shage
New Member
Arts & Music Member
Posts: 94
|
Post by shage on Nov 1, 2011 9:20:29 GMT -5
I can't attend tonight due to business out of town. I will bring back news from other occupy locations when I return...
I highly doubt whether Ben and those guys will be there. I think the way this turned into a personal attack and particularly the vitriol of the 'mike fiske' accounts has had an intimidating, chilling effect on his speech and participation. This is not a good development for a group that is often relies on others valuing the 1st amendment.
We need to take a step back and lay out some guidelines for civil discourse online. It is fine to voice concerns about a proposal and even to be vocal about it to the extent that being vocal concerns the ideas and addresses the specifics of a proposal. When it turns into direct personal attacks on a person's character and motivations, that make people feel unsafe and threatened, a boundary has been crossed, and we need to recognize that.
We wouldn't talk like that to each other at GA or in person, so let's model the same level of discourse in our online forums, please. I think the level of anger that ended up getting directed at the proposer of this group was far out of proportion to the actual specifics of the proposal. Additionally, we need to keep our discussions focused on the proposal, not the personality. The latter is a sideshow and results in drama that is unproductive to all of us who are giving our time to this effort.
I do hope some others still get together tonight and can report back to us to some extent on what they discussed.
|
|
|
Post by albionia on Nov 1, 2011 17:54:11 GMT -5
I have followed this discussion since the weekend and my view is this. If the two or three people voicing loud opposition to this proposed radical caucus don't like it, they should not be involved and, quite frankly, butt out of this discussion. They have no authority to sanction this group, as there is no recognized authority in the Occupy movement. Therefore, they have no say over whether or not the radical caucus is formed, what readings are decided upon, what perspectives they reflect, etc.
They also have no monopoly or authority over the defining of terms such as "caucus" or "radical." The narrow definition of caucus proposed at the outset of this discussion (as the exclusive preserve of the socially disempowered) is erroneous and insulting. Stop 'typing' forms of association and taking a paternalistic posture toward others, such a stance has no place in an egalitarian resistance movement. No one asked you to speak for identity groups (genders, POC, etc) or to police the boundaries of what you purport as their special right and status (to form a caucus) by preventing or protesting the formation of a radical caucus, all because you think it constitutes some imagined infringement on the rights of others or abuse of the term. How silly. Anyway that has all been addressed quite eloquently above....
Why these detractors are expending so much energy opposing a radical caucus is truly beyond me. Anyone who dislikes this idea ought to just get off this particular forum board. If you disagree with the consensus, then this group is not for you. If radicals, of whatever variant, want to form a group/caucus, it is their right to do so within the movement. If the radical caucus wants to be recognized "formally" by OA, then I believe the proper procedure would be to bring it before the GA. Whatever Dylan, or DenmarkVessey (?), or anyone else thinks about that is irrelevant, as they have no authority or power over decision making in such matters.
Cheers
|
|
joshred
Forum Coordinator
Media/PR Member Facilitation & Logistics Member
Posts: 242
|
Post by joshred on Nov 1, 2011 21:01:55 GMT -5
+1 for Albionia.
|
|
bw
New Member
Occupation Member Arts & Music Member
Posts: 56
|
Post by bw on Nov 2, 2011 12:07:38 GMT -5
(I realized after writing this it was slightly off topic, more rambling about radical vs. mainstream ideology, other issues in the movement that I see tied to "radicalism" (for lack of a better word), issues of authority and not entirely about whether to have a radical caucus or not........In my opinion no one can tell anyone that they cannot start a caucus of any sort) The need to control the message, structure, groups etc I believe only makes the movement stagnant and impotent. It should be like a seed that is planted and allowed to grow wild, not trimmed, tamed and domesticated..)
Alright, I did not read all of these posts but just wanted to comment on the general topic about a need for a radical voice. I was interested and gravitated towards the "Occupy" movement because I truly believed it was different than other popular movements in the past. I felt it was truly grass roots, horizontal structure etc... possibly even revolutionary, imagine that....
I do get frustrated with the complacency of the movement so far. I am afraid it will be co opted by mainstream democratic views and mechanisms and possibly turn into some sort of non-profit.
We say its a horizontal structure with no leader/s but in actuality a group of people are slowly grasping this movement and running with it and at times seem hesitant to welcome new individuals into the mix. Of course if any wants to get involved in any of the WG’s they can. (On that note, WG meeting times and places should be listed in the open somewhere, possibly at info, of course someone would need to take the reigns on it and do it, possibly coordination WG) When talking to some people there seems to be this assumption that they are "part of the group" and you are not. I think we should all assume that anyone who shows up at the park is just important as we are and speak to them in a way which makes them feel included. I suppose it is human instinct to want to feel important and that you are an "insider" but we all need to check these attitudes at the door. These attitudes are what makes people lose hope, pushes people away from the movement, makes them feel disempowered and eventually extremely aggravated. Especially when the first person you encounter coming into the park (info table) acts in this way. Personally I do not care if its your first day or you have been there from the beginning, if you have extensive experience organizing or this is all new to you. Every single person should be welcomed and feel empowered by this movement. No one should feel lower than anyone or out of "the loop". This I feel in itself is "radical".
