shage
New Member
Arts & Music Member
Posts: 94
|
Post by shage on Oct 31, 2011 12:04:50 GMT -5
There are no safe spaces. We simply have to make them by confronting and exposing individuals who are bent on profiting from authority. It doesn't mean we will succeed in making a just society, or even a truly decent occupation in our lifetime. However, working to these ends is still valuable whether or not we live to see a preferred outcome or not. Success should be defined in standing for and embodying what one believes in. That is the meaning of being empowered, not whether things work out as we hope.
Personally, I appreciate that Ben has stood there and taken a lot of personal attacks on behalf of those of us who do not feel represented by too large of a degree of the politics and directions that OA has taken. It does take a toll on a person to do that. However, despite that this appears to have discouraged him a bit, it has achieved something in demonstrting that we do have persons here who have entrenched positions and fiefdoms within OA and have serious resistance to any alternative voices cropping up.
There is far too much ego and abuse of the consensus process going on.
For one thing, facilitation working group appears to be a sheltered, privileged enclave. On multiple times I have shown up wishing to participate in facilitation, and the group has not been where they claim they would be meeting. It gives the appearance of being a self-selected group that has an element dedicated to excluding others from their discussions, of what is a critical role and needs to be open to all.
The political and electoral reform and DA working groups are discussing directions which I believe to be entirely inadequate and fruitless. I have expressed no objection to their existence or their right to pursue aims which I find meaningless. But I find it interesting that people with vested interests in other working groups are so opposed to the appearance of any alternatives. Frankly, I am feeling that many of the folks who are most vocal are no better than miniature versions of what many came here to oppose. I feel like you just want a better spot in the establishment and view the occupy movement as providing you some leverage into that position.
I don't understand what the point of camping out in the park is, if it is merely to beg for small changes to the status quo. I do not feel comfortable identifying with occupy albany either because I see people who have been active previously misusing the platform here and sending it in directions I feel are a waste of energy, in fact pre-empting the possibility of any collective expression coming to place.
At this point it is fair to have people meeting to express dissatisfaction with the directions and 'leadership' on display to date. Those seeking to exclude it are more and more clearly not working in anyone's interests but their own. They simply want these voices silenced and submerged into their own pet projects. We should not give them the satisfaction and need to bring occupy albany back to a position of being more inclusive.
Simply because you personally do not feel the need for a particular group of persons who feel underrepresented to meet, does not mean you have the right to stop them from doing so. The fact that you are expending so much energy on it simply provides fuel for people to express what they dislike about the way power is being compartmentalized, hidden, and misused within this movement.
I suggest everyone take a step back from their egos and personal fiefdoms. Personalities are getting way too involved in terms of people controlling or representing particular points of view. The inclusive intentions of occupy are getting obscured in albany, and it gives me the chilling feeling that too many of us here have already been mentally colonized by the establishment way of thinking and doing things. You are missing the point that this is not about your personal role and identity within this movement, it is about inviting more people and identifying common interests.
To the point that any group feels excluded, they should be welcomed to create forums for expression and discussion such as a caucus. There need be no objection to the formation of a large plurality of working groups and caucuses.
The fact is that there are some people here with entrenched interests who are trying to amass personal power through occupy albany. You are misusing this movement, and i believe you don't like the radical caucus because it threatens to siphon away voices and energies that you seek to control. For that very reason, radical caucus should feel empowered to continue meeting and expressing themselves at occupy albany. Your operations have caused the need for a counterweight already, and it is here. The more you try to silence any dissent, the more you simply prove that it is overdue.
|
|
hz
New Member
PR Member
Posts: 188
|
Post by hz on Oct 31, 2011 12:06:56 GMT -5
I'm with you shage.
Also I just wanted to reiterate in public an excerpt of an email exchange that I wrote in response to a private message from Ben earlier today:
Me: “ I applaud your effort to encourage education and directed discussion through the caucus” … "The caucus seems the appropriate place for such discussions. The definition of a caucus as defined by OA is a moot point to me in some aspects, as I think what you are doing is a bonus-added. (unless of course there is some thought that that designation brings some additional 'power')"
(The part I left out in the exchange is my personal concerns with Ben re: gender & authority, which don't need to be aired publicly at this point)
I would hope that a person so obviously committed to change and dedicated to resisting authority as Ben would not be driven away by such things as comments on a forum. There are bigger battles to be fought. There are people here willing to help each other. If we can't weather comments from each other, how can we change the entire course of the nation?
|
|
shage
New Member
Arts & Music Member
Posts: 94
|
Post by shage on Oct 31, 2011 12:28:25 GMT -5
word to that... the bottom line is that the resistance to the formation of any caucus or working group needs to be a red flag to ourselves as to why we feel the need to exclude any particular shared view from organizing. It shouldn't matter whether it is called 'radical' or 'Dr. Seussical'. The fact that we don't personally identify with it shouldn't matter.
