Nov 1st meeting

[hz]

Hi All!

I came back home all excited about the 'caucus' meeting tonight. (or whatever the group decides to call it) Some great energy there. It really feels like the heart of what Occupy Albany is all about. If Jenny or Daniel have notes, I'd love to have them posted. I took some, but I know I also missed some really great points.

Personally I really zeroed in on Dave's steps to a revolution:

1.) Outreach
2.) Educate
3.) Act

...and the woman who cooks at the Furnace (Susy? sorry I forgot if that was your name or the woman next to you) idea of demonstrational local action within our community.

And it made me think of the definition of 'demonstrator' not in the contemporary sense in relation to the idea of 'protesting' but rather in the idea that, along with our interest in fixing the -fundamentally- broken system, is that we are also demonstrating how we would like things to be done.

We are more than just 'occupiers' more than 'protesters.' We are 'demonstrators' in the truest sense of the word.

[anonanon]

glad you went hezzie, wish I could have but had to decide against at last minute due to falling behind with other work. Will definitely be tehre for Thursday (still on?) as my schedule is freer then.

[Ryan R.]

After my experiences with the group on the evening of last, I believe that the caucus is in need of a seriously focused restructuring so as to order it into a structure capable of functioning as an effective group.

Last evening, we operated without any elected chair, without topics of grounded discussion, and without any actual cohesive direction. I should like to point out that the point of a caucus is for a collection of like minded individuals to form into a group with the intent of, in this case, forwarding a political agenda. We've no need for and we should not allow liberal provocateurs to engage in openly declared acts of espionage and sabotage in a group which supposedly aims to establish itself along the lines of radical politics.

We are suppose to be the radical wing of this movement, the people who will bring serious political questions into discussion from a concisely radical standpoint. Instead of even voting on a list of very basic demands, demands which would raise the level of discussion at the protests dramatically by challenging premises not currently being challenged by many, we simply set out to have a carefree orgy of wishy washy self satisfying liberal nonsense.

I would ask the members of this caucus the follow questions. Who among you is opposed to the demand that every worker be paid a fair wage for their labors? Is there anyone willing to oppose the concept of universal healthcare, housing, or education for every member of a society, regardless of their wealth or their class privileged? Who here would honestly advocate for anything other than a society governed by the laboring masses, the majority upon which this corrupt system is dependent upon?

If but one member of this fraudulently titled 'radical' caucus stands against the interests of the aggrieved classes of labor and along side the forces of capital and its corrupt status quo of oppression, then I will gladly abandon this group without any lingering thoughts.

When the worker gets off of a 10 hour shift of subjugation to the burden of wage slavery, to the degradation and humiliation of forced toils under the boot of the capitalist boss, they do not want to be lectured on the merits of consensus or progressive stack in a tent comprised almost exclusively of petty bourgeois youths and a suffocating aura of liberalism, they want a concrete program of action though which to better their state. It is nothing short of sheer pretension on our behalf to think that we can perpetuate such a group without any political agenda and without any political unity. Sure, so we can all have a few flowery conversations about the wonders of liberalism in a tent, but where is the actual practical use in such? The worker has not the time for such frivolous and nebulous folly, and we need to recognize that if anything substantial is to come of this movement.

I harbor no delusional thought that this caucus or this movement will become any sort of organizational vanguard of revolution, but at the same time that should not preclude us from encouraging dialogue within the working class which will actually be of some relevance to their interests.

Nothing will be achieved by a policy of active isolation from the currents of the class struggle, and such is the current position maintained by this caucus at the moment. We need to position ourselves on the front lines of the fight for a better future, and that is not going to be done through aimless and unguided discussion and political action.

[napoleanbonaparte]

Yeah, people need to get in line. A little less conversation a little more action.

[Ryan R.]

Nov 2, 2011 12:40:38 GMT -5 napoleanbonaparte said:

Yeah, people need to get in line. A little less conversation a little more action.

I could not agree more.

If we simply took a minute to democratically elect a chairperson and to adopt an agenda designed with the intent of bringing forth a collection of votes centered around the task of outlining a political platform, we could already have an effective and potent radical organization in a prime position to set out to the objectives of developing the class consciousness of the working class.

[benbrucato]

I wasn't at the meeting, so I can't say I agree or disagree with the claims being made here. However, I would say that unless this person is stark raving mad, and unless his or her impressions are completely off base, then this is a serious concern.

I think the strategy of the caucus at this time should be this:

1) Gaining agreement that the caucus is explicitly an anti-capitalist group, and that this movement expresses (though not explicitly) aims that are essentially contrary to capitalism. We should agree that this movement will only be successful if it challenges the notion that "a more ethical capitalism" can "save this country." This dubious message has been readily promoted and carried within this movement and must be openly challenged. Those who believe this should be welcomed in the occupation and to participate. However, this message should not be the only one projected.

