Re: sooo, no interest in discussing this?

[Crystal Vance Guerra]

would we all like to get together to talk? and invite daM1 people?

On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 5:30 PM, James <james...@gmail.com> wrote:

I love your idea Keiran. I think that an action like this is exactly what we need. We can play off of the fact that Rahm just passed the speeding camera bill but not the infrastructure bill- or so I hear. 

I live on the west side and I've lived on the south side and there are so many vacant lots and buildings in these areas that could be utilized by the people it's ridiculous. 

I'm 100% behind this action and will help however I can to make it happen. 

James

On Apr 19, 2012, at 11:44 AM, Michael Herbert <mher...@prodigy.net> wrote:

Is it possible to get funding approval with the size of G.A.s rignt now?  Given a number of current events, I think O.C. could show real meaningful solidarity with local movements who need it by having technical blockade gear constructed and ready for use at short notice.  If I write a proposal for materials, can we get it passed with the current state of G.A.?

 

-Mike

---

From: Kelly Hayes <kellyh...@gmail.com>
To: oc_s...@googlegroups.com
Cc: "james...@gmail.com" <james...@gmail.com>; "oc_soci...@googlegroups.com" <oc_soci...@googlegroups.com>; "oc_dire...@googlegroups.com" <oc_dire...@googlegroups.com>; "secretaria...@googlegroups.com" <secretaria...@googlegroups.com>; "socia...@occupychi.org" <socia...@occupychi.org>; OccupyChicagoLaborOutreach <union.taskfo...@gmail.com>; "direct...@occupychi.org" <direct...@occupychi.org>; "le...@occupychi.org" <le...@occupychi.org>; "ar...@occupychi.org" <ar...@occupychi.org>; "dona...@occupychi.org" <dona...@occupychi.org>; "rese...@occupychi.org" <rese...@occupychi.org>; "coordi...@occupychi.org" <coordi...@occupychi.org>; "conf...@occupychi.org" <conf...@occupychi.org>; "hou...@occupychi.org" <hou...@occupychi.org>; "outr...@occupychi.org" <outr...@occupychi.org>; "secre...@occupychi.org" <secre...@occupychi.org>; occupychi educationcommittee <occupych...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Thu, April 19, 2012 11:00:05 AM
Subject: Re: sooo, no interest in discussing this?

*spirit fingers*

I'm all for marching and consciousness raising, but this kind of action gets the goods.  If we're afraid to be radical, we will fade into the noise of protests that are generally ignored, or very quickly forgotten, on a regular basis.  I am not personally arrestable for several more months, so I generally hesitate to advocate for others to take risks that I cannot, but since I have been taking those risks anyway lately, I'm going to go ahead and emphatically argue that we need to be more drastic.  Street theater and marches are great, but we need to do bigger things.  We need to inspire people, and creatively make our point in the strongest terms possible.  This proposal, or another in the same vein, should be given serious consideration.  I know people worry that we don't have the numbers to hold down mass acts of civil disobedience (some people are even resistant to, or have issues showing up for, marches), and that's something we would have to address, but we need to address it, rather than giving up on the kind of ideas that we ought to be pursuing.

It's about taking back power, and we cannot do that with marches alone. 

- Kel

On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 10:35 AM, Brianne Bolin <whowew...@gmail.com> wrote:

Do you have contacts via CTU and the National Nurses Union that would potentially help to set up a horizontalidad school / clinic on May Day at this location, pending the building's existence? 

And if not for May Day, as this might be something that needs more preparation time, definitely for the future. We've talked about taking over a building for a long-term People's U for some time now, and hopefully this summer we can really move toward manifesting that material change you taught me about last January. 

B.

On Apr 19, 2012, at 10:25 AM, Kieran wrote:

---

From: Kieran <sketchy...@yahoo.com>
Sent: Monday, April 16, 2012 12:46 PM
Subject: Regarding May 1 and the other May days of action

Regarding the kinds of actions Occupy Chicago is considering over the month of may:

Taking one example, instead of what is being discussed below, a wholly symbolic show, a juridical spectacle in which we 'play' at being the ruling class by theatrically 'adjudicating' a law (haven't laws gotten us to where we are today...do we really want to rally around the power of the law?), why not fight over something that materially would actually empower us, rather than merely appear as empowerment when it isn't?

For example, mental health clinics are being shut down all over the city, and the poorest of the poor are finding themselves left for dead as basic services they count on are disappearing. Schools are being privatized left and right, or else shut down. Instead of marching through the streets flyering, which uses one of two major days of action this spring solely as outreach and nothing more, why not actually spend the time fighting in a way that actually points a way toward people's self-empowerment, by taking over a piece of unused infrastructure and opening it up to the public as a free space, by and for the community, to meet the needs of everyone, without the help of the politicians?

For example, the city is in talks with all sorts of corporate conglomerates about what to do with the former Michael Reese Hospital site on the near South side, which they drummed up 90 million dollars to purchase in order to fund their ridiculous bid for the capitalist spectacle of the 2016 Olympics. In 2011, when the city had left only two buildings standing, the main hall and the Singer Pavillion designed by the Bauhaus architect Walter Gropius, the city decided to tear down the main hall saying the following:

The city estimated that it would cost $13 million to restore the building and just $2 million to tear it down. "One more demolition contract," Jim Peters of Landmarks Illinois told the Trib. "That's our stimulus program."

