Dan L
New Member
Facilitation & Logistics Member
Feed the Hungry - Heal the Sick - Clothe the Naked - Comfort the Distressed
Posts: 25
|
Post by Dan L on Oct 30, 2011 12:57:51 GMT -5
I think some really interesting points have been brought up, but I don’t think I can jump in the middle and untangle them all. Instead, I’m going to offer up three ideas based on what I’ve read so far.
First, I would resist the idea of thinking of the caucuses as solely the territory of the vulnerable and more about it being a grouping based around specific issue. Part of the problem is that we tend to want to think that all the working groups and caucuses will be similar to each other, but in fact each WG and caucus must find the kind of organizational structure, focus and approach that fits what they want to do and their participants. The women’s caucus may have a standing rule about male participation that exists in order for women to feel safe voicing their concerns and talking about issues. Another caucus might have an open door policy because the way in which their members experience the issue at hand has less structural power weighing on them. What is most important that each caucus remain focused on protecting the integrity of the General Assembly as a whole while working on specific actions. For example, it would be problematic for a caucus to decide that they were going to abuse organizational structure in order to hold General Assemblies hostage unless their issues came to the front.
Secondly, I find people get a little rilled up when you start talking about ‘radicals’. The fact is that by approaching OA in general, we have taken steps down this radical path. We’re not all radicals in the same way or focused on the same issues, but I think that trying to nail down a radical as being one particular kind of approach to one particular kind of issue is more the working of the -isms we know. If you’re interested in stepping outside of the given -isms at hand and into the wilderness, then you’re a radical. However, not everyone wants to step outside of the path who also participates in OA. A number of people would rather return to the representative process as usual and a slightly modified version of capitalism. I would not. So, it makes sense to draw people together for conversations about where we think in our own radical ideas we can come together and how we can use our disagreements to focus or arguments into the specifics of what we need to change.
Lastly, I find that people tend to be a little shy about just stepping in and trying something new. If the radical caucus is a wash, then it can disband or it can rename itself into something that better fits the group content that decides to stick around. I think we are all committed to Occupy Albany, so I doubt there is the kinds of insidious plotting to co-opt it for our own ends. In nature, an organism doesn’t try a single mutation from generation to generation, but MANY different kinds of mutations- some helpful, some not- in to process of developing a robust set of solutions and adaptations to the environment it finds itself in. I encourage us to try these new things even if they don’t seem immediately moving towards the goal we want to be at. Reject the belief that you can see beyond the horizon. Embrace the concept that it is through process and trying things and learning from our mistakes that we form better organizations. A focus and awareness on the process by which we form and the process by which we act is far more important, in my opinion, than distinctions about what we want to be doing and what do we want to achieve. That’s a a way in which we can be useful to our own ideas as well as the General Assembly as a whole.
Never the less, there are some good ideas bouncing around here. That you feel so passionate about a thing that has barely done more than met in the rain is encouraging. So long as our concerns come from a place that wants the best for all of our interests rather than a place of distrust and fear, I think we’ll all come out right.