The attitude that we need to play it safe, "the APD are letting us stay here lets not ruin it" is not helping. Certain people are becoming hesitant to say or do anything "wrong" by traditional mainstream values. i.e. hang a palestinian flag because it "might offend someone"...This attitude is absolutely ridiculous. If this is the general attitude than "radicals" will feel, once again, that they are not welcome and may be afraid to speak up about their views and beliefs, that do not fall into this sort of tiptoeing around, walking on eggshells, "mainstream leftist" environment. I have noticed other acts of "censorship" and pushing aside of certain issues and views usually from individuals who assume they have some sort of authoritative power over others and their actions. Individuals making certain decisions based solely on their own views and beliefs, In fact I have heard one individual speaking about "censoring" someone. I could mention specific names and incidents but do not want to create controversy. I am not speaking in general about the group as a whole or issues brought up at the GA, more on a personal level with certain individuals.
The WG members need to be rotated and power needs to be checked constantly. I understand there is a smaller-ish group of people who do attend all the GA's and are constantly involved in the WG's and rotating people may be difficult because of the lack of people in attendance. However more people might be involved if they felt welcomed, valued and made to feel important. People need to feel important and involved, not disregarded and brushed away. I think discussions on/about how to talk in a way which makes people feel included would help. Simply saying "hello" to someone if you know them or not makes them feel welcome. We are not all going to be best friends and agree about everything but we can still be inclusive and welcoming.
The fact that last night at the GA a girl had asked at the end if the Radical Caucus was meeting at 8, and what followed that statement? .....silence and a sort of disregard by the facilitators to her statement. In fact the facilitator heard what she said and then just turned around and did not respond to her comment in anyway, as if it was never said. Not paying attention and not repeating via mic check. Then the GA just ended!
So perhaps the "radical" viewpoint is under represented.
Is this a new movement or just the same ole mainstream left movement? I got involved because I truly thought this was an entirely new form of peoples movement not seen in the US since possibly the labor strikes. I am starting to think its turning into the same ole movement of yesterday (at least in Albany)
I do not mean to start controversy or make anyone feel like they are being attacked, this is simply my opinion and how I feel....
|
|
hz
New Member
PR Member
Posts: 188
|
Post by hz on Nov 2, 2011 18:35:00 GMT -5
The fact that last night at the GA a girl had asked at the end if the Radical Caucus was meeting at 8, and what followed that statement? .....silence and a sort of disregard by the facilitators to her statement. In fact the facilitator heard what she said and then just turned around and did not respond to her comment in anyway, as if it was never said. Not paying attention and not repeating via mic check. Then the GA just ended! So perhaps the "radical" viewpoint is under represented. Brian, Just a quick fact check: The GA had already ended at the point of that question. Which may be why no Radical Caucus people spoke up to confirm the meeting time. They may have already dispersed? I don't know. But I do know that I was part of the Facilitation WG that night and personally found out where the meeting was and led the woman (not girl* btw ), and the man with her to the location of where the meeting was to start, where we waited well past the 8pm announced start time. But yet I do agree with many of your other basic points, especially the outreach & 'welcoming' part. Just trying to clarify. -Hezzie ---------------
|
|
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 Nov 2, 2011 19:30:33 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by pjoshh on Nov 2, 2011 20:56:35 GMT -5
I was at the first and second GA when we were in the planning stages. I've been to two GAs since then in the park and have taken part in a few of the planned actions. I'm wondering- how can those sympathetic to this more radical perspective link up outside of the Tuesday evening meetings, which are very difficult for me to attend? I'd like to get to know all of you so we can chat at those intermittent times between meetings. If interested, just PM me and I'll give my email address, unless there's a list for this caucus already in existence.
|
|
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 Nov 3, 2011 12:13:25 GMT -5
We should set up an email list.
I'm wondering who deleted my post on the calendar thread to add our meetings this week. I checked back to it, and it was there for several days. Things had been added to the calendar after I posted it there. Now my post is gone from the thread. More repression by forum coordinators who don't like that this caucus exists?
|
|
dylan
Forum Coordinator
Outreach Member Media/PR Member
Posts: 374
|
Post by dylan on Nov 3, 2011 12:31:15 GMT -5
Ben I have no idea who deleted your post. I do remember not posting it, if it's the same post you're talking about, because it listed only a time and location with no other details. If you are not sure of the format of calendar posts it is at the top of that thread.