2) Gaining agreement that the caucus is composed of individuals who explicitly aspire to revolutionary aims. By that, I mean that we seek -- not exclusively through this movement -- to challenge at a fundamental level the existing institutions, and do not offer any legitimacy to them. Additionally, by revolutionary, we would mean the reestablishment of our communities on fundamentally new bases. The world we want looks nothing at all like this one. We might not even be able to imagine it at this point, but we reject this political and economic system in its entirety. Some of us (most revolutionary communists and socialists) might believe this would entail the seizing of the existing institutions so as to transform them. Some of us (most postleftists and anarchists) might believe that this movement itself is creating a microcommunity that operates in parallel to the existing society as a functioning alternative to the institutions which govern and dominate society. We need not agree on those latter points in their entirety.

These two points are fundamental positions. Without agreement on these, we have no basis from which to move forward. We also need to affirm and commit to a truly direct democratic structure and use consensus-building. At the same time, we should have a mission and points of agreement; those who do not fit within this vision will likely frequently block proposals, and since the block would mean they would leave the caucus if the proposal goes through may need to be overridden and that person leave the caucus. Blocking on principles that are contrary to the caucus should have an obvious response.

I also believe that these two above principles are not enough.

We should also begin discussion on these items below. This movement needs to be fundamentally challenged with regard to the expression that "we are taking something back," by addressing:

3) This is not a middle class movement. The middle class did not build this country. This is a movement against those accumulating and controlling capital. This Empire was build by chattel slavery and by the working class, many of whom have been second class citizens or less (i.e. migrant labor). This is not a country, but the locus of an Empire, that is sustained through colonialism abroad and internally. Those who provided the labor to construct this system have never had anything that we are "getting back." The people who are trying to "get something back" are those who would aspire to be our bosses, to exploit migrant labor, to maintain their affluence through exploited labor here and abroad. In this system, there are the elite (the 1%), the exploited (mainly the working class), and the excluded (those hidden at the margins, the unemployed, the homeless, migrants, etc.). This movement has been framed in ways that are relevant only to a segment of the exploited -- mainly middle-class professionals.

4) The public spaces we are "taking back" are on lands that were colonized through a process of genocidal warfare. This was Muh-he-con-neok land, the land of a people all but wiped out, dispersed, dispossessed and disenfranchised. We do not just need to reclaim a commons, but to decolonize our communities and challenge the ongoing genocide against indigenous peoples here and around the world that continues to be a vital part of maintaining the economy as it exists today. Most of us are settlers, and we have the mindset of the settlers when we talk about "taking back" public spaces without also challenging colonialism.

5) The prison system is an extension of this colonial system. 1 in 100 are incarcerated, and 1 in 31 are incarcerated, on probation or on parole. 43% of those who leave prison will be back in within three years. This predominantly impacts people of color. The policing of communities of color fits within a continuity of a history that goes back to slavery. For these reasons, we should aspire to abolish prisons and end police brutality. Intermediary goals might include direct democratic community review boards with authority over prisons and police; disarming police forces; etc. Additionally, close relationships between the occupation and the government / police need to be critically engaged and in all but the most extreme cases disallowed. Sending a message to our community about these cozy relationships conveys a very troubling message. Police and politicians who want to address us should do so at the occupation, over the people's mic, and at a time broadly announced with significant notice. There should be only rare exceptions to this and in response to extreme circumstances.

6) The criminalization of homelessness is the most vulgar expression of the violence of private property. We are subject to curfew and camping laws in part designed to criminalize those without homes. We chose to occupy this space, while others haven't such a choice. While the District Attorney and Mayor have made a largely unprecedented decision that benefits our movement, and the city council is attempting to formalize this exemption, accepting this handout without fundamentally challenging the criminalization of homelessness by demanding a repeal of curfew and camping laws amount to our participation in reinforcing this process of criminalization -- we affirm that our case is exceptional. We should band with other occupations statewide to call for a repeal of all curfew and camping laws.

7) We should challenge the patriarchy in this society and in this movement. One way in which I think we can do the latter is by providing material aid to the Kids Stuff WG. Men in this caucus who have children or experience working with them should put in labor time providing child care. This is but one example. Patriarchy and paternalistic attitudes go hand-in-hand. There is a difference between challenging privilege and taking on an attitude of "recruitment" and "hand-holding." Patriarchy and colonialism are intricately linked in this way. Additionally, we must challenge the discourse of "tolerance" as a liberal and patriarchal attitude. Women in the group - I'd rather hear from you on how best to frame our fundamental positive approach here.

These are just a few of my concerns, and I would hope that this principle would be further fleshed out in terms of how to address patriarchy more broadly and in this movement from the women in the caucus. My ideas are more conservative (the Marxists would hate me, because I think that the family needs to be affirmed and motherhood -- while it should be but one choice among many -- should be reaffirmed and garner considerable respect and valuation in the community). Most of my ideas about patriarchy come from subaltern and postcolonial feminists who address sexism in fundamentally different ways than the varied traditions of American feminisms.

8) We should challenge the framing of issues in terms that primarily address the concerns of middle-class whites. We ought to consider:

If speakers urge us to hold banks accountable, do they encourage us to focus on redlining, predatory lending, and subprime mortgages, which have decimated Black and Latino neighborhoods?

