https://sites.google.com/site/the99percentdeclaration/
was just abruptly expunged. the leader of this group was trying to get people to agree on some basic ground rules, but was continually undermined by the New York group. He just sent an e-mail saying he was quitting.
I can't access it any longer, but was hoping to write something about what was going on there today. There is a second group that spun off of this one (in the first few hours due to problems with Yahoo's platform) so they were basically running parallel discussions.
I can't link from the yahoo site b/c it no longer exists, but had a message open in my browser that I thought was especially indicative of the tyranny of structureless. Someone called Citizen Deb (or DebCitizen depending on the forum) began hounding them not because of the content of the demands, and despite the energetic discussion taking place in the forum, but because, to her mind, they had not cleared their process with the New York Group.
"From the feedback I've received from the OWSNYC people, I don't think they're interested because of the circumvention that occurred. Your website is being called "fake" and you are being deemed a co-opter of the movement because of how you went about things. It's too bad. Good ideas - bad execution."
In terms of process, the bureaucratic (and in this case, it is bureaucratic) sticking point seemed to be the brand dilution that was taking place: the leader of group claimed it was in some way associated with the group in NYC. He claimed that there was no formal process for starting working groups, and this was just an attempt to open up the working group to a wider geographical swath of the country, hoping to get liaisons for each of the GAs in the existing Occupy movements. This is generally what the posts in the "accountability/transparency" thread below (in the message I'm responding to) echo: the working group could simply generate demands that could then be voted on by the GA so there is no need for the group itself to be approved by the little cluster of people in the park in NY for it to exist.
On the parallel site, which still exists for the moment, Citizen Deb makes the same claim,
http://the99delegation.forumotion.com/t102-has-this-working-group-been-approved-by-the-ga-in-nyc
"I'm reading some things about this working group not having been approved by the GA. I'm not sure if that's accurate or not, but if it is, I would suggest renaming it if your intention is to split from OWS. The death of the movement as a whole will be when people or groups co-opt it without going through the agreed upon process and gaining consensus of the excruciating but necessary general assembly. "
The general assembly process to which she refers is, evidently, the one in NYC. That is THE General Assembly through which all working groups must be approved, lest you be accused of "co-opting" the movement.
Just to be clear, the group itself is and has been called "the 99 delegation," which, I suppose could be in violation of the trademark registered by the NY group to sell tote bags (cue Baskhar)
http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4007:r5lb33.3.1
but is technically supposed to be about everyone in the country. As one poster in the forum responded to DebCitizen,
"Frankly, I don't care if the NYC GA has approved this. Last time I checked there are Occupy protests around the world and the NYCGA doesn't have a monopoly on organization. There are folks across the country (including myself) who live in small towns and want to be a part of the 99% but can only do so via the Internet at the time being. NYC is not the end-all, be-all of the 99% or Occupy movements"
This seems very reasonable to me. But it will also clearly be an ongoing problem. One of the reasons stated for this group's being expunged is that members of this group were talking to the media about demands, and the NYCGA had not approved a demands working group (or was adamant, as Doug's original post indicates) as there being no demands which would structure their group. "we are our demands." Yet there is a structure, and it seems to begin and end with NYCGA in the mind of the NYCGA. I see the democratic reasons for this, but in the end they seem to be working at cross purposes with themselves. If they want the movement to expand, then establishing a sort of hierarchy in relation to process (or claiming, in this case, both legal and cultural property in the idea of the 99%) hardly overcomes the bureaucratic problems that would exist in a state.
On the other hand, there is a kind of provencialism to the discussion of this movement. Yes they will likely eventually need to influence some sort of political process of representative democracy (a main argument in the expunged Yahoo group) but the problem with this is not just that it violates some horizontal proto-leadership from NYC. Instead it is that the idea of the 99% itself seems mostly focused on the US or on particular nation states. I understand that the occupy movement was inspired by transnational practice (Graeber being influenced by Greek and Spanish protesters) but so far the scope of this revolt has remained fairly national. It is, at once, provincial without being local and general without being global.
All of this aside, I was very inspired to read what is going on in Portland, where the activists there have basically set up their camp as a homeless shelter and advocacy center.
"When "Occupy Wall Street" protesters took over two parks in Portland's soggy downtown, they pitched 300 tents and offered free food, medical care and shelter to anyone. They weren't just building, like so many of their brethren across the nation, a community to protest what they see as corporate greed.
"They also created an ideal place for the homeless. Some were already living in the parks, while others were drawn from elsewhere to the encampment's open doors.
"Now, protesters from Portland to Los Angeles to Atlanta are trying to distinguish between homeless people who are joining their movement and those who are there for the amenities. When night falls in Portland, for instance, protesters have been dealing with fights, drunken arguments and the display of the occasional knife."
if more of the focus was on this kind of activity, then I think the movement would be successful. On the other hand, eventually the knowledge these people gain about the problems of the homeless could be put to good use in advocating for their needs and rights, i.e. taking some sort of policy steps.
On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 08:31, <dndlllio at aol.com> wrote:
> On 10/21/11 10:54 PM, Doug Henwood wrote:
>>
>> We are our demands. This #ows movement is about empowering communities to
>> form their own general assemblies, to fight back against the tyranny of the
>> 1%. Our collective struggles cannot be co-opted.
>
> They also deleted the Demands working group from the GA website:
>
> http://www.nycga.net/groups/
>
> http://www.nycga.net/groups/accountability-transparency/forum/topic/what-happened-with-the-demands-wg/
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>