I recently got my computer back after it being in the shop for a while so hopefully I will be better able to request more info and post things on the calendar in a timely fashion.
|
|
hz
New Member
PR Member
Posts: 188
|
Post by hz on Nov 3, 2011 12:33:42 GMT -5
I'm not sure if my voice is being ignored by certain people or not, so I will just restate it here. : )
We set up an email list at the last meeting. I am collecting emails at either OccupyAlbanyPR@gmail.com or the better address of Occupyalbanylist@gmail.com
The content will be decided by the group itself. I am happy to put together a newsletter type format on a weekly basis as well.
|
|
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 Nov 4, 2011 9:24:22 GMT -5
Oh, you again! Hi Nancy. It's nice to see you on this forum. Welcome! I love being cyberstalked, having you pop up wherever I happen to be online or otherwise trying to attack my reputation. It's the kind of behavior we as a group should try to foster. I'm glad that you're providing the model for this movement that I am failing so miserably at. Thankfully, there are other people here who witnessed that situation and our conversation. To clarify, I said “I’m not interesting in listening to a middle aged white man after he’s screamed at everyone ‘F*$# you all!’ and threw a sign at someone.” I still stand behind that, and still stand behind my belief that those kinds of behaviors — and especially from someone who is among the dominant group by age, gender and race — should be criteria for exclusion from the occupation, especially in keeping with our Good Neighbor Policy's "Zero Tolerance Policy" against violence (I refer here to his throwing of a sign as someone). Elsewhere you made this argument: I’m also concerned with the way that man was treated. He repeatedly tried to get a consensus on the group marching in the street and blocking traffic. He felt that it was an unnecessary and aggressive act, impacting innocent drivers trying to drive down the street. Several other people were also upset and left the march. He at least tried to bring it to the marcher’s attention. You had no right to tell him to leave and never come back. You said that he acted violently by throwing his sign at someone. His temper flared, but he was no more violent with his actions, then you were with your words.
You have demonstrated the bankruptcy of your politics that would allow someone like him to conduct himself in such a way, that would allow you to justify and excuse his behavior, yet you have identified my words as violence. This is why I have no interest in discussing it further with you. You weren’t interested in anything but demanding his behavior be excused. That’s not something that’s up for discussion with me. You weren't interested in a conversation or dialogue, but of dictating and demanding to me. I can't see any purpose of this continuing, but I know you are content to follow me around online and try to assail my reputation and credibility. I ask that you stop. I especially ask that you not approach me in person. You display threateningly erratic behavior that has me concerned over the degree of self-control you possess.
|
|
shage
New Member
Arts & Music Member
Posts: 94
|
Post by shage on Nov 4, 2011 13:44:33 GMT -5
Mind if i try to de-escalate this? Internal disagreements and conflicts can be useful learning opportunities for all parties, but only if we do not let them get out of hand and become swayed by unproductive emotions.
Nancet, you mentioned that you are 'disgusted' with Ben, and seem to be attacking his very credibility. I have to point out that disgust is one of the least productive emotions and the least prone to being reasonable. I ask that you disavow this statement of disgust. Set it aside and give yourself a chance to know who Ben actually is and give him a chance to hear your underlying concern without feeling that his standing as a person with a voice is under threat. No useful dialogue comes from that sort of stance.
On the other hand, I feel like Ben might be better served by taking these criticisms with a grain of salt and even a dash of humility.
As a third party who does not know either of you personally, but was in the middle of the events you are discussing, I wish to offer a different perspective.
The person (yes, a white man of perhaps his 50s or 60s) who had an emotional outburst, threw a sign, cursed at those assembled in general, and stormed off, was clearly not at his most composed or best moment. I doubt he reflects on that incident as having represented his highest hopes for the day. So, while we can make clear that we don't condone the choice he made, we are better served by giving him the benefit of the doubt. Yes he was extremely out of line with what we ask and expect of participants in this movement. If he didn't like the suggestion being made, he had the option of giving reasons why an action should not being taken or even blocking consensus. He chose to take a rash, hurtful action instead, and I think we could all find consensus in wishing that he had stuck to the patient and agreement based process.
Ben had what I take to be a gut reaction to this outburst. Being that the person who took the action looked to be an older well fed white gentleman, Ben, perhaps unwisely included that in his vocal criticism of the behavior. In fact, it does not matter who had acted like that. It would have been out of line with our movement's standards regardless of who acted that way. It goes against everything about consensus, patience, nonviolence and tolerance that makes this movement as a whole so good. And I think we hope that everyone would make a commitment not to act like that, and that if they do, they would make a commitment not to do so in the future if they wish to continue participating.
There may be some tenuous connection between the privilege someone is used to experiencing and a tendency to get frustrated with consensus, have an outburst and storm off. Who knows, but it wouldn't be surprising. Still, it was an action taken by an individual and so our concern is with how to treat that person rather than to classify them and use demographics as an explanation. Mentioning that he was an 'old white guy' is dangerous in this sense in that it creates the risk of prejudicing ourselves against a different kind of out group. This is counterproductive and will only lead to more resistance than we need to face towards accomplishing our goals.