If speakers urge the cancellation of debts, do they mean for things like electric and heating bills as well as home mortgages and college loans?

If speakers urge the halting of foreclosures, do they acknowledge that they take place primarily in segregated neighborhoods, and do they propose to start there?

If speakers urge the creation of more jobs, do they acknowledge that many communities of color have already been in chronic “recessions” for decades, and do they propose to start from there?

-From "Whiteness and the 99%" by Joel Olson, Bring The Ruckus

9) We ought to explicitly recognize the calling for massive job creation and job programs without acknowledging the the current economy and our way of life is unsustainable and destructive to ecosystems is in grave error. Without a massive overhaul in the nature and scale of production, and the lifestyles it promotes, massive job creation would be environmentally catastrophic. This is fundamentally radical and revolutionary: our current political and economic system cannot be reformed to allow for environmental sustainability. We need to radically and fundamentally reorganize our communities.

10) We need to recognize the nature of employment and jobs as fundamentally alienating and destructive to both the self and the community. When calling for jobs without this analysis, we are just asking for more means by which to destroy people and communities. We should demand no jobs rather than more jobs, until and unless the nature of labor is redefined. We should call for a universal living wage for all employed and unemployed people. There should be no application for unemployment and no time limits. All those not working should receive a living wage without any criteria for exclusion.



These are not partisan positions, per se, but are radical challenges to the dominant discourse. This discourse is repeatedly reaffirmed by the way in which this occupation especially, but the movement broadly has reinforced. I don't think this caucus can approach a radical point unless these matters are engaged with.

This is not to say that the way I have addressed them is "the right way" and "the only way." These issues will have to be discussed and evaluated. There are many issues that are likely equally important that should be included, but I haven't included here either because I haven't thought of them or because they are not as large of concerns to me. If they are to you, please, please let's all talk about them. This list is not exhaustive, but the central concepts (perhaps not exactly as addressed) are (I think) essential and necessary to this group.

I would like to propose that we discuss these concepts, not as worded here but more generally. I'd like to see the degree of unity we have here.

Our guiding principles should be statements of unity of principle. I don't think there should be any concern with the feasibility of the principles, or whether they could be broadly agreed upon outside of the caucus. But we do need to know how we can identify ourselves as a group.

Liberalism and neoliberalism is the ideology and orientation of the existing system. Therefore liberal politics are antithetical to the radical purpose of this caucus.

Cheers,

Ben

[Ryan R.]

Nov 2, 2011 13:05:59 GMT -5 benbrucato said:

I wasn't at the meeting, so I can't say I agree or disagree with the claims being made here. However, I would say that unless this person is stark raving mad, and unless his or her impressions are completely off base, then this is a serious concern.

I think the strategy of the caucus at this time should be this:

1) Gaining agreement that the caucus is explicitly an anti-capitalist group, and that this movement expresses (though not explicitly) aims that are essentially contrary to capitalism. We should agree that this movement will only be successful if it challenges the notion that "a more ethical capitalism" can "save this country." This dubious message has been readily promoted and carried within this movement and must be openly challenged. Those who believe this should be welcomed in the occupation and to participate. However, this message should not be the only one projected.

2) Gaining agreement that the caucus is composed of individuals who explicitly aspire to revolutionary aims. By that, I mean that we seek -- not exclusively through this movement -- to challenge at a fundamental level the existing institutions, and do not offer any legitimacy to them. Additionally, by revolutionary, we would mean the reestablishment of our communities on fundamentally new bases. The world we want looks nothing at all like this one. We might not even be able to imagine it at this point, but we reject this political and economic system in its entirety. Some of us (most revolutionary communists and socialists) might believe this would entail the seizing of the existing institutions so as to transform them. Some of us (most postleftists and anarchists) might believe that this movement itself is creating a microcommunity that operates in parallel to the existing society as a functioning alternative to the institutions which govern and dominate society. We need not agree on those latter points in their entirety.

These two points are fundamental positions. Without agreement on these, we have no basis from which to move forward. We also need to affirm and commit to a truly direct democratic structure and use consensus-building. At the same time, we should have a mission and points of agreement; those who do not fit within this vision will likely frequently block proposals, and since the block would mean they would leave the caucus if the proposal goes through may need to be overridden and that person leave the caucus. Blocking on principles that are contrary to the caucus should have an obvious response.

I also believe that these two above principles are not enough.

We should also begin discussion on these items below. This movement needs to be fundamentally challenged with regard to the expression that "we are taking something back," by addressing:

3) This is not a middle class movement. The middle class did not build this country. This is a movement against those accumulating and controlling capital. This Empire was build by chattel slavery and by the working class, many of whom have been second class citizens or less (i.e. migrant labor). This is not a country, but the locus of an Empire, that is sustained through colonialism abroad and internally. Those who provided the labor to construct this system have never had anything that we are "getting back." The people who are trying to "get something back" are those who would aspire to be our bosses, to exploit migrant labor, to maintain their affluence through exploited labor here and abroad. In this system, there are the elite (the 1%), the exploited (mainly the working class), and the excluded (those hidden at the margins, the unemployed, the homeless, migrants, etc.). This movement has been framed in ways that are relevant only to a segment of the exploited -- mainly middle-class professionals.