|
|
|
Post by pjoshh on Oct 30, 2011 13:51:52 GMT -5
A few quick thoughts on how this conversation has unfolded and the future of something like a "radical caucus" developing within OA. An inclusive approach has been the hallmark of this movement as a whole and in large part allowed it to grow to its current size. The Occupy movement's lack of a "line" or set of demands (whether demands legitimize the system is another question) has relative diversity of opinion, theory, praxis, etc. to emerge within the movement. In a sense the movement has defined and oriented itself through a process of negation- i.e. we know, generally, what we're against), but have not been as explicit in explaining what we are for in concrete terms. This isn't a criticism of the movement, but an observation. Keeping in line with this orientation, I suggest a "radical caucus" focus itself not on what it is through a series of statements of belief (even if those beliefs are diverse), but what we reject- capitalism. Bringing our multiple perspectives (Socialist, Anarchist, etc.) to that simple and single "slogan" and simply calling ourselves the "Anti-Capitalist Caucus" or something similar, could mitigate some of the potential pitfalls that come with debating the nature of radicalism, or attempting to somehow create a synthesis of our divergent views that, when discussed, combined, and acted upon, amount to "radicalism". There are problems inherent to a joint "radical" venture. If there weren't then there would already have been a multi-tendency anarchist/democratic socialist/Marxist-Leninist, etc. body at some point in history. There hasn't been, and I doubt there will ever be. I feel that at this stage of our struggle, uniting around principles of theory and praxis will not be as productive as uniting around a kind of "minimal program" (to quote a famous Trotskyist) that is simply, but explicitly, anti-capitalist, rather than somehow "radical". The proposed reading list typed up by Ben (thanks for that, by the way) reveals the problems of some kind of radical caucus. I, for example, am not an anarchist and though I appreciate the work of the organizations (CrimethInc, for example) and people he proposes we orient ourselves towards, have already made decisions in the past to "pass up" their perspective. So, in other words, I'm not sure in what sense discussion around a series of texts with a particularly strong anarchist (I use this loosely and vaguely) perspective will be of any benefit to me or others who understand but have no adopted this perspective. If I, for example, suggested we add Lenin to the list, I'm assuming most anarchists would not be interested in the discussion or the development of concrete action based on our readings of these texts. In other words, I think this meshing together of divergent views into a conversation will at best be a good conversation, but can not translate into any meaningful action together. So, to reiterate slightly differently- I think it makes much more sense to keep our separate "radical" perspectives, share them when and if it makes sense, but unite around the "minimalism" of explicit Anti-Capitalism. This would be more inclusive for "radicals" and a more approachable message to others who have not yet become consciously anti-capitalist. After we bring down capitalism we can fight out our separate ideologies -Josh
|
|
benbrucato
New Member
Occupation Member
We are practicing "a politics and a life that are yet to be entirely thought." (Agamben)
Posts: 261
|
Post by benbrucato on Oct 30, 2011 14:49:26 GMT -5
If I, for example, suggested we add Lenin to the list, I'm assuming most anarchists would not be interested in the discussion or the development of concrete action based on our readings of these texts. I have to be really brief so I can only answer this one point right now. First, in the new sub-board, you'll see my rationale for these choices. Most of them are not anarchist readings, but some of them are. I think there's a good reason for them, not because they have anarchist principles, but because of the issues they address. I hope lots of people disagree with them on finer points, rather than looking at the title or author and reject it before hand. I think this comparison (suggesting readings by Lenin) is off base, though. I think a legitimate comparison would be if you were to suggest we read something by the (Leninist) Slavoj Zizek. I was thinking of including an article or two by him on OWS, and would only for the sake of political diversity, only because I think the article on and the article by David Graeber are superior, because they address the history of this movement much more explicitly (because he was there). I'm not an anarchist. I'm not any -ist that I can think of. I have some affinities for bioregionalism, radical direct democracy, critical theory, etc., but I, to use your framing of the issue, define myself more negatively - I am against authority. I like these particular pieces by CrimethInc. The piece on police could have been written by any revolutionary leftist, from Maoist to Trotskyist, etc. Marx himself could have written it (and in fact his writings on the police are important). The first piece is definitely anarchist in nature, but I like it because it is mainly a cataloging of their own collective's failures in analysis and action and what they have learned. It's not the conclusions they draw that I find important, but the self-criticism and growth. I agree on many points, but disagree on some. As you get to know me, you'll realize some of my beliefs are fairly conservative (as in the tradition of Edward Goldsmith and the early phase of The Ecologist). I don't follow any program at all. These selections were from the perspective of an educator - I am a teacher. I selected these because I think they will provoke lots of really productive discussion. But I'm willing to pull all of them and discuss what others might want to include. I think that could be a problem if it took much of our time. I'd rather get down to addressing issues we face at OA: we are facing problem X, these are some ways in which we could discuss this problem that would tease out the intricacies of it, other people have this and that to introduce, we discuss the issue and come up with resolution Y to address X. The other point of the readings is to have an external thing to address and critique, rather than addressing and critiquing each other more directly. I'm not attached to anything in those readings (except those that I have written, though my ideas are never very fixed and I welcome criticism). If everyone tore them to shreds in a productive way, I'd be happy as hell to have the engaged discussion. I feel this will encourage more people to talk, critique and act, because there is no fear of shattered egos. But these are just my ideas. Other people may have others, and I'm open to hearing them.