**I hope we can all sympathize with Ben for wanting to draw attention to how unacceptable this behavior was and that there needs to be some kind of consequence when a person takes sudden actions that do not represent the group, while participating in a group action like a march. It needs to be discussed and the person(s) responsible to be accountable for what they did, to the group as a community. Otherwise if they are not willing to function as part of a community, including being accountable for violating its principles, they have no place taking part in the group's activities.**
So I do think Ben was speaking too strongly and from his gut when he said 'that person should never be allowed back.' I commend Ben for standing up for the group's principles and against people taking uncontrolled outbursts without their propriety being challenged. However, the key is not to permanently exclude someone when they violate a boundary, but instead to cause them to be accountable. To bring to public light what happened, why it happened, and to form an agreement about how they can participate more constructively in the future, should they still feel they wish to belong to the group.
So I do think that Ben's point could be more effectively handled with a dash of moderation, and perhaps a recognition that not all of his instinctive reaction to the behavior reflected his entire intentions.
But coming on the board and using the notion of a person as 'disgusting' and aiming to undermine their credibility does absolutely no good. In calling someone disgusting, you are engaging in the same kind of ostracism you claim to be standing up against, so it's self-defeating. You may have had a valid criticism we could have benefitted from discussing, but stigmatizing a person and assailing the legitimacy of their voice only detracts from any good that can come out of such an interaction. I suspect you can probably be more articulate in terms of sensing how you are actually feeling and a providing a reasonable sense of what you took objection to that others can relate to. As it is, it just seems like you are making allegations about one person's behavior out of context and are out to tarnish that person. It's counterproductive. Let's all get back on board together and focus on concrete actions taken rather than personalities.
Everyone should be heard, and not being aware of and controlling emotions like shame and disgust, or on the other hand, feeling threatened and defensive, only derails us from that process, which is the underlying purpose of our coming together in these places.
I wish all to be welcomed and valued here. No one should be ostracized unless they choose to remove themselves, by openly refusing to adhere to consensus and the agreed upon norms of this community. Everyone is perpetually welcome so long as they are willing to abide by the minimal agreements we have formed (which are fluid and remain perpetually open to discussion and change). No one is disgusting, ever. We may not agree with all of each other's choices, but all of you will always be beautiful. We are all trying to express our greatest hopes here and that is to be commended. Let us remain patient and on the side of reconciling with each other as quickly and frequently as possible. Impatience and frustration within is not going to bring about changes in the world at large any faster.
|
|
|
Post by dreadrea on Nov 5, 2011 11:28:04 GMT -5
not sure if this has been discussed here.. i am usually onsite, and don't get internet access... our meeting times in person are tuesday and thursday evenings 8pm at academy park, currently in the octiganal tent nr the info booth. anyone who shows up near the info booth at those times will hear an announcement as to the location for the evening incase it happens to change!! we mike check our meeting time announcements, so it will be heard. the people in the park do not have the opportunity to voice on the proboards, and it is important to show up in person to get a sense of the voices on the ground there. please keep a conciousness that those folks do not have the same advantage to hear proboard voices or to voice on proboards.
|
|
|
Post by dreadrea on Nov 5, 2011 11:31:25 GMT -5
meeting minutes (please advise by calling me if i should be posting minutes elsewhere!! 212-810-7597.
PLEASE FORGIVE ANY INCOHERENCIES IN THIS REPORT.. MINUTES WERE TYPED FROM PRINT. I HAVE THE ORIGINAL PRINT, AND AM SURE SOMEONE ELSE WHO WAS THERE COULD MAKE IT MORE COHESIVE, SO FEEL FREE TO RETYPE, PLEASE??
Meeting Notes Radical Caucus Occupy Albany Nov 1, 2011 How/ why are we here? how are we going to change this system? focus on refrain of 99% inbalance of distribution of wealth. Accessible to peopple's understanding waking up to exploited system exploitation of envir/people, lessok when less exploititive, byt neccessary approach root problem, use model of not ? creat forum- intro range of issues create core talk of local community action, highlighing in place activism using our media talk of specific demands community action teach in-s radical alternatives- what we're for participatory economics/ economic cooperative radical- move away from demands- we have what we need organized labor teach ins 1. connection 2. educatiojn 3. action vagueness vs. anbiguity, let issues evolve demands will come eventually/ global problemwe have issues, , this is a growing period break through capitolization educate on local action publication? occupied albany- info table-- distribute, have column mailing list up by wednesday reaching those who care innovative creative "The Great Turning" - inward/outward accountability in the way we act during occupation realized in covo with direct ? radical idea- try to be involed in all aspects/ naming occupation, sleeping here, cleaning here using transparency and economic budgeting to be examples of our vision and highlight prior/ in place movements/ ways. reforming behaveior is allowing us to react to redefining what it means to be human w with invavor- little groups already exixts- do things differently.