4) The public spaces we are "taking back" are on lands that were colonized through a process of genocidal warfare. This was Muh-he-con-neok land, the land of a people all but wiped out, dispersed, dispossessed and disenfranchised. We do not just need to reclaim a commons, but to decolonize our communities and challenge the ongoing genocide against indigenous peoples here and around the world that continues to be a vital part of maintaining the economy as it exists today. Most of us are settlers, and we have the mindset of the settlers when we talk about "taking back" public spaces without also challenging colonialism.

5) The prison system is an extension of this colonial system. 1 in 100 are incarcerated, and 1 in 31 are incarcerated, on probation or on parole. 43% of those who leave prison will be back in within three years. This predominantly impacts people of color. The policing of communities of color fits within a continuity of a history that goes back to slavery. For these reasons, we should aspire to abolish prisons and end police brutality. Intermediary goals might include direct democratic community review boards with authority over prisons and police; disarming police forces; etc. Additionally, close relationships between the occupation and the government / police need to be critically engaged and in all but the most extreme cases disallowed. Sending a message to our community about these cozy relationships conveys a very troubling message. Police and politicians who want to address us should do so at the occupation, over the people's mic, and at a time broadly announced with significant notice. There should be only rare exceptions to this and in response to extreme circumstances.

6) The criminalization of homelessness is the most vulgar expression of the violence of private property. We are subject to curfew and camping laws in part designed to criminalize those without homes. We chose to occupy this space, while others haven't such a choice. While the District Attorney and Mayor have made a largely unprecedented decision that benefits our movement, and the city council is attempting to formalize this exemption, accepting this handout without fundamentally challenging the criminalization of homelessness by demanding a repeal of curfew and camping laws amount to our participation in reinforcing this process of criminalization -- we affirm that our case is exceptional. We should band with other occupations statewide to call for a repeal of all curfew and camping laws.

7) We should challenge the patriarchy in this society and in this movement. One way in which I think we can do the latter is by providing material aid to the Kids Stuff WG. Men in this caucus who have children or experience working with them should put in labor time providing child care. This is but one example. Patriarchy and paternalistic attitudes go hand-in-hand. There is a difference between challenging privilege and taking on an attitude of "recruitment" and "hand-holding." Patriarchy and colonialism are intricately linked in this way. Additionally, we must challenge the discourse of "tolerance" as a liberal and patriarchal attitude. Women in the group - I'd rather hear from you on how best to frame our fundamental positive approach here.

These are just a few of my concerns, and I would hope that this principle would be further fleshed out in terms of how to address patriarchy more broadly and in this movement from the women in the caucus. My ideas are more conservative (the Marxists would hate me, because I think that the family needs to be affirmed and motherhood -- while it should be but one choice among many -- should be reaffirmed and garner considerable respect and valuation in the community). Most of my ideas about patriarchy come from subaltern and postcolonial feminists who address sexism in fundamentally different ways than the varied traditions of American feminisms.

8) We should challenge the framing of issues in terms that primarily address the concerns of middle-class whites. We ought to consider:

If speakers urge us to hold banks accountable, do they encourage us to focus on redlining, predatory lending, and subprime mortgages, which have decimated Black and Latino neighborhoods?

If speakers urge the cancellation of debts, do they mean for things like electric and heating bills as well as home mortgages and college loans?

If speakers urge the halting of foreclosures, do they acknowledge that they take place primarily in segregated neighborhoods, and do they propose to start there?

If speakers urge the creation of more jobs, do they acknowledge that many communities of color have already been in chronic “recessions” for decades, and do they propose to start from there?

-From "Whiteness and the 99%" by Joel Olson, Bring The Ruckus

9) We ought to explicitly recognize the calling for massive job creation and job programs without acknowledging the the current economy and our way of life is unsustainable and destructive to ecosystems is in grave error. Without a massive overhaul in the nature and scale of production, and the lifestyles it promotes, massive job creation would be environmentally catastrophic. This is fundamentally radical and revolutionary: our current political and economic system cannot be reformed to allow for environmental sustainability. We need to radically and fundamentally reorganize our communities.

10) We need to recognize the nature of employment and jobs as fundamentally alienating and destructive to both the self and the community. When calling for jobs without this analysis, we are just asking for more means by which to destroy people and communities. We should demand no jobs rather than more jobs, until and unless the nature of labor is redefined. We should call for a universal living wage for all employed and unemployed people. There should be no application for unemployment and no time limits. All those not working should receive a living wage without any criteria for exclusion.



These are not partisan positions, per se, but are radical challenges to the dominant discourse. This discourse is repeatedly reaffirmed by the way in which this occupation especially, but the movement broadly has reinforced. I don't think this caucus can approach a radical point unless these matters are engaged with.

