Let's get consensus

If we want to speak for a movement, and decide how the members of that movement will proceed:

instead of setting up a meeting, setting the terms and agenda of that meeting and asking for attendance of delegates (instead of the members of a movement who have come together to be heard individually and not via representatives), we should consider this more laborious but inclusive route:

-as a working group, we should generate a proposal.
-we should go directly in front of the people, those individuals whose consensus we are seeking (this may be many GAs in many places both in real space and online).
-convince them our idea is a good one. give everyone a chance to speak. listen to their criticisms and suggestions. revise our proposal and incorporate the best ideas.
-only when we have consensus may we speak for that group. even if our intention is not to co-opt that group's voice, we must be sure that it is clear, so that the media and the members of the movement and the public all understand who we are speaking for.

this applies both to our declaration and to our conference call and to any future ideas we generate.

let's not create unnecessary friction. this movement is about bringing people together. the strength of this movement is essentially a strength in numbers. let's work together.

I'm Jerry Ryberg, in Galesburg, IL.
I liked all 20 of the original grievances/demands. I hope we can proceed with the power and popularity of OWS behind us. And I hope we can combine with the Coffee Party, Dylan Ratigan, moneyouttapolitics.org, etc. Are we going to still have a speaker at the Coffee Party's "Enough is Enough" rally next Saturday?

Maybe a better way to do things is get representatives from as many occupy groups as we can to be part of the discussions and make regular reports back to their GAs. Just ask each OWS group to choose, however they like, one or two members to be part of a national working group whose purpose is to put together the convention. Once you have all OWS groups on board, have them decide if they want to work towards having a document ready for the convention or if they want the convention delegates to draft a document.

I think the only way this is going to happen is if we solidify contact with the Occupy groups first. There is a list on the OccupyTogether.org web site. We should set up a group of people who are responsible for dividing up the states and figuring out how to contact each group. You have to keep in mind that not all the groups are represented on the list - you have to click through the Meetup link on the OccupyTogether web site to find ALL the groups in any given state.

I suggest we start a committee of people willing to do that first. Once we have names and phone numbers (usually on the specific Occupy web sites somewhere), we can figure out what to do next. We have to find out if all these Occupy groups want to be involved. Some of them may be tainted by what has transpired.

We have to figure out how to have a conference call somewhere. Can Skype hold a large audio conference call? The sooner we see who's willing to actually show up, the sooner we can tell what way will be fair to include everyone.

Those are my suggestions.

I went to occupywallstreet.org, and saw this:
"While we encourage the participation of autonomous working groups, no single person or group has the authority to make demands on behalf of general assemblies around the world.

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."

Those last two lines show a lack of coherence, a belief that just being there is going to accomplish something. The 400+ comments contain many calls for some specific demands, but there may not be enough clear-headed people involved. I hope the Coffee Party "Enough is Enough" rally in DC Saturday will result in some cohesion, and some specific goals from several groups, joining.

jryberg wrote:I went to occupywallstreet.org, and saw this:

"While we encourage the participation of autonomous working groups, no single person or group has the authority to make demands on behalf of general assemblies around the world.

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."

Those last two lines show a lack of coherence, a belief that just being there is going to accomplish something. The 400+ comments contain many calls for some specific demands, but there may not be enough clear-headed people involved...

You nailed it.

The General Assemblies cannot possibly represent the interests of the American People.

What about all those who can't attend? Should their interests be ignored? Who will speak for them?

Exactly. What we can do is continue with our work then bring it to the GA's for consideration. I need no approval from anyone to discuss, write, or propose anything, and neither do you. Let's continue our work here and show them all a path to cleaning up our government. They will climb on board once we get this train moving!

Joe Steel wrote:
You nailed it.

The General Assemblies cannot possibly represent the interests of the American People.

What about all those who can't attend? Should their interests be ignored? Who will speak for them?

While I can understand the frustrations with GAs, we should all try to keep a healthy respect for them: we wouldn't be in here together had it not been for what a handful of disorganized dreamers started in NYC.