root of the problem, outreach- inclusive, how radical ideas resonate propose 1. name 2. refelect {developing our own reaction} discussio initiative- not just decion making in ga started- bad exonomy/ income inequality is not acceptable
|
|
|
Post by dreadrea on Nov 5, 2011 11:46:08 GMT -5
Radical Caucus Meeting 11.03.11 (NOTE: NAMES WERE INCLUDED IN SOME OF THE NOTETAKING. THAT VERSION IS AVAILABLE, AND WILL POST IF AGREED ON. SORRY TO THE NOTETAKER, BUT ONLY HAVE TWO SECONDS TO DECIDE TO GET THIS UP HERE!!) this is about relationships- reintros why we are here participatory economics filmmaker media outreach homeless people getting to know one another highlighting functioning democratic egalitarian systtems animal liberation outreach educatiojn concencus action and how radicalism resonates with that the take naiomi klein occupy the park, take back business alternative economies, go slow and meet people we don't know historic examples abolition movement weren't willing to comormise and practicing tat extemism, critical now for future our children, currently
incaple of funtioning for better world, using this to practice legislation getting too much energy here, capitolism is the problem it cannot be reformed, go back to the beginning, middle class is tasting injustice,
but we need to address energetic principals of designhs, energy neutral buildings and personal systems, very deep entological questions need to be asked and answered by us
and the whole world people shouls dhare ideas for sustainable world, cross disciplother occupations locally and accross county on same page want to see them connect
more and movement catch on ines conversations basic unit of chaqnge radical change, it's not going to be solved with electoral promises, away from devide and conquer. we need everyon'es participation, the whole 99%
using our current resources and tools, we can stay committed and do it, stay strong over the long haul through the resistance that will come from
power want to get off couch and come talk, not sure but want to bounce ideas to both narrow and expand ikdeas about time to be the change, why sit around, become stronger georgia is facing hardship, we need to take care of ourselves, why is it radical to stand up and say we want a world worth living in ie- chickens and
goats not ok here in albany city, not radical, this is survival, discussion about getting back to skills that sustain us in the community, this is class
oppression
particular initiatives more radiccal teach in's, put on calendar, paticipatory economics participatory budgeting in camp and for outer community there has been a common thread of vigilance and having lasting change ways of being, how we do model change and demand it in the world, ith's totally connected one fo the faults of mainstream moements is pushing an agenda sentiment- we can get out of patterns, be creative in examining and doing structures in shared information don't want to see division, but healthy
critisisms we should find our points of unity, as a caucus, what are our points, what do they mean, and how much unity exists on those points, and how do we
practice those principletemp check on the point of anticapitolism- comments- the system in place doesn not work, prison industrial complex, corporations are people, voting rights power should be horizontal question of what is capitolism- it is technically based on the ability to profit, profit allows exploitation to go forward. not against capitolism, but isms in generl. pro empowerment and developing people's capability to undertand theri postion in the worlkd, and truty
from dogma pro diversity and the ability for everyone to function as they see fi against large scale post industrial capitolism, don't know what else their is, not exposed, this is why i am here. it is a necessity to go beyond because
capitolism is failing as a system, against depersonalizing forces, eaurocracyies. if scoety is economy plus politics, we have that.. gift economy and gs is democratic assembly, break stranglehold on myopic view of economy, we can
pass to succeeding generations it is easier to say what we are for than against. points of unity can come around building a model that does work, as we learn, we can use or not use.
because this is happening around country (personal idea------------ models that work taken from seana's point) its possible for people to identify as cells, but the movement is ? politics is done through being for or against something, political science is done like
that.. agains mass society and global systems, but i don't think we can find unity. but we can say capitolism is estructive to our communities and
needs to end. it's important to ask ourselves important questions. on what grounds do you support capitolism with the understanding of the inevitable relationship
betwweeen capitolosm and exploitation. likewise examine how we support or examine our democratic assemblys. when i was asking questions as a
youth li, we need to aks ourselves why this is still happening? on what grounds do we have this? i wonder if the occupy movement will work, i don't know if we, our generations feel the sense of desperation, we have our i-phones and our
apartments, how much are we willing to give up to live this radicalism. the most common ground pro capitolism is "there is no alternative" juztaposed against heirarchal communism. want to articulate the economic
alternatives, pb. how we want to identify as caucus, vs. how we go forward. laying out the alternatives. just using anticapitolism otherwise excludes
many through connotation and lack of understanding of how economies function. opposed to limiting behaviour, concerned about limiting behavior against the caucus represented through online coments anti capitolism is at it's liiots, and concerned with conserving resources.. overlap- we want a revolution but the first project is going to envolved education an d conciopus ri am waring thrings from capitolism, it is hard to , i
am trying to transistion and prepare, i am forced to live in it. the system exploits and givess priveledge, want to see the same opportunity to all born anti capitolism, getting off the grid, disconnecting from things that drain your soul. we are born in th esystem and need to reawaken "this isn't right"
so many distractions on tv that take you away from these conversations and real life. it's a system of confustion. live in harmony. bringing it back to
living and dwelling on hthis planet and coexisting activist from 80's , know's friend gay killed himself, mother has alzeimers capitolism isn' thelping. having to live in garages, etc has been a reality. the
powers that be make you fel crazy because it is the staus quo. they are renting us as slaves, legalize hemp will help get rid of deficit, grow our own
food, make our own clothes. don't need ipod. (we should move tent to hear one another.) system is dehumanizing becuae you have to rent yourself to someone, it is like being owned. it is funtamentally wrong. people are intelegent, need
means, ie supplies. as a community if we decided, we could do amazing things, ie build a carbon free city. massa action will not work. agains a small or large group telling everyone how to live. ie if someone bays a thte moon, that's fine for them.. what we
do should work from each other. identify the capitolism system we wound up, skeptical about whether any incarnation could work, but don't know. system is going to collapse. want
to come together and prepare for that that collapse and moving forward.