This is not to say that the way I have addressed them is "the right way" and "the only way." These issues will have to be discussed and evaluated. There are many issues that are likely equally important that should be included, but I haven't included here either because I haven't thought of them or because they are not as large of concerns to me. If they are to you, please, please let's all talk about them. This list is not exhaustive, but the central concepts (perhaps not exactly as addressed) are (I think) essential and necessary to this group.

I would like to propose that we discuss these concepts, not as worded here but more generally. I'd like to see the degree of unity we have here.

Our guiding principles should be statements of unity of principle. I don't think there should be any concern with the feasibility of the principles, or whether they could be broadly agreed upon outside of the caucus. But we do need to know how we can identify ourselves as a group.

Liberalism and neoliberalism is the ideology and orientation of the existing system. Therefore liberal politics are antithetical to the radical purpose of this caucus.

Cheers,

Ben

If you will pardon my bluntness for a moment, where the hell were you last night?

This is more or less the case which I was effectively blacklisted from 'stack' for making. I had presumed that, as the name explicitly implies, that this would be a caucus of radicals. Instead I was met with neither. You simply cannot have a political group which does not take political stances, otherwise you might as well do away with the concept of the caucus.

Not once last evening were any stipulations for membership or participation forwarded, politics were avoided like the plague, and we could not even move beyond a debate over whether a debate should be held on the drafting of political demands. Middle class liberals were openly engaging in discussions being undertaken by the caucus without any restriction, whereas I was assailed for attempting to focus discussion upon an actual topic with the intent of eventually reaching the point of holding a vote.

This is a caucus, not a working group, we can make use of political stipulations for membership and we can operate on a political basis which is our own. We are not going to achieve anything of substantial value through limitless inclusiveness and this realization is going to have to be made at some point if this caucus is to actually become, well, a caucus of radicals I suppose.

[colin]

I agree with hz. The second half of yesterday's caucus meeting was amazing!! It was a fantastic, open, respectful and insightful discussion. I can't wait to have more just like it. : )

Just to fill Ben in: 'thesadmafioso' dominated the first half of the caucus meeting last night. He repeatedly jumped stack and spoke over people. Espousing orthodox marxist rhetoric, he indicated that we should abandon consensus and have a majority vote on creating a party-platform or list of demands. His approach had no support among the group and he left half-way through the meeting. At that point the tone of the discussion improved significantly and some great ideas were shared.

With all due respect to 'thesadmafioso', because I really do respect his passion and sympathize with his sense of urgency, I think he is trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. Or, in this case, the organizing structure of a hierarchical trotsky'ist vanguard into an expressly non-hierarchical consensus-based movement. I don't think it does us any good to elect a leader or "chairperson" (presumably thesadmafioso?) to hold disproportionate power within the group as he suggests. That seems antithetical to the spirit and practice of the occupy movement which has been so successful in large part because of its collective non-hierarchical structure.

I think Ben raises some really good points and I appreciate the time he took to so clearly articulate them. I basically agree on the substance of all of them but I want to be sure that if we move in the direction of adopting them as official positions for the caucus that we not do so in a way that is divisive and combative. The last thing our movement needs right now is in-fighting and sectarian splits. Having a big tent has been invaluable to building this movement and the way that some of Ben's points are framed (see #3) are hostile and even though I may agree with the underlying substance the tone and approach seem unnecessarily hostile.

Personally, I'm willing to sacrifice some of my personal politics to keep that broader tent. I openly identify as a political radical and in particular as an anti-capitalist and market-abolitionist. These are things that are extraordinarily important to me. However, I also value the presence of labor and progressive groups in our movement and wouldn't want to risk splitting the group based on my insistance that everyone else needs to adopt my politics. I think we have a much greater chance of moving folks in a more radical direction through respectful discourse and educational events than by drawing up a hard-line set of demands that we aggressively push within our occupation. Doing so, I fear, will splinter the group, alienate those we are trying to win over and weaken our movement.

In anycase, these are complicated issues and it is difficult to find the right balance. I looked forward to working with y'all as we move forward and try to promote radical ideas within the occupy movement.

Colin

[Ryan R.]

Nov 2, 2011 14:44:51 GMT -5 colin said:

I agree with hz. The second half of yesterday's caucus meeting was amazing!! It was a fantastic, open, respectful and insightful discussion. I can't wait to have more just like it. : )

Just to fill Ben in: 'thesadmafioso' dominated the first half of the caucus meeting last night. He repeatedly jumped stack and spoke over people. Espousing orthodox marxist rhetoric, he indicated that we should abandon consensus and have a majority vote on creating a party-platform or list of demands. His approach had no support among the group and he left half-way through the meeting. At that point the tone of the discussion improved significantly and some great ideas were shared.

With all due respect to 'thesadmafioso', because I really do respect his passion and sympathize with his sense of urgency, I think he is trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. Or, in this case, the organizing structure of a hierarchical trotsky'ist vanguard into an expressly non-hierarchical consensus-based movement. I don't think it does us any good to elect a leader or "chairperson" (presumably thesadmafioso?) to hold disproportionate power within the group as he suggests. That seems antithetical to the spirit and practice of the occupy movement which has been so successful in large part because of its collective non-hierarchical structure.