|
|
|
Post by anonanon on Oct 30, 2011 16:10:14 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by denmarkvesey on Oct 30, 2011 16:13:01 GMT -5
Whatever I think you are doing so-called radicals an extreme disservice and question your real motivations maybe you should try to be less vocal and be more like Ella Baker.
|
|
benbrucato
New Member
Occupation Member
We are practicing "a politics and a life that are yet to be entirely thought." (Agamben)
Posts: 261
|
Post by benbrucato on Oct 30, 2011 16:16:37 GMT -5
I ... question your real motivations This is horizontal hostility. I demand you stop this shit.
|
|
|
Post by pjoshh on Oct 30, 2011 16:25:08 GMT -5
Ben,
Thanks for the reply. I'm seeing more clearly now where you're coming from and look forward to taking part in more real time discussion. As I mentioned earlier, 8pm any weekday is difficult for me. I teach near Albany (where my day ends before 4pm) and live 45 mins south. In other words, I'd have to make plans to mill about for four hours. My problem to deal with, of course, but thought I'd mention it so if I don't make it you'll all know why. Either way, I would like to remain in the loop as much as possible and believe a "radical caucus" (as much as I'd prefer to call it an Anti-Capitalism Caucus) is a smart move. I don't see such a thing as at all exclusivist as others have implied. If a "Democratic Party Pep Rally Caucus" appeared, would others object?
|
|
|
Post by denmarkvesey on Oct 30, 2011 16:28:36 GMT -5
Sorry Ben, I don't personally like the things you are saying. Further I don't know you. So I can question what ever I want your an anti authouoritain supposdley, so I would think could grasp this as you are in a PHD program. You want to organize the "radicals" great I don't care and I don't want to be part of your group. My question to you is can you come to by block and organize Arbor Hill? Or the South End? Or South Troy? I think if you walked into my hood people would think you were a joke and tell it straight to your face in way that is a lot more agressive than how I am just being passive aggressive.
|
|
|
Post by pjoshh on Oct 30, 2011 17:48:47 GMT -5
I must have missed something. Why the hostility towards Ben? I'm a Ph.D. dropout but still must have missed it I don't think this caucus has anything to do with being "more radical" than anyone, but about discussing and representing a perspective that is not reformist, or not just reformist. I'd think talking about looking at moving beyond this system would resonate with people marginalized by the system more than a reformist like that calls for "ending the Fed" or some other minor pet project. At least that's been my experience in talking with people and working in other organizations.
|
|
Dan L
New Member
Facilitation & Logistics Member
Feed the Hungry - Heal the Sick - Clothe the Naked - Comfort the Distressed
Posts: 25
|
Post by Dan L on Oct 30, 2011 17:53:51 GMT -5
Anyway- Might we direct the conversation back towards the functional things that we can work on? I mean, none of us are going to agree on everything- I think it's silly that we ever could. But some of this disagreements might be better shelved or worked out in the debate section so that we can focus on energy in this space in to creation.