good that we took the time to go around like this, beneficial, uncomfortable with the idea of 'towing a line' - she left CANY cus she was unhappy with
the reformist approach of that org - felt this was a radical step and that she can be radical without enforcing homogeneity. Does not understand why
we have to replicate the way we do politics ie partisanship
nobody can say what is good for everyone - if u do that it is portraying authoritarian vision of what things should be. feels this really should mean how
we define what we stand with eachother around. Slavery as example - the line was drawn as either for slavery or against, no debate on that issue. We
should collectively draw this line somewhere, wherever we decide as a group. What are we absolutely not willing to accept. By doing politics this way
we can negotiate - band together as group with common interest. If we act as a group which can draw in everyone we end up helping to preserve the
system.
agreement that at some point we have to come to agreement on goal or what we stand for or against suggestion "exploitation" is the idea we stand opposed to.
abolition example is compelling - likes how ben framed partisanship and wants to draw a line against capitalism. Still does not want to pset us against
any possibility of steps or process. Ex: millionaires tax, a reformist step but important to fight for altho it is not fundamentally going to alter
capitalism. Does not think thisis inconsistent with his opposition to capitalism. Should not ignore this issue or others even tho they are 'reformist'.
can carry over to other issues such as corporate funding of elections and other policy fights. these fights can also be radicalizing for people.
Someone says important to stand up against those things but they never worked - take iraq war protests as example. Not sure these tactics can ever
work.
may be contradicting herself now but she agrees cus she spent 9 yrs doing that work - frustrated cus of defensive posture and never having a long term
vision. Felt a lot of energy was always being spent on the defensive fights. Thinks maybe energy going into milliionaire tax can drain us and other
groups will do that work. Feels we sparked the revolution and not reformist strategies and maybe we should continue doing this.
Someone does not know what kind of line ben is proposing - maybe radicalism is a realization of the things we rely on and the empowerment from
seeing we dont need them - personally does not drink or smoke and this is a refusal she finds empowering and everyone may have such examples - are
there things we all agree on we can resist. capitalism is too amorphous how can u define it.
PS meeting coming up maybe we should break.
agrees lot of energy going into legislative process and is OK supporting but thinks energy there is draining and it can go to other places. She actually
wants to raise new topic: going back to off grid involves giving up tools are available now such as computers...nevermind? lol
recap on agreement - 1st issue: limits of lifestylism, ie personal changes we make can they evewr change anything. Studies tech at RPI. we are part of
existing systems that require certain inputs from us and these systems integrate us into communities. to withdraw from them means we also withdraw
from society and hurt ourselves. catch 22. radical purpose is to reorganize society so our systems are fulfilling and not destructive of ourselves or
community. capitalism or hatever system destroys us. withdrawal does not do much to hurt the system in a world of 7B ppl. acknowledges the
concern but wants to suggest against it. 2nd - strong demand for participatory democracy broadly - a world that functions thru participatory
democracy, a strong statement. We would have to go back a long time to have an example of sucha system. This is radical - more radical than
'anti-capitalism'. 3rd - need to raise consciousness and bring our principles to occupation community. Happy with the concern over resource
depletion - local self sufficiency and self reliance balanced with interdependence. 4th - feeling we are anticapitalist but doesnt know what it means.
Capitalism is an ideology and it exists for the capitalists but as a system in pure form it has never existed and never will. Idea of addressing it as
exploitation of labor is important, also abolishing private ownership of means of production. Also others suggest abolition of division of labor as idea
of abolising capitalism. we can articulate this idea of being against exploitation, division of labor, private ownership of MOP. if we articulate it
correctly we can gain a lot of traction. this movement can have BIG impacts, perhaps in may 68 scenario and we should not limit our vision.