As for Ben and hezzie, I have met and like both of you and value your efforts. I am sure I could find points of difference with both of you, but I choose not to focus on that. Inevitably, in bringing together such a diverse group, we are going to encounter our own egos and certain frictions, which come from our previous experiences in an authoritarian system.
However I do believe both of you have your heart and your boots in the right place and hope whatever personal antipathies occurred can be bridged. While Ben is certainly vocal, I hope no one is put off joining a group simply because he took the initiative to propose a group. There are people here who value both your voices and efforts. There was, thankfully, a meaningful contingent of women present at the first radical caucus get together. I can't speak to how they felt their voices represented so far, but everyone spoke and I personally was glad to hear them and would be glad to hear more from other groups.
I likewise agree we need to be thick skinned, but I do find it perplexing, the attacks that were launched in this thread. There is no need to single out a person or group like that simply for making a proposal. It reeks of protecting vested interests and I would hope that is what we all came together to undo...
Perhaps it is inevtiable tht some would form, as that is the way we have been taught to empower ourselves our whole lives. But... aren't we here because we know that system is ultimately disempowering? Why mimic it?
I personally would like to see more and more groups, and more and more fluidity. Groups don't have to exist forever, they don't have to take on a rigid structure or leadership. While taking responsibility for getting certain things done is certainly welcome, we need to make our resources as open and shareable as possible, and rotate leadership so that working groups and caucuses don't take on too much a character of being leverage for particular personalities.
Groups having closed meetings (such as has been proposed for facilitation and sometimes simply enacted) is a backward move tht needs to be brought out into the open. The problem of personalities getting associated with groups is a problem best remedied by the more timid simply stepping up and taking a role. That is what occupy is here for. We need to recognize when we have got ourselves too invested with a particular role and status within this group, and seek to make it easier for more people to step up and rotate through leadership type activities.
Otherwise we are just doomed to be a pale and ghettoized imitation of what we first organized to oppose.
|
|
|
Post by pjoshh on Oct 31, 2011 13:01:42 GMT -5
Ben,
I hope you're not jumping ship on OA. The condescension of some of the activist know it alls here, who are apparently way too smart for discussion or theory, is frustrating. Apparently they've transcended all that Marxist fluff...it's the 21st century, after all.
Still, it's worth staying around.
|
|
dylan
Forum Coordinator
Outreach Member Media/PR Member
Posts: 374
|
Post by dylan on Oct 31, 2011 16:00:09 GMT -5
I want to back this conversation up a bit and to be clear. There have been insults thrown from all sides. I have been called passive-aggressive, a liberal, and if I am guessing correctly, an activist know-it-all. So the slings and arrows are being sent from both sides. I have some questions and critiques of the word 'radical', the use of the caucus format rather then the working group format (I think Matthew expressed these concerns very well so I won't go into it here) and the sectarianism that is not inherent in radicalism but which, in my opinion, is being inserted into it by Ben who is largely responsible for creating this group. My critique of radical theory stems from the quote, often attributed to Fred Hampton, that "Theory without practice aint shit." I don't dislike theory except when it's abstracted from material reality and strategy. Theory can help inform action, but when it's not it's useless. This does not mean I wouldn't want a radical theory group to exist within occupy albany. What I do want is for me and others who are engaged in "reform" politics to not feel like we are walking around with targets on our backs. By way of explanation, I help run the website albanyvotes.org. So not only do I vote, but I maintain a website that is non-partisan; it merely (hopefully) helps people to have access to their local government. I learned a lot of information about how our city government works through a political campaign I was a part of. I and some other members of the campaign (the Albany Chickens campaign), wanted to share what we learned because for me city politics is often more important to our daily lives than state or federal and we have more leverage to change it. This is but one of many projects I work on, but I hope that everyone can see, that when I asked the question "If I vote am I not radical?" I wasn't being passive aggressive, I was wondering if I was going to be a target of the radical caucus for my work. Was I being paranoid? This is part of Ben's second message in this thread: 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. So do I "tacitly approve of the status quo"? If not me then who? How will these people I be dealt with by the radical caucus? It's been suggested that these are illegitimate or passive aggressive questions. That concerns me. Ben didn't want to address my statement that this is inherently sectarian, but I will bring it up again here. I don't see how this could be any more sectarian. Also, since