I think Ben raises some really good points and I appreciate the time he took to so clearly articulate them. I basically agree on the substance of all of them but I want to be sure that if we move in the direction of adopting them as official positions for the caucus that we not do so in a way that is divisive and combative. The last thing our movement needs right now is in-fighting and sectarian splits. Having a big tent has been invaluable to building this movement and the way that some of Ben's points are framed (see #3) are hostile and even though I may agree with the underlying substance the tone and approach seem unnecessarily hostile.

Personally, I'm willing to sacrifice some of my personal politics to keep that broader tent. I openly identify as a political radical and in particular as an anti-capitalist and market-abolitionist. These are things that are extraordinarily important to me. However, I also value the presence of labor and progressive groups in our movement and wouldn't want to risk splitting the group based on my insistance that everyone else needs to adopt my politics. I think we have a much greater chance of moving folks in a more radical direction through respectful discourse and educational events than by drawing up a hard-line set of demands that we aggressively push within our occupation. Doing so, I fear, will splinter the group, alienate those we are trying to win over and weaken our movement.

In anycase, these are complicated issues and it is difficult to find the right balance. I looked forward to working with y'all as we move forward and try to promote radical ideas within the occupy movement.

Colin

Pardon my error, I was looking for the radical caucus last evening, I must of accidentally stumbled into the liberal caucus by inadvertent mistake.

And perhaps my position may of actually gained additional traction had it not been stifled by the yoke of the 'progressive stack', or the 'lets allow anyone to speak with wild abandon unless you happen to be a red stack'. For all your praise of the 'consensus' process and direct democracy, you've certainly no reservations when it comes to silencing opinions which are opposed to your bourgeois class instincts.

We have a big tent, it's the same tent as it was in 1848, 1871, and 1917, the working class. A collection of petty bourgeois liberals have no potential to act as a revolutionary agent while the working class does, perhaps if I was actually allowed an active forum of response in an orderly manner, we would not of encountered the issues which we did last evening.

And by the way, the Bolshevik-Leninist vanguard model is based upon open debate and democratic functions, something which your poorly formed and useless consensus model is lacking a good bit of. You might do well to read up on your Lenin and Trotsky before coming to such crudely formed comments.

It's a shame HUAC isn't still persecuting communists, I'm sure they would love to co opt some of this darling rhetoric for my hearing.

[colin]

So this is just the type of sectarian partisan attacks I think we need to avoid. I'm not used to having defend my radical credentials, having organized on the Left for years now, but if you are interested 'thesadmafioso' I just had an article accepted for publication in "The Review of Radical Political Economics". It will be coming out this winter. In it I expressly attack the underlying assumptions of liberal economics. It is super-duper "radical". You can check out the abstract at: rrp.sagepub.com/content/early/2011/08/24/0486613411418052.abstract

[Ryan R.]

Nov 2, 2011 15:13:09 GMT -5 colin said:

So this is just the type of sectarian partisan attacks I think we need to avoid. I'm not used to having defend my radical credentials, having organized on the Left for years now, but if you are interested I just had an article accepted in "The Review of Radical Political Economics". It will be coming out this fall. In it I expressly attack the underlying assumptions of liberal economics. It is super-duper "radical". You can check out the abstract at: rrp.sagepub.com/content/early/2011/08/24/0486613411418052.abstract

For a 'radical' you sure seem to have a rather peculiar play on the use of the term sectarian. By attempting to bring an organization over to the cause of the working class, I am acting in a manner quite opposite to that of a sectarian. Quite frankly, you are acting in a sectarian fashion by attempting to isolate your activism from the interests of the working class in this given moment, so perhaps it would be wise for us to reevaluate some of the accusations being aimlessly thrown around here.

"The Communists do not form a separate party opposed to the other working-class parties.

They have no interests separate and apart from those of the proletariat as a whole.

They do not set up any sectarian principles of their own, by which to shape and mould the proletarian movement."-Marx and Engels on the matter, I think they do a better job at defining the term honestly.

www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm

And as for your paper, that's all fine and well, but theory is useless without the proper organizational structures of action.

As Marx said, "The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is to change it."

[benbrucato]

At the first caucus meeting, I stressed: Speak from your heart, not from the philosophy of people who have been dead for decades and addressed a political and economic condition dramatically different from our own. Our politics must come from us.

I was not at the meeting on Tuesday because I couldn't find someone to accompany me. I have been publicly attacked with baseless accusations by an unprincipled person, and will not be present at the occupation site without a friendly ally to witness my behavior. It's not a safe place for me otherwise. I hope to be there at the meeting on Thursday. I can't be there for the rally in solidarity with Occupy Oakland today because I'm taking care of my daughter while my partner is out of town.

