There are also large sections (probably the majority) of the occupiers who would not run from the label "left". They tend to be left-wing anarchists (anarcho-syndicalists), socialists, and liberal reformers; some of these left-wing anarchists are key members of the demands group. However, since the GA has adopted a 90% consensus rule (previously the GA was following a 75% consensus rule), the relatively small minority of non-leftists has significant ability to dominate the direction ows takes. I would, therefore, not describe ows as "left" even if the supporting occupations may truly be "left."
The occupation seems to me to be overwhelmingly white and college educated. (Hence the signficant libertarian presence.) Calling for "demands", however, has the serious possibility of helping the occupation diversify iteslf by reaching out to the broader New York area working-class, who so far, have not played a serious role in the occupation. None of my CUNY students have even stopped by to take a look at the occupation despite the fact that they attend class a 15 minute subway ride away from it. For them, OWS is simply some weird white hippy thing. If we can bring my students and their families on board with the occupation, then the occupation can become huge and either sustain itself throughout the winter or re-build itself quickly when spring arrives. Without the NYC working-class, many of us think this occupation will fizzle away as soon as the snow hits.
Steven
On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 11:57 AM, Carrol Cox <cbcox at ilstu.edu> wrote:
>
> What is the theoretical justification or demanding that OWS proclaim a list
> of demands?
>
> It seems to me, prima facie, that such a list would trivialize the
> Occupation. I guess we need to analyze the concept of "Demands" and place
> that in some theoretical context.
>
> I suppose the 'model' vaguely held in the thought of those demanding
> demands is that of the Strike: The union demands certain moves by
> management
> in return for which the workers will return to work. Closely similar is the
> Building Occupation and the Lunch Counter Occupation of the '60s. Students
> occupy the Aministration Building and announce that they will not leave
> until the University Administration grants specified privileges (such as
> literature tables on the quad) to students or takes specific actions to
> increase the proportion of minority students admitted to the school. Now,
> something like that situation has occurred in Chicago, and the Chicago
> Occupation has made specific demands on the City. I coy their resolution at
> the end of this post. (I have some marginal concern over whether this
> resolution carries enough support from participants in or friends of the
> Occupy Chicago to produce the number of demonstrators which will be needed
> to give reality to the projected Occupy City Hall. It _may_ be the result
> of
> maneuvering by ISO within Occupy Chicago, but I don't really know the
> concrete situation there and cannot judge.) But this "demand" by Occupy
> Chicago was generated by a specific action(or series of actions) by a
> specific authority, and it can be granted on the same institution (City of
> Chicago) that is the target of projected mass pressure in the form of
> Occupy
> City Hall. It isNOT theresult of a few defective theorists developing a
> Demand Fetish and isnsistign that demands be made (on WHOM?). That seems to
> me gross amateurism and the result of an anti-theortical mind set on the
> part of those demanding demands. They simply have not produced any
> theoretical justification for their disruptive behavior within and without
> OWS. Instead of providing such a theoretical justification they have
> simply
> taken it for granted that demands are a good thing and no demands is a bad
> thing. Sad.
>
> Carrol
> ------
> The Chicago resolution (As reported to me by a friend)
>
> Last night at the General Assembly meeting of Occupy Chicago, consisting of
> about 200 people, the group unanimously voted for the following proposal:
>
> Background
>
> Since July, anti-war organizers in CANG8 (Coalition Against NATO / G8) have
> delivered letters and attempted to meet with the city regarding respect for
> the 1st amendment rights of protesters during the NATO and G8 summits that
> will take place in Chicago in May 2012. Our first communications were met
> with silence, and then repeated calls to city officials in charge of the
> permitting process were met with a run-around and then with continued
> silence. The G8 ("Group of 8" of the largest industrialized nations) and
> the
> North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) military alliance are two of the
> institutions which bear some of the greatest responsibility for the wars
> and
> economic violence traumatizing millions of people around the world. As
> such, the City should forthrightly commit to upholding the 1st amendment
> rights of protesters.
>
> The Proposal
>
> That Occupy Chicago participate in a non-arrestable action on Wed., Oct. 26
> dubbed "Occupy City Hall." The purpose of the action is to put pressure on
> Mayor Emanuel to publicly commit to giving march permits "within sight and
> sound" of the May 2012 G8/NATO summits in Chicago, and that Police
> Superintendent McCarthy cease making threatening statements against
> would-be
> protesters. If by early next week, Occupy Chicago is still being
> stonewalled by the City over its demand for a permanent campsite, and/or
> other civil liberties demands, those concerns will also be part of the
> demands of the action.
>
> Another person and I amended the proposal to include the following:
>
> We also demand that the City of Chicago drop the charges against last
> Saturday night's Occupy Chicago participants and against any who might be
> arrested at this Saturday's Occupy Chicago action.
>
> The action is to begin immediately after the 1:30 PM General Assembly
> meeting at Jackson & LaSalle this Wednesday, October 26. It is very
> important not only that CANG8 members make a good showing at Wednesday's
> action, but at the action at 6:30 PM, tonight (Saturday), also beginning at
> Jackson & LaSalle.
>
> This email was cleaned by emailStripper, available for free from
> http://www.papercut.biz/emailStripper.htm
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>