ones coming here and telling us what we want to do is "not correct." That is vanguardism. I'm open to criticism, and respect the critique and people offering it, but only when they are conveying the same respect. These critiques have been riddled with objectification, passive-aggression, and hypothetical projections. If you want to put that stuff aside, and have a real dialog about what's really going on, let's do that. But until you stop writing people out of existence, projecting your imaginations upon other people, making sweeping assumptions and generalizations, and making snide, passive-aggressive comments, you might want to consider that I've already given this discussion more time than it deserves. Please show some more respect.

In solidarity,

Ben

[matthew]

I wouldn't change anything about the way that I described my understanding of what a caucus is, or what the caucus, as an instrument of political participation, is for, and I don't think that my description is at all limited or limiting.
I see the relationship between the caucuses and the General Assembly, as a body politic, as similar to the relationship between our use of progressive stack and the meetings of the GA, as elements of process. They both exist to empower certain individuals to participate. I don't think that "radical interests" are at risk of going unheard either at the meetings of the GA or within the General Assembly, at large, so I don't think that the assembly should recognize radicals as a caucus the same way that we currently recognize People of Color, Women, or LBGT individuals.
Off the top of my head, I would love to see caucuses formed for children, the elderly, the disabled, animals, and the environment, to make sure that their voices don't go unheard within the General Assembly. (The last two, obviously, would require that human beings act as proxies.)
It might seem like semantics, but I guess I'm mainly just opposed to this group labeling themselves a caucus because I think that word has a more specific meaning than the way it's being used here, and I think that the use as I understand it is not limiting at all- rather, I think it is empowering.
Further, I think that, if the activities of this group include discussing "politics and com[ing] up with ways that we can apply them to material situations," then the applications should guide this activity into working groups, where maybe the radical perspective could be best used.

[benbrucato]

I appreciate that point. Perhaps the way most people see caucuses being used here would exclude this, and I can see that. But I don't see this as a working group in the way that's being used here.

So what would we call it? I don't like the idea of calling it a "think tank." And I don't think that the role of this caucus in the GAs should be anything like what you're describing the POC, Women's and LGBT caucuses doing. Other people in the caucus might want to chime in, but many are on the ground without internet connections, and many have already been alienated from participating vocally in the broader group because of comments like those that have popped up on this thread. I'd like to have their input on this, so if it doesn't happen on this thread, I'll solicit for it on Tuesday's meeting and someone can report back.

I'm willing to use the "Working Group" designation, but we would need to make sure there is widespread understanding that this group is not exclusively task-oriented, though the group will certainly be doing things of a material nature. It's a compromise, but one I could live with. I'm just wondering though if this is a semantic issue that's shared widely. I'd be much more concerned if people in the women's caucus, LGBT and POC caucus have issues. But as it stands, I'm aware of at least one person in two of those caucuses that are also in this one, and they didn't seem to be at all concerned.