I was at the NYC GA Sunday night, and they were working on a "Visions and Goals" document that is in the same vein as what we're doing here. I'll try to keep us loosely in touch with their efforts on this as we go forward.

I want to say "thank you" to everyone working here for a nice recovery, especially our forum moderators (thanks!). After a bumpy week where any kind of voting was looking to be off the table, I'm really relieved to see that things are organizing, slowly in a democratic direction!

If the group votes to hold national elections in 9 months, then I will help to get them organized. If we vote to start a 501(c)4 corp, or collect donations, I'll help there too. I must say here that I think elections on that scale -- and on such short notice -- are a recipe for failure that could embarrass and injure the credibility of the movement, but that's just my personal view today, right now. It seemed like Michael wanted to turn us into his own political party, and then rushing us into corporation formation, donation collection & elections make a sort of sense. And it's not a problem for me if folks here want either elections or a 3rd party either, as long as we can discuss the proposals and then vote before committing the group to any particular action. That's what I and many of us found so upsetting about Michael's behavior -- the lack of any democratic process.

Here is what I think should be our ultimate goal, because it is very well explained, and the "20% Solution" is so well thought-out: Larry Kachimba has written, perhaps with help, a research paper called "The 20% Solution". And it says that a Constitutional amendment is not the way to go, because it is too hard to achieve, and it would not be as effective as LEGISLATION. Legislation, backed by 20% of voters committed to this SINGLE ISSUE. We convince them, and they convince their Senators and Representatives that if they don't promise, in writing, to vote for our legislation, then we will vote for their opponent.
Kachimba points out that in 1803, the United States Supreme Court, actually limited itself, by adopting the "political question doctrine". They committed NOT to decide political cases. And that worked very well, until 1976, (ironically) when the Court threw out the political question doctrine, started deciding political questions, and oversaw the beginning of the decline of the middle class. I urge you to read the LONG version of the 20% Solution. If you don't want to do that (I read it) you can go to http://www.opednews.com/articles/Five-reasons-why-a-constit-by-Larry-Kachimba-110825-578.html and read the "Five reasons why a Constitutional amendment is the wrong way to get the money out of politics". Kachimba doesn't hold back in saying just how corrupt this Supreme Court (the Roberts five) is. He knows what he's talking about, and I hope you agree with me that he and his group give us the best path to follow. In an email to me this morning, they said they do hope to work with OWS.

psconway wrote:While I can understand the frustrations with GAs, we should all try to keep a healthy respect for them: we wouldn't be in here together had it not been for what a handful of disorganized dreamers started in NYC.

The GAs are great at movement building but I can't imagine they're very good at policy development. If they're using the consensus model we've seen in the media all they're hearing is the opinions of those attending the meetings. That leaves a huge number of us unrepresented.

jryberg wrote:Legislation, backed by 20% of voters committed to this SINGLE ISSUE. We convince them, and they convince their Senators and Representatives that if they don't promise, in writing, to vote for our legislation, then we will vote for their opponent.

It worked for the NRA. Every time a gun control bill was introduced, they turned out their members and supporters by the millions to threaten anyone who voted for it. We should emulate them.

I've heard of Moneyouttapolitics.org but have yet to visit their site. Do we have a committee that would specialize in building bridges to other groups with whom we have common cause?
Johanna

OK, no activity here since late Monday evening. Is the 99% Declaration out of business? Are we?

Moved to Community Outreach/Like-Minded Groups

Joe Steel wrote:

jryberg wrote:Legislation, backed by 20% of voters committed to this SINGLE ISSUE. We convince them, and they convince their Senators and Representatives that if they don't promise, in writing, to vote for our legislation, then we will vote for their opponent.

It worked for the NRA. Every time a gun control bill was introduced, they turned out their members and supporters by the millions to threaten anyone who voted for it. We should emulate them.

I can agree with the sentiment but I'm nervous about emulating the NRA I find them scary and I don't like your use of the word threaten, could you say influence instead. Call me a silly old hippy but using the language of violence is not really consistent in a non violent movement. But it is very consistent with a gun crazy movement like the NRA.