Next-phase/ Strategy group (Big Picture)

[austin]

Pardon the late entry, but I just got the idea that we should have a big picture/ structure-focused group; one that tries to identify the trends, and comes up with possible goals.

Instead of going into great detail, an example might be: should we try to replace the senate with a direct-democracy voting scheme?

[joshred]

I like your first sentence but your second sentence leaves me confused. I think the goals of the movement are intentionally vague and should remain that way.

[elizabethgrot]

i think it is important to have specifically focused discussions. this will dispell any fers or diescrpancies or gaps in awareness. perhaps we should divide into focused groups. or have ways to have focused discussions online. during the conference

[elizabethgrot]

since the focus is relatively small. i think issues based voting is possible through direct democracy

[elizabethgrot]

but representative speakers are important for media purposes perhaps. definately. highlighting the need to educate all the protesters

[elizabethgrot]

i think it is important to have specifically focused discussions. this will dispell any fers or diescrpancies or gaps in awareness. perhaps we should divide into focused groups. or have ways to have focused discussions online. during the conference

[Hezzie]

To model OA on OWS we could have a working group called "Politics and Electoral Reform."

I am part of that OWS working group (along with dozens of others) and would love to share and communicate what is being talked about there. It would be a great starting point for our discussions.

[epaul]

Hi Josh,

I am a newcomer to the Occupy movement although I have been following it for a few weeks. Last night's General Assembly in Albany was my first and unfortunately, I arrived with my 14 year old daughter at about 6PM, so I missed any introduction. I would like to understand a little bit more the purpose of vagueness to the movement. I sort of feel like I am on the outside and the only way to learn is to go down to NYC for a few days. I have my own thoughts as to why being vague is good but ultimately I think that eventually we will need to bring forward specific things that challenge the ways things are in addition to the masses we bring out.

The reasons I think it may be important to keep our objectives vague follows: 1) it allows us to build large coalitions of diverse people so that those who have been typically marginalized and are included in the process; 2) it prevents us from getting pigeon holed by the 1% -- i.e. the powerful -- into small mindedness; 3) for us as a movement it maintains the largest scope possible and , hopefully, from bickering one issues import over another and therefore the 1% from being able to drive wedges between us; 4) it keeps those within the movement who are well organized and funded from taking it over (this may fall under 3).

I thought the "We the 99%" flyer was a good, pretty thorough list. I wondered while I was reading it if it is being discussed, prioritized, or if specific demands were coming from it.

I am concerned that we may lose people along the way. I have heard some people express frustration or confusion over the process. I also think we have a lot of momentum right now but we will need to bring about results or we will lose people. I think it is an important for media and outreach as we try to grow the movement.

On the other hand, I love the creativity of it all-- the whole process. I am very excited by the movement and hope to understand it more. I hope this can be a discussion that might help others like me too.

Thanks, Eric

[epaul]

Hezzie,

I would love to hear about what is being discussed by OWS in the Politics and Electoral Reform Working. This sounds like a good working group with similar goals to this Next-phase/ Strategy group (Big Picture).

[joshred]

epaul, maybe vague isn't the right word but I found this article incredibly illuminating.

www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/youre-creating-a-vision-of-the-sort-of-society-you-want-to-have-in-miniature/2011/08/25/gIQAXVg7HL_blog.html

[matthew]

Oct 11, 2011 13:56:57 GMT -5 joshred said:

epaul, maybe vague isn't the right word but I found this article incredibly illuminating.

www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/youre-creating-a-vision-of-the-sort-of-society-you-want-to-have-in-miniature/2011/08/25/gIQAXVg7HL_blog.html

GREAT article. I didn't even realize that Graeber had been involved.

[epaul]

Thanks, Josh! I'll check it out.

[casey]

excellent article.

[markm]

I agree with Eric. The only goal right now should be to get people involved. Being inclusive necessitates that we keep goals vague.

We need masses and masses of people in the streets all across the country. Only then can we make those in power uncomfortable and more fearful of our movement and what it can do to them than they are of the corporations that support them. This will not be easy. It will take time. LOTS OF TIME. Those in power will fight us the entire way. First they will try to buy us out or co-opt us. Then they will use there propaganda tools to try to define us, minimize our message, slander us, discredit us and ultimately silence us.

Only when the streets are full of LEADERLESS masses of people Occupying EVERY major city will the spontaneous common sense solutions to our nations problems that emerge when citizens gather in civil discussion be heard by those in power. Until then those in power will continue to support the agenda of the corporations that buy and support them.

Stay leaderless. Keep the message simple. Keep it inclusive. Unite to stand up to corporate power to retake the American dream. The specifics will fall into place when the time is right.

[matthew]

Every GA is a localization of the broader goals of the movement. The GA of Albany *should* be defining it's goals differently from the goals of the GA of NYC, or any other GA. Our statement is that we stand in solidarity with them and derive our goals from the same movement. I expect that the goals of the GA meeting at the site of Occupy Albany will be derived from but ultimately develop independently from those of the larger GA of Albany that spawned it (as a Working Group).
I think that, if people agree with this assessment of what's going on, then we need to articulate this somehow to the GA(s). I'm in the facilitation WG, but I don't think this kind of activity should be happening there. I propose that a WG emerge to deal with this. I'd like to be involved.
www.google.com/search?q=fractal&hl=en&biw=1920&bih=950&site=webhp&prmd=imvns&source=lnms&tbm=isch&ei=AJadTrv8NYji0gHYpvH7CA&sa=X&oi=mode_link&ct=mode&cd=2&ved=0CBUQ_AUoAQ

[benbrucato]

I agree with markm and matthew.

[matthew]

So I did this:
occupyalbany.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=groups&thread=287&page=1

[dylan]

I would like to get Occupy Albany to call a point of process on the national assembly because we were not given the chance to consent to it. It was a top down decision.

sites.google.com/site/the99percentdeclaration/

I have thoughts about the quality of this proposals as well as alternate proposals for how we can scale up but that's less important than my problem with how this was decided.

[benbrucato]

I didn't think this was consensed by any GA at all, and was merely a proposal by that Lustig guy. I think this was an opportunity for a centrist politico to hijack the movement. I think it's a terrible idea, and is explicitly opposed to the consensus-building process (it proposes a representative system), and the revolutionary impulse of the movement (by granting legitimacy to the institutions and asking for favors from them). I would likely block a proposal for OA to participate unless given some pretty powerful reasons and time to deliberate and discuss them.

[elizabethgrot]

i think the NA assembly would be important for information/communication purposes
not for decision making (at this point)
that would only ensue if it were agreed upon by every occupy site
as of now it would only serve as
adding a new degree of organization and interaction
taking the best suggestions from all sites

online video feeds could project these meetings to all
and also allow for democratic online issues based voting