I don't mean that to say I'm throwing my weight around or anything, I just want to talk about what we can agree to do rather than talking about what we can't.
|
|
|
Post by anonanon on Oct 30, 2011 19:49:32 GMT -5
Dylan's comments may have been rude but Mike Fiske your comments are totally out of line, border line threatening, at the very least belittling and demeaning. Also for a point of information, in a post elsewhere you said something along the lines of "I don't go around saying I'm a radical or an anarchist, I usually just tell people I'm a true conservative" - but it was at an outreach meeting the 2nd week of organizing before the occupation you loudly and proudly proclaimed "well I'M an ANARCHIST" and the whole work group was witness. So now you're a hypocrite also. what's with the "come into my hood" shit - is this grade school? I think the mediators need to have a chat with you I will cease participation if this behavior is tolerated.
|
|
|
Post by anonanon on Oct 31, 2011 1:14:40 GMT -5
I know this is meant for Ben, Hezzie, and I was not at the first meeting so I don't know and can't anwser, but before we hear the answer I want to point out 51.7% is not representative of our GA or occupation or anyone milling about at any given time. part of the reason we have 'progressive stack' - cus these groups are underrepresented, historically and presently.
Also since we are off topic, I attended a meeting with a community group this past week where I was one of 4 white people in the room - the other 3 from OA as well - and was pretty well reamed out for ignorance of the connection between economics and race and gender struggle - the fact that others have been fighting this fight long before the middle class whites started feeling some pain. This person didn't know me personally of course, but what was amazing to me at the time was that this reaming came immediately after I had made comments to the effect that I saw value in the movement for trying to connect the dots between race/gender oppression and the economic system - i literally used the exact words which were then thrown back at me as if I hadn't thought of them. I don't blame the person for not paying attention at all to my comments after 2 other of my partners spoke - I was a symbol for the movement as a whole (I think). I mention this because it's been said so many times here on these threads that we should bring these issues to the fore, yet as someone at the aforementioned meeting said, in the end its just a bunch of aspiring well-to-do white people who are finding avenues to the middle class cut off for them. And then I tried to think about what others see from the outside and it became a little more clear. Go to the political/electoral reform forum (notice we have one but not a revolutionary vision/process forum) and take a look at what people think are the top issues - campaign finance reform, campaign finance reform, a constitutional amendment to solidify campaign finance reform, campaign finance reform, and lobbying restrictions. One Trot mentioned some alternative ideas and someone suggested he find another forum. Also in the General Board you can find some discussion on bank fees and student loan forgiveness. DOES ANYONE REALLY THINK THESE ARE THE ISSUES THAT WILL PULL IN THE CHRONICALLY OPPRESSED GROUPS ON THE EDGE OF EXISTENCE? I didn't even mention the ass-kissing of police/Soares all over the forum and the "thank David Soares" petitions I've been circulated. I can't help but view most of those who are shitting on even the idea of talking about a beyond-reformist approach while at the same time carping about white male dominance as knee-jerk liberal reactionaries trying to out-posture one another and who hardly understand the critique they claim to be representing. I think most of you will be gone when Obama gives you a few points relief on your student loans. Inclusiveness is not limited to process for those present it starts by not ruling out populations in the first place, which is exactly what is happening due to the firm control of liberal politics.
|
|
hz
New Member
PR Member
Posts: 188
|
Post by hz on Oct 31, 2011 1:45:15 GMT -5
|
|
Dan L
New Member
Facilitation & Logistics Member
Feed the Hungry - Heal the Sick - Clothe the Naked - Comfort the Distressed
Posts: 25
|
Post by Dan L on Oct 31, 2011 2:31:00 GMT -5
What? I didn't get a mention? And I was totally open for one of those "Dan is a freaking hippie" attacks! I mean, it hurts as an article because I don't think anyone wants that to be true of this discussion (and I highly doubt that it is) but there is something sort of frightening about the way New York Citizen One has this ability to show us our darkest fears like one of those bad, after school adventure shows where the heros look in the magic mirror and have to fight their evil selves. But like that overplayed trope, look how hard it has to lean on tired stereotypes and shorthand for 'dangerous anti-social types'. I mean, if someone is going to call out the occupation for it's flaws, I really want someone who can write a critique that doesn't require the reader already be fishing for writing to justify their position. Frankly, I find the article insulting for it's lack of critical argument or insightful commentary. We're RIPE FOR ZINGING! WE'RE TAKING OURSELVES SO SERIOUSLY AND TYPING IN ALL CAPS AND THE BEST THAT CAN BE DONE IS A LAME, FORMULAIC STORY ABOUT HOW PEOPLE WHO ARGUE CAN'T WORK TOGETHER OH NOES! We'd better pick a supreme leader- and quick- or else New York City One is going to keep calling us doofuses (I think if you say doofus seriously, you probably get sand kicked in your eye at the beach) and suggesting that because people disagree, the whole movement is dead already and we're just waisting our time trying to learn a better way to live. Nope. We better knuckle under or we'll get ridiculed by the blog equivalent of a high school gossip zine. Also www.newyorkcitizenone.com/index.php/about-usReally? Park Bench laptop writing in your 80's blazer? Jeeez. Send someone with talent. I want to get raked over the coals by someone who at least is wearing a pant suit and has a daytime emmy.