Agreement on dont limit our vision of the possible. FYI may 16th was uprising in france which was revolutionary fundamentally.
add to list what we are doing, what we are practicing. This is what makes occupy special we are not just talking but doing.
uncomfortable with unifying under that cus wants to say what we are for, pro-this. As for models, we have a lot to work on if we want to serve as one
maybe model is one we are learning how to do what we believe in but at least we are doing things.
camp is a fine example.
quick final thought. students and labor coming together. NYSE, out of SUNY and CUNY system. around privatization of public educational
institutions. in 2 months a lot of momentum and committment. labor is radicalizing, students radicalizing. looks forward to tuesday (departs).
danger about being too ideological. at first wanted 'revolution' and opposed to any compromise on strategy but then sees importance of small fights.
organizations which it is in their nature to coopt the movement. we should let them work on it and we can do other work, put our energies into the
fundamental areas. those organizations are not anti-capitalist. We should always bring the messsage back to the vision we want to work towards.
Planned parenthood as example - can not be revolutionary but is important in their issue. They will get their people out we should not spend double
enewrgy there. We can support but we have to do this.
statements of principle but now statements of strategy being spoken about. seems he is hearing that we should not abandon those campaigns and
groups, but leave them up to the professionals and support them, show up, and use them to radicalize the others who attend.
working on leg process or not - we have a setup with staging ground and media people will come to us if they want support. all that needs to happen is
for papers to say 'OA showed up to this'.
first week - actions against Cuomo and state. it is not about that. need to not let it get diverted. OWS focused on the problem not the decision maker,
which allows decision maker to come to us. Press can turn us into that but we should not be.
Ben will try to synthesize what hes heard and see what points of unity may be for further discussion. identify common grounds for fixing, fleshing out,
etc. This is NOT a final anything. statements of unity/principles/strategy give us a sounding board for how we address issues as they come along.
thinks we need to address issue of decriminalizing homelessness or prison poulations. these are not reformist - these are revolutionary and
liberationist. we should develop some common grounds in this vein to say what we are about. these statements resolve miscommunication.
make bullet points of what we want to address next mtg, not unifying statement.
Time for next meeting: tuesday at , will adress future meeting times there.
|
|
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 Nov 5, 2011 20:15:19 GMT -5
Thanks to Shage and Nancet for the above.
I'd like to admit that I overreacted. In thinking back on the scenario, I was not able to emotionally parse out a few different things that bothered me.
First, there was the scenario of an apparently affluent, 50-something white, male behaving in a very agitated and aggressive way, demanding the group conform to his understanding of how the movement should operate.
Second, he then screamed "F#&$ you all!"
Third, he then threw a sign.
Fourth, I called out his behavior, and I was the only one to do so.
Fifth, when I called out his behavior, I was confronted by many who confronted me for the way I called him out.
Up until recently, I haven't really paid attention to the last two as being major influences in the emotional way in which I have responded to this situation. I now realize that those latter two items were and still are a major reason for why I was so angry. And that's why I reacted to Nancy the way I did - because her response really hits on these last two points: 1) because she rationalizes his behavior, thus making the case that his behavior should not have been called out; and 2) because she identifies my reaction as more problematic than this man's behavior.
I still feel the same, but wish I would have teased apart all this stuff better in the moment and conducted myself differently.
In parsing out all these various issues, I see the last to be the most problematic:
What effectively has happened is that someone in multiple locations of privilege aggressively asserted it and I aggressively retaliated. The aggressive retaliation was confronted by several people as problematic. No one else seems to have taken the other person's behavior very seriously -- at least not seriously enough for my level of comfort.
I am certainly biased, because I am effectively rationalizing my own behavior which was to some degree unprincipled and problematic. However, I am concerned that an overreaction to someone's aggressive assertion of their privilege is being handled with more time and analysis than this person's behavior. I am certainly open to these criticisms and agree that I did not conduct myself with the level of principled behavior that I expect from myself and others. However, I am not aware of any one of the hundred or so people who witnessed this man's behavior engage him in a public criticism session that I think is deserved (in keeping with the Criticism/Self-Criticism guide I posted earlier in the week on this sub-forum).
So, again, thanks to Shage and Nancet. I hope this doesn't appear as an apology with a forked-tongue. I absolutely agree that I could have handled this situation better, and am sincerely sorry that I generated undue tensions.
In solidarity,
Ben
|
|
shage
New Member
Arts & Music Member
Posts: 94
|
Post by shage on Nov 6, 2011 0:16:00 GMT -5
Just to be clear, I don't think you did anything wrong in the incident itself. While I personally felt your sentiment of excluding the guy may have been too harsh a sentence to call for, I have no problem with the fact that you spoke up and suggested that the group have a response to his behavior.
I'm sure no one engaged him in a criticism session simply because he expressed his intention to walk away as if he were not coming back. Given that he did not actually hurt someone in throwing the sign I think most people were simply content to let him leave, even though he had obviously acted like a jerk.