I am making the argument that this caucus, according to the above statement, is sectarian, it strikes me as absurd that I could be accused of being divisive. I am actually trying to prevent a division here, between reformers and radicals. My suggestion is that a more helpful designation could be idealists and pragmatists? I don't know, but what I mean to suggest is that many of us have the same end goal, but different ideas about how to get there. Multiplicity of tactics works both ways. You can't get mad at a reformer for saying you shouldn't engage in direct action and then turn around and say that reformers are for the status quo. In both cases one is attempting to deligitimize the other's tactics. With tactics, or strategies, it's not about right or wrong, it's about effective or ineffective, right? And in that case we should be trying both and seeing what works and not deciding a priori who's right or wrong. Am I worried about being coopted by other groups? Yes but that doesn't mean I am going to preemptively call people out even though they might be at the occupation every day, and even staying over most nights. Finally I also find it hypocritcal that Ben could state the above and still get away with saying People with a considerable degree of authority in this group have shown they are comfortable personally and publicly attacking people. Ben I think you have considerable authority in this group, and claiming that a large part of oa is for the status quo certainly seems not only like a personal attack but also a call for others to join you in outing and villifying them/us. That certainly doesn't help me to feel safe. All this being said, I think this is an important conversation for us all to be having and it would be unfortunate if Ben stopped participating. Ben I would actually appreciate it if you could clarify your remarks and/or dispel any misconceptions I am presenting in regards to your actual views or beliefs.
|
|
|
Post by denmarkvesey on Oct 31, 2011 16:54:44 GMT -5
agree with dylan how much more radical can OA get Ben is just being divisive
|
|
|
Post by pjoshh on Oct 31, 2011 16:55:05 GMT -5
Dylan, my comment was not directed toward you.
I just don't "get" the heat this caucus is taking. You have people in the political reform working group talking about campaign finance reform during the largest, global mobilization of working people in almost 100 years, essentially asking for scraps from the table when we should be demanding the whole meal. In that kind of environment, where clearly there are many who approach this movement as an opportunity for reforms we should already have, there is without a doubt a need for more radical elements to organize.
|
|
|
Post by denmarkvesey on Oct 31, 2011 16:59:25 GMT -5
whatever have your conversations thats all you old left people do is talk we will be busy feeding, clothing and housing ok when you want to do some real work let us know ok
|
|
|
Post by denmarkvesey on Oct 31, 2011 17:35:28 GMT -5
you are attacking people check yourself if you want to be the John Zerzan of Troy NY good luck. I won't follow you anywhere, further I am concerned about your motivations and personally like to see some one trustworthy vouch for you.
|
|
|
Post by pjoshh on Oct 31, 2011 17:50:13 GMT -5
There's a reason activists for years have combined theory and practice. It's simply work with a more purposeful direction.
What do you think my motivations are? The idea of having someone "vouch" for me is absurd and I won't even entertain it.
|
|
|
Post by denmarkvesey on Oct 31, 2011 17:55:41 GMT -5
i was not talking about you
|
|
|
Post by pjoshh on Oct 31, 2011 17:56:33 GMT -5
i was not talking about you Whoops. Sorry man
|
|
shage
New Member
Arts & Music Member
Posts: 94
|
Post by shage on Oct 31, 2011 18:44:51 GMT -5
"What I do want is for me and others who are engaged in "reform" politics to not feel like we are walking around with targets on our backs. "
1) Nothing in the radical caucus proposal states anything like this being a goal of the group
2) No one wants to curb your personal ability to engage in reform politics or even to advocate for it within Occupy.
Instead, what you are seeing here is a dissatisfaction that actions have been taken to push this group in a direction that is very cooperative with existing power structures. The fact that individuals would seek to create a caucus is a sign that actions have been taken that we disagree with. Everyone who is willing to attend a caucus to discuss this is not your enemy. It demonstrates a commitment to work within the loose structures of the occupy movement and the GA. You should be welcoming this, rather than overreacting and painting anyone who wants to be involved as an enemy.
However, if you continue to attempt to block those individuals from coming together or having a voice, you are only going to stifle and splinter this movement. Is that your goal?
It is clear to me that there are a few of you who feel you have established a certain power base in this occupation to leverage as you see fit, and feel threatened by the outbreak of any dissent. The attacks that you "are doing the real work" are a further sign of this alienating mentality. You want to create a hierarchy based on how many nights a person stays or what they contribute? I'm sorry, but that's not what occupy is about. And by those sort of antics, it is you who are making occupy albany an unsafe and unwelcoming space for others. If you actually wanted more people to help, the key would be to allow them to have a voice.