|
|
hz
New Member
PR Member
Posts: 188
|
Post by hz on Oct 31, 2011 2:37:26 GMT -5
Yes, I certainly wouldn't worry about it much at all.
You can message me if you want to know what the general public's thoughts on NYCOs reputation as a 'news' source are.
I just thought that it was cute that New York Citizen One has taken the time to make you guys a little more 'famous.'
(sorry Dan, maybe next time : ) )
|
|
Dan L
New Member
Facilitation & Logistics Member
Feed the Hungry - Heal the Sick - Clothe the Naked - Comfort the Distressed
Posts: 25
|
Post by Dan L on Oct 31, 2011 3:06:47 GMT -5
I think Jay Smooth Said it best: youtu.be/i9zkQcLi4Yo"Occupy Wall Street! I started out feeling skeptical about this movement and I think there’s still work to be done to make sure as it is as inclusive as it needs to be (Among other things), but I’ve been watching it and going down there and I have to say it is an inspiring scene and I think they are getting a lot of things right. And when it comes to the core it of it, the goals and the messaging, I think occupy wall street is dead on. I think it’s every bit as specific as it needs to be and every bit as non-specific as it needs to be. It’s just specific enough to capture that basic sentiment so many people share and it’s just vague enough to let many different people come to it with many different shades of that sentiment and as it keeps growing and coalescing if certain people keep on professing not to get it THOSE PEOPLE ARE PROBABLY THE PEOPLE WHO WEREN’T SUPPOSED TO GET IT!And that is what I love most about Occupy Wall Street as a media person who loves to watch how we communicate in that sphere. I love occupy wall street for how it manipulates all the news media’s biggest cornballs into outing themselves as cornballs.I love watching them go on and on about how they have no idea about what everyone’s protesting I love to watch them pretend it’s just a bunch of hippies who don’t matter because they don’t dress respectably. I LOVE how when it gets too big for that they start saying it doesn’t matter because it’s a bunch of yuppies who do dress respectably. I love when they say it’s off the mark because the financial sector is mostly in midtown nowadays. Like you really can’t comprehend that this is about what wall street symbolizes. I love when they say it’s off the mark because we should be protesting washington. As if the symbolic wall street’s undue influence on the symbolic Washington hasn’t been a running theme from the start. I love this whole spectacle of everyone scrambling and scraping for ways to pretend that something serious isn’t happening here. It’s like a big game show where everyone competes to see who can build the biggest straw man. And it’s not only fun to watch it provides a valuable service because it reveals to us all who the ringers are in Wall Street’s Three Card Monte Table." - Jay Smooth Just some thoughts. I think Jsmooth is right. Check the video I've posted if you haven't already. We've won. We've won big so far. I mean, we made national news by not getting arrested by APD, but the game goes on. The radical caucus is imperfect, I know. We have a long way to go before we have a group that works well for all people. However, for the time being, I think it's important to have a group that is interested in talking about where we go from here and how to take the radical momentum that we began with and move it in interesting directions because make no mistake, deciding to occupy the park and defy curfew is radical. As my main man, Martin Luther King Jr reminds us, "So the question is not whether we will be extremists, but what kind of extremists we will be. Will we be extremists for hate or for love? Will we be extremists for the preservation of injustice or for the extension of justice?” The GA will still have to vote stuff up and down and the caucus has no real WG proposal power- We'll still have to go through direct action or whatever and testing for consensus means we'll have to set their sights on the attainable and not on lofty goals or ideological grandstanding. As Jsmooth points out- we're entering the phase where the next move will be to co-opt us into the game and make us a part of the shill. I think at the heart of the radical caucus is a desire to avoid that fate. I mean, squatting houses? Repealing curfew and camping laws? Other creative uses of our time and exploitation of legal loopholes? Those things come with risks- with dangers. Make no mistakes, people- We are in uncharted waters. These are things that people will need to come to individual decisions on in regards if they want to participate or even hear such a thing, but if it'll keep us in the game we want to play and out of the game they've been playing for us for long enough for us to get to the issues I care about, I'm prepared to try something a little radical.