I also don't disagree with your observation that he was an older white male and thus having access to certain privileges, and that there may be a correlation between that and his behavior. You brought that up in a side conversation after. I just don't think its necessary to relate it in our critique since we should have the same set of responses for jerk-ish behavior wherever they occur. So what I was really trying to say is that I think you were making very appropriate points, but can see where Nancy or someone else might get upset abut these details, that were not really central to what it seemed you were trying to say. I just wanted to clarify.
Anyway at this point I think the incident has probably got more attention than it deserved. I'm glad things have de-escalated. I hope you feel safer and we see you back in Academy park soon - have missed you there.
|
|
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 Nov 6, 2011 0:44:15 GMT -5
Thanks, Shage.
I was out on Thursday for the RC meeting and will be back on Tuesday again. I would have been there today, but Occupy Troy was meeting for the first GA, and since I live in Troy, my responsibilities are here first.
Interestingly at the Troy GA, there was a woman who was very insistent on the need for a revolutionary vision, to have a WG much like this caucus, and to actively challenge reformist tendencies. There were also a few instances in which some very keen critiques of white privilege were discussed, and people were challenged for their language very directly, particularly by a woman who I just met today.
Were you able to attend any of the occupations while you were away? I'd love to hear any report backs that you have.
Cheers, Ben
|
|
shage
New Member
Arts & Music Member
Posts: 94
|
Post by shage on Nov 6, 2011 10:51:30 GMT -5
This conversation is going beyond the point of any relation to the specific event and is blown way out of proportion.
Than man in question excluded himself by his own behavior, which was antithetical to the nonviolent and consensus based processes. In this case, Ben's comments had nothing to do with any action taken with respect to the man, because he'd already excluded himself from the conversation by storming off rather than engaging in dialogue or assembly procedure.
No one "took license to dismiss his concerns". He dismissed his own concerns by leaving and refusing to share them with the assembly in a way that they could respond constructively. Your critique is going way overboard.
Bringing this supposed issue of discrimination against white males to the entire board's attention doesn't resonate with me. As someone who is actually present at the occupation a lot of the time, I have seen plenty of individuals who would fall into the older white male 'classification' and there is no evidence they are discriminated against. Yes, ideally we would not even notice these things about each other. But prejudice against older white males is really not an issue at the occupation. Your issue is with a comment made by one younger white male. Why not simply resolve it with him, with mediation if necessary, rather than take over an unrelated thread with this subject? You are making it out to be an issue for the entire occupation or the caucus. Well, Ben doesn't represent the caucus or the entire occupation. Many people reading this and involved in it were not even there. Please take your personal issue with Ben to a more appropriate forum and stop acting as if it represents a widespread form of discrimination against whites. That is demonstrably untrue.
If you want me to believe that you're really out to see the occupation succeed, let me see you do something tangible to support it. I haven't seen you at the occupation doing anything since the march. The only place you have showed up is online to defame one individual. It's overkill and if you're really a friend of the occupation you owe it to us to resolve this issue privately with Ben and not blow it up into something which derails more productive discussions and work for more people than necessary. The way in which you are actually acting is disruptive. The issue of prejudice against white older males is a complete non issue which anyone who actually is present at the occupation on any kind of regular basis would know. Drop this and focus on doing something actually helpful to show us your good intentions. And keep matters like this in perspective, please.
|
|
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 Nov 6, 2011 11:08:16 GMT -5
I'm glad the conversation went here. It has brought out the external motivations of the critique. This discussion exposes the importance of addressing the issues in the "How, when and why to make and take criticism" article I posted here, and the "Whiteness and the 99%" article here: www.bringtheruckus.org/?q=node/146I'm glad that our movement is inclusive and that there is a place here for Nancy. Occupy Albany should be open to people who espouse "left colorblindness," but it should also openly challenge tendencies toward advancing "white democracy." However, in my opinion, these politics are antithetical at a very fundamental level to anything this caucus should be about. Perhaps if and when we do a teach-in on "left colorblindness" and "white democracy," issues like these can be addressed with the broader group. I don't think we should be distracted from our internal work as a caucus with such discussions. I see this as a perfect example of what I was trying to address on Thursday with the "dividing line": there are certain issues that we, as a caucus, should be united on and where discussion is off the table. This should be one of them. It doesn't mean that Nancy shouldn't participate in Occupy Albany, and it could even mean that Nancy could participate in the caucus itself. However, I don't think that this issue is open to debate in this caucus. This is, I think, is one of those "block and leave, or stand aside" scenarios within the caucus. And most importantly I think it addresses our need to find our points of unity as a caucus so that such issues are clear to all of us: what is and is not open for discussion -- basically, what issues are we, as a united caucus, settled on? (It does not mean that we would not discuss them with people or in the movement, but in the appropriate time and place.)
|
|