To address the "big tent" concern: that big tent is Occupy Albany. But the middle class exclusivist politics that take the front line must be challenged. I will not back down on challenging the racist and exclusionary politics of white colorblindness. The line that Tonko puked to the press without a rebuttal, the one from the union coalition on Saturday, and the many voices on October 15 who explicitly said we need to save capitalism for the middle class is as hostile to our freedom as is the 1%. I don't think the radical caucus should be a "big tent." It's for radical, revolutionary, anti-capitalist politics. Liberalism has no place in that schema.

[hz]

Nov 2, 2011 15:38:48 GMT -5 benbrucato said:

At the first caucus meeting, I stressed: Speak from your heart, not from the philosophy of people who have been dead for decades and addressed a political and economic condition dramatically different from our own. Our politics must come from us.

Word. I really love this statement.

[napoleanbonaparte]

America's future rests in a thousand dreams inside your hearts.

[colin]

I'll let this thread go - just two final thoughts. First, I think Ben is right about how whack Tonko's statements were. My only real disagreement is strategically about what the best way to respond is. Rather, than sending the message: "progressives, liberals and middle-class folks are not welcome here and should be silenced" - I think we should respectfully articulate a counter-narrative with a more radical analysis and engage in a dialogue with them. We should do so in a respectful non-divisive manner primarily because I think that is a more effective strategy with a better chance of actually radicalizing others and accomplishing our goals. Hezzie raised some great ideas on Tuesday about ways to frame radical ideas in a manner that is appealing to the mainstream without diluting our message. I think a more confrontational and antagonistic approach will: (i) splinter our movement; (ii) turn people, who may otherwise have been open to radical politics, off; and (iii) isolate and further weaken us as people who identify as radical.

Second, with respect to 'thesadmafioso', listen I'm happy to sit down and have a polite conversation. We definitely agree about much more than we disagree about and I really do respect your passion. I'd just suggest that when a 19 year old white male publically complains about being "stifled by the oppressive yoke of progressive stack" it just screams out: "I have no understanding of male privilege, I have no understanding of white privilege, I have all answers and people should listen to me." This sense is exacerbated by your insistence on us electing a chairperson to lead the group. Sometimes it is best to take a step-back and listen to what others have to say and go into a dialogue open to other ideas rather than assuming your specific Marxist critique is a sacrosanct orthodoxy that everyone needs to hear and follow.

In anycase, I look forward to see y'all tonight and moving forward with this exciting endeavor! : )

[Ryan R.]

Nov 3, 2011 7:02:36 GMT -5 colin said:

I'll let this thread go - just two final thoughts. First, I think Ben is right about how whack Tonko's statements were. My only real disagreement is strategically about what the best way to respond is. Rather, than sending the message: "progressives, liberals and middle-class folks are not welcome here and should be silenced" - I think we should respectfully articulate a counter-narrative with a more radical analysis and engage in a dialogue with them. We should do so in a respectful non-divisive manner primarily because I think that is a more effective strategy with a better chance of actually radicalizing others and accomplishing our goals. Hezzie raised some great ideas on Tuesday about ways to frame radical ideas in a manner that is appealing to the mainstream without diluting our message. I think a more confrontational and antagonistic approach will: (i) splinter our movement; (ii) turn people, who may otherwise have been open to radical politics, off; and (iii) isolate and further weaken us as people who identify as radical.

Second, with respect to 'thesadmafioso', listen I'm happy to sit down and have a polite conversation. We definitely agree about much more than we disagree about and I really do respect your passion. I'd just suggest that when a 19 year old white male publically complains about being "stifled by the oppressive yoke of progressive stack" it just screams out: "I have no understanding of male privilege, I have no understanding of white privilege, I have all answers and people should listen to me." This sense is exacerbated by your insistence on us electing a chairperson to lead the group. Sometimes it is best to take a step-back and listen to what others have to say and go into a dialogue open to other ideas rather than assuming your specific Marxist critique is a sacrosanct orthodoxy that everyone needs to hear and follow.

In anycase, I look forward to see y'all tonight and moving forward with this exciting endeavor! : )

Yeah, you're right, it's not like communists have been methodically and brutally repressed throughout the course of history or anything, the progressive (unless you are a communist) stack is a wonderfully fair thing.

And the fact that I am a white male has no bearing on the validity of my thought nor does it make me any less of a socialist, so I really am having trouble to find the pertinence in your comments. It is largely because of my class status and as a result of the forces which purvey institutional racism, sexism, and all brands of discrimination that I have been afforded the opportunity to study matters of the political to the extent that I have, and I will be damned if I will be made to squander and curtail the opportunity to use those unjust advantages to further the interests of those oppressed by such. I despise the fact that I have been given a wealth of privilege as a white male, but that is not going to stop me from taking that privilege and bringing every facet of it to bear against the status quo of the bourgeoisie dictatorship.

Perhaps you would like to lecture us on how Engels and Marx should not of been trying to handle matters of the emancipation of labor as well then? Maybe we can hear a bit assailing the communist credentials of Lenin as well? After all, he did come from a petty bourgeois family, how could be possibly be a communist?