What I see in occupy albany right now is a few people who think they have the right to set up a fiefdom based on how much time they spend there in person. Is occupy albany just a banana republic to be ruled by a few folks who got there first and take actions without consulting the wider group?
If this is what occupy albany is turning into, we would be better off with it wiped off the map than in the hands of a few self-appointed dictators seeking to turn it into a platform for their personal political friends.
Silencing dissent, and claiming to be a more 'legitimate' occupier based on any reason for status, shows you to just be a couple of frustrated dictators. your henchman comes on the boards just to cuss people out and make veiled physical threats. Seems occupy albany is harboring a few frustrated tyrants who have decided who can speak to each other and who can't.
|
|
dylan
Forum Coordinator
Outreach Member Media/PR Member
Posts: 374
|
Post by dylan on Oct 31, 2011 21:49:00 GMT -5
Shage, you said
"Nothing in the radical caucus proposal states anything like this being a goal of the group"
It's true, and I actually have no disagreement with any of the points in the proposal, but then Ben immediately wrote a post claiming that people engaged in reform politics are working for the status quo. Now maybe you believe that's true, but someone telling me that I'm working for the status quo, well that's "fighting words". If someone is saying or thinking that I am working for the status quo then they are saying that I am their enemy. I have not said that people engaging in radical politics are my enemy, but Ben is stating that I am his enemy. There seems to be a sort of double standard here.
I also want to state that i never said that anyone involved in the radical caucus wasn't also engaging in action. I can understand why what I said can be interpereted that way in my earlier posts, but I'll be honest in my earlier posts I was pissed for being called passive aggressive. In my latest post I was trying to suggest that we all have some common ground, that we all like radical theory and it is valuable. Yes theory with practice aint shit, but practice without theory isnt great either. I apologize if I wasn't being careful enough here to make sure I was being clear. Again I will reiterate that I am uncomfortable with the Radical Caucus being a 'Caucus', and it is close to being a blocking type concern for me, but to say I somehow have the power to decide what groups form or do not form is giving me an awful lot of power that I do not think I have. I do have a critique of the radical word but people have critiques and concerns all the time. If there is something somehow different in my style of communication that's leading you to feel like I have this untold power to control which groups do or do not form I'm all ears. Not that it's any of my business but I actually am in full support of a radical political/theory group existing. I think reform people and the radical people can coexist, comingle, cooperate etc. I thought I was quite specific in why I was concerned; it's that one sentence about the status quo and the comment about my being passive aggressive that concerned me. No one on this thread has yet addressed this comment specifically or addressed either of these concerns.
To address your concern about my claiming that people need to be at the occupation or that I'm interested in some sort of pissing contest over who's been there the most I'll just say I think you're way off the mark. I have been overwhelmingly humbled by the work, care and dedication of the people who are at the occupation every day. I consider myself more of a supporter and do the best that I can. For me to suggest that people need to be there in order to have a voice, honestly that would somehow feel disrespectful to the people who are there day in and day out yet hold no judgement of people, like myself, who are doing the most they can.
Finally I do not have any henchman. I'm not ordering or colluding with anyone in real life about what to say on these boards. I am speaking for myself and myself alone. I am trying my best to work through my disagreements here, though I obviously seem to be failing miserably. But please don't assume that what other people say is what I think. I'll say this again I think this is a good conversation to have. I am trying to disagree agreeably and where I am failing I actually hope people can point it out. Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts.
|
|
|
Post by emanuelcervera on Oct 31, 2011 22:41:35 GMT -5
If all of you were real revolutionaries who would not be talking about this garbage on the internet focus on the positive action feeding people taking care of the homeless without one penny of state money, consensus that is improtant. The rest of it is a waste of time.
|
|
|
Post by napoleanbonaparte on Nov 1, 2011 0:12:17 GMT -5
Ben clearly has our best interests in mind. I say we follow his lead. We're lucky to have someone as wise as him in our midst.
|
|
shage
New Member
Arts & Music Member
Posts: 94
|
Post by shage on Nov 1, 2011 1:24:26 GMT -5
Hi Dylan.
I don't oppose anyone spending their time working on reforms. I think having a group working towards more overarching changes is simply a good counterweight. Both tracks can be moving forward at the same time. Most of what I wrote really wasn't directed at you individually but more at the general tone of a number of posts which seemed to be aimed at silencing the formation of alternative points of view... i am against that kind of muzzling or intimidation by any party. if the radical caucus were to behave in that way, i would stand up to oppose it equally.