|
|
dylan
Forum Coordinator
Outreach Member Media/PR Member
Posts: 374
|
Post by dylan on Oct 31, 2011 8:18:19 GMT -5
This is for New York Citizen One:
|
|
hz
New Member
PR Member
Posts: 188
|
Post by hz on Oct 31, 2011 8:40:25 GMT -5
us vs. them? Re: The political & electoral reform forum: 'One Trot mentioned some alternative ideas and someone suggested he find another forum." I think what accurately happened was that someone mentioned some alternative ideas (not specifically relevant to the thread -kinda like what I am doing, oops) and he was invited to start another -thread- I believe he had an issue with the word 'reform' in the working group title The response was: “Reform - "the improvement or amendment of what is wrong, corrupt, unsatisfactory, etc." The word was inherited from the NYCGA working group, but is not set in stone. IMO it seems accurate, but if you have ideas, maybe start a thread?” Thoughts on interest in finding a common ground of people in the movement? (see attached) Maybe better for a new thread... : ) Attachments:
|
|
benbrucato
New Member
Occupation Member
We are practicing "a politics and a life that are yet to be entirely thought." (Agamben)
Posts: 261
|
Post by benbrucato on Oct 31, 2011 11:15:17 GMT -5
People with a considerable degree of authority in this group have shown they are comfortable personally and publicly attacking people. I do not consider this a safe space for me to be in, or one in which my efforts are respected. I wish the best of luck to all of you who are vested in creating a world without institutionalized authority, and one in which social modes of authority are diminished and routinely challenged.
In solidarity,
Ben
|
|
shage
New Member
Arts & Music Member
Posts: 94
|
Post by shage on Oct 31, 2011 11:33:52 GMT -5
I find the hostility and divisiveness expressed in this thread pretty difficult to understand. It seems like some people feel threatened by a handful of people getting together to talk. Why is that?
Very few of the oppositional posts here have made any concrete sense to me. It just seems like there are a few people who are going for any sort of grab bag reason to oppose people who want to come together to discuss problems they perceive in the way OA is working.
My working hypothesis is that you are doing this because you are exercising a degree of informal power over people, and feel threatened by the fact that people have noticed this informal power being abused to the point of putting the occupation in a position to be co-opted.
Whether you like it or not, whether it is called a caucus or not, the fact is that there are people here who are very inspired by occupy wall street who are dismayed by some of the directions that 'insiders' with informal power have taken things. Enough of these people are dissatisfied enough with the mainstream politics of this group that they felt it necessary to form a place for "radicals" to meet and discuss their perceptions of what is happening. This is going to happen whether you like it or not.
The mere fact that so many people are devoting such energy into silencing this group of people before they have even been able to do anything substantive, merely proves the necessity of this caucus. There are entrenched interests in OA who have no interest in our voices being heard here. The existence of this thread is merely a demonstration of that and further proof of the necessity of this group, which will exist whether or not you like it and in fact will exist in spite of your attempts to silence dissenting voices.
|
|