This is not a matter of my voice being heard, quite frankly I could not care less for such insignificant trifles, this is a question of bringing down a system fabricated upon the exploitation of the working majority for an idle minority. I am not one to fall prey to the opportunism so common of the liberal mind, as there is a world to be had for an entire class of enthralled laborers.

But I am rather tired of dealing with this infantile philistinism. Go read some Althusser on the matter of combating class instincts and bother me afterwards.

www.marxists.org/reference/archive/althusser/1968/philosophy-as-weapon.htm

[bw]

Nov 2, 2011 11:24:43 GMT -5 Ryan R. said:

We've no need for and we should not allow liberal provocateurs to engage in openly declared acts of espionage and sabotage in a group which supposedly aims to establish itself along the lines of radical politics.

.....we simply set out to have a carefree orgy of wishy washy self satisfying liberal nonsense.

If but one member of this fraudulently titled 'radical' caucus stands against the interests of the aggrieved classes of labor and along side the forces of capital and its corrupt status quo of oppression, then I will gladly abandon this group without any lingering thoughts.

Sure, so we can all have a few flowery conversations about the wonders of liberalism in a tent, but where is the actual practical use in such? The worker has not the time for such frivolous and nebulous folly, and we need to recognize that if anything substantial is to come of this movement.

I harbor no delusional thought that this caucus or this movement will become any sort of organizational vanguard of revolution

Nothing will be achieved by a policy of active isolation from the currents of the class struggle, and such is the current position maintained by this caucus at the moment. We need to position ourselves on the front lines of the fight for a better future, and that is not going to be done through aimless and unguided discussion and political action.

I was unable to attend a meeting, I would like to raise the point that it was the FIRST meeting (second?) and we should not get too caught up with what is "wrong" and focus on the fact that we are actually meeting. I find some of the comments to be slightly alienating and accusatory, e.g. "liberal provocateurs", "fraudulently titled 'radical' caucus", "carefree orgy of wishy washy self satisfying liberal nonsense. "

It seems to me in general we are all motivated and can get bogged down that some sort of change isn't happening immediately, (myself included) but we need to keep in mind that it has not even been 2 weeks since we have been in Academy Park ...patience.

Should we really be focusing our energy on differences and whats wrong? Shouldn't we be open to other viewpoints and perhaps put some of our personal beliefs or "how things should be run" on the shelf till we gain traction?

All this academic discussion of marx, engels and whoever else seems pretty bourgeois and philistine to me, where do we look for contemporary inspiration and ideas?

"A political force whose members do not exert nor aspire to hold elective positions or government offices in any of its levels. A political force which does not aspire to take power. A force which is not a political party."

"In the world of the powerful there is no space for anyone but themselves and their servants. In the world we want everyone fits.

In the world we want many worlds fit. The Nation which we construct is one where all communities and languages fit, where all steps may walk, where all may have laughter, where all may live the dawn.

We speak of unity even when we are silent. Softly and gently we speak the words which find the unity which will embrace us in history and which will discard the abandonment which confronts and destroys one another."

“The aim is to listen and learn about the struggles, the resistance and rebel movements, support them and bind them together to build a national anti-capitalist, leftist program.”

“What we're going to do is shake this country up from below, pick it up and turn it on its head,”

“All these discussions are going to help decide what we are.”

-Subcomandante Marcos

www.zcommunications.org/the-new-society-by-gustavo-esteva

[benbrucato]

Nov 3, 2011 7:02:36 GMT -5 colin said:

Rather, than sending the message: "progressives, liberals and middle-class folks are not welcome here and should be silenced" - I think we should respectfully articulate a counter-narrative with a more radical analysis and engage in a dialogue with them.

I don't think I advocated such a think. They are welcome here, but we need to openly challenge the message (and of course in a respectful way). I find the prioritization of a message that privileges the goals of the top 80-99% at the expense of the bottom 80% to be not only alienating but hostile.

[Ryan R.]

Nov 3, 2011 12:01:45 GMT -5 bw said:

All this academic discussion of marx, engels and whoever else seems pretty bourgeois and philistine to me, where do we look for contemporary inspiration and ideas?

I was not aware that discussion of the theory of working class power could seriously be considered bourgeois, as it is based around the concept of expropriating the class of the bourgeoisie and its culture in the process of revolutionary class synthesis.

And there is nothing philistine about the working class and the idea of arming it with the thought of their emancipation, so long as an exploited class of labor exists there will be a relevance to Marxism.

[bw]

In my opinion the majority of the working class population know little about Marxism and might not even care. I personally have read a little of marx and it doesn't exactly interest me. These days it just seems like academic jargon. There is of course a historical relevance to marxism but to reiterate the same theories seems tired and overused. I suppose what I am saying is the working class will never be freed by fancy words, theories, and ivory towers.

"I was not aware that the discussion of the theory of working class power could seriously be considered bourgeois..."

The idea of working class power is by no means bourgeois, It is the assumption that working class people are going to care about Marx and theories in general (which in my opinion and from my life experience are typically and most commonly discussed among college educated males)

I do not wish to replace an existing power with a different form of power, I want to get rid of it entirely.