As for the criticism about someone using time spent/contributions made in the past as a form of status, that wasn't directed at you. Sorry for not being more specific. That was actually directed at our occupier turned troll, who has now sunk to a new low of developing a male and female fake account to continue trolling the boards from. He gives the appearance of being a 'henchman' because he jumped on after other disagreements turned somewhat personal, uses foul language and mockery, implied violence, to control who has a space to interact, and is engaging in turning things from about the group, and ideas, into personal attacks. He seemed to be jumping on the bandwagon and gives the appearance of forming a faction aimed at silencing a group that simply wants to come together and talk. He makes all kinds of implied judgments about their other contributions and whose contribution is more valuable. It's simply tiresome, counterproductive, and smacks of a status and power oriented mindset.
It doesn't matter to me whether you are friends with or colluding with him or not, but the bottom line is that it does not pay this movement anything to turn this into a personal attack on anyone. It is a waste of all our energies. A few dozen people showed up to talk about radical alternatives after the last GA. No one talked about targeting reformers or anyone. Forcing someone to leave by intimidation tactics makes this occupation look like a group of malcontent bullies.
Forget about Ben and any comment you may have objected to of his. The radical caucus is not a cult of personality. If it drew people it's because there were perceived things missing here that people were drawn to address. Rather than make this about one or two people, when there were at least 20 at just the first meeting, make this about how to address those gaps constructively.
To the guy who has a grudge and a mean spirit... knock it off. You are a discredit to all of us. I for one am ashamed to be associated with a group that puts up with your rude nonsense, I don't care how many homeless people you've fed. You clearly feel superior to everyone else. Well, if you keep it up you're going to end up a revolution and occupation of one, the high and mighty you, who is the only one entitled to define what constitutes a 'positive action' versus a 'waste of time.' Get off your high horse and be constructive. You pretend to want people to be more like you, but your inflammatory language is only going to dissuade people from coming to the occupation and helping out. Your behavior on these boards is already proving to be a drain on the occupation. Rather than draw energies in, it's wasted on dealing with your lowbrow attacks and exclusive judgments. You claim to represent the true spirit of the occupation. If this occupation were really about your attitude towards others, I would be the first in line to jump on board with those outside who would like to see it swept onto the next dump truck. This attitude of segregating who is entitled to an opinion and spirit of making things personal is pure garbage. It's demagoguery and frankly many people would rather live with politics the way it is than try to work in the park with someone with such a downright hostile and nasty attitude. Check yourself. You're always questioning everyone else's motivations... have you examined your own lately? They frankly look petty judging from how you present yourself here.
Many of us have taken turns doing work, and the bottom line is that it doesn't matter how many turns anyone has taken, whether they've spent every day doing sanitation work and feeding the homeless or are just coming to occupy today for the first time. Everyone has a right to share ideas and shape the direction of the group. If you feel you're doing too much grunt work, take a break and ask someone else to help out. Attacking people is not going to make people feel safe coming to the site to do the work you are so sure is more valuable and important.
|
|
|
Post by anonanon on Nov 1, 2011 7:22:14 GMT -5
Stepping back and assessing, there is a small yet vocal clique in opposition to the radical caucus formation. It is mostly composed of Dylan, Mike Fitch (and his troll accounts), and Hezzie. On the other hand there were 20 people in attendance at the first meeting if I read correctly. So I encourage the many not to be silenced by the few and to attend the meeting tonight at 8pm. The reactionaries have already proved the need for this group.
|
|
hz
New Member
PR Member
Posts: 188
|
Post by hz on Nov 1, 2011 7:50:01 GMT -5
Hi All,
Just to be perfectly clear, the only thing I posted as to my opinion of the 'worth' of the caucus was:
"Me: “I applaud your effort to encourage education and directed discussion through the caucus” … "The caucus seems the appropriate place for such discussions. The definition of a caucus as defined by OA is a moot point to me in some aspects, as I think what you are doing is a bonus-added."
To be clear. I 110% support this caucus. And would love to attend some meetings.
Sorry if there was any miscommunication.
(11:30 I just removed my comment about 'a certain air of white male authority that is felt from some members' as it has been brought to my attention that it was divisive, too personal, and off topic, which on reflection seems accurate. I was attempting to voice my concern only. )
Onward!
|
|
|
Post by pjoshh on Nov 1, 2011 8:24:09 GMT -5
Being "revolutionary" is about an orientation- that we believe in the transformation, not the reform, of this system. We're not talking about revolutionaries trudging through the Sierra Maestra. It's not about being more hardcore. It's simply about a perspective.
|
|