We know that this destruction of infrastructure is the same 'stimulus' program we're seeing across the board, which stimulates private investment at the expense of poor lives. But marching in the streets doesn't help those abandoned get their needs met, and those who claim it does should point to one mouth we've fed, one roof we've (deliberately) provided for the poor, one piece of clothing that's found its way into the hands of the needy due to a mayday march. You can talk about 'consciousness-raising' all you like, but it's glib and condescending: the poor in this city know where they stand in the eyes of the City and the local police, and don't need to be told that these forces don't care one iota about their lives. But what needs to be shown is that there is a possibility for action, that things are possible. Even if right now the austerity hasn't "bottomed-out" like it has in Greece yet, what counts is that if/when it does, there is an awareness of tactics that are visibly made-possible by being linked to a local memory of people willing to take them on. Occupy Chicago has had a dearth of direct action and an excess of symbolic demonstrations. May 1 should be about direct action that meets needs. The unions will do their march as they always do, which is fine. But there's no reason OC has to be a part of this. And maybe they could 'march' their way to where we're doing something other than marching? That is, if their 'permit' permitted it. 

I'm currently trying to find out if the Singer Pavillion at the Reese site is still in existence, as the newspapers indicate it is. The city is currently staging a bidding war (see here http://tinyurl.com/7n45umv) between corporate architectural firms to decide the fate of this area. If the pavillion were still existing, we could stage an alternate "proposal": it belongs to the people. We want it for our needs. While I haven't had a chance to head there and see for myself yet, a couple articles (here and here) indicate it may still be there. If the pavillion isn't in existence any longer, then we can find somewhere else. The point is to rethink our tactical menu, and no longer restrict ourselves to the tawdred, tired, restricted tactical menu of institutional labor. One can perfectly well support them where they begin to mobilize towards strikes and -- if we're lucky -- direct actions of their own (e.g. school occupations). But in the meantime, until they do, we need to act on our own.

Since I teach on Tuesday evenings, the meeting Andy proposed to discuss this doesn't work for me. Hence I thought I would share my thoughts in this fashion. 

-Kieran

---

From: Joe Scarry <jtsc...@yahoo.com>
To: "oc_s...@googlegroups.com" <oc_s...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Monday, April 16, 2012 10:28 AM
Subject: Re: Notes from 4/13 NATO/G8 committee >> MAY 21

Thanks.

A key point: my understanding was that the focus would be on war crimes, and that we would make use of the abundant documentation of the war crimes of the US and other NATO powers.

Therefore, how about:

May 21st: Occupy Chicago Day of Democracy: The People Have the Power!

Peoples Trial for NATO and Mass General Assembly.

I have concerns about trying to include "G8" in there, simply because we do not have time to start from square one to figure out what such an indictment would look like.

I understand that there is a connection between the crimes of NATO and the crimes of G8, but I believe that we are in a position to talk about how the people have the power to arrest and prosecute leaders for specific violations of specific laws, and if we start down the path of broadening the concept too much, we will undermine the potential for real, near-term action that could happen as a result of this exercise. I believe a vote by the GA on May 21 [e.g. "RESOLVED: the leaders of NATO shall be arrested and prosecuted for war crimes." ], supported by the presentation of the indictment that will precede it, could mean that a global call could be put out to all Occupy's everywhere to take up, accept, and act upon this resolution.

Thanks again to everyone for starting to think this through ....

Joe

---

From: the proletary <alexandra...@gmail.com>
To: oc_s...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Monday, April 16, 2012 9:27 AM
Subject: Re: Notes from 4/13 NATO/G8 committee >> MAY 21

So I think that the language that we use as a placeholder should
include the GA to ensure that the actions are seen as one and under
the general banner of Democracy.  How to do this in an elegant way i
am not sure of at the moment but the other thing is to have
"Democracy" be forefront in the messaging as it is the connector with
the themes of the week.
May 21st: Occupy Chicago.  Day of Democracy.  Peoples Trial for NATO/G
and Mass General Assembly.
Just a thought.  others should weigh in.
b

On 4/16/12, Joe Scarry <jtsc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Thanks - this is very helpful.
>
> I will bring a progress report on May 21 prep to the Friday night 4/20
> meeting.
>
>
> In the meantime, two questions for the group:
>
> * In the interest of getting the word out, would the following "placeholder"
> be acceptable for wide circulation?
>
> May 21 - Occupy Chicago - "People's Investigation"/ War Crimes Trial for the
> nations associated with NATO/ G8
>
>
> * I am gathering people to work on part 1 of May 21 ("presenting the
> indictment") and will report more on that Friday night. Are there members of
> the working group that can work with me on developing part 2 - the GA? I
> think we need a small group to think this through offline, and bring to the
> entire working group a proposal of how such a GA could be envisioned ....
> asap ....
>
>
> Thanks!
>
>
> Joe
>
>

[MC Carter]

I like this idea, it's bold.  But to be clear it is becoming evident of Rahms deep desire to prevent an Occupy camp before the NATO summit.  His pride, and the strong arm of the CPD will never let this get established without a violent response ... Therefore we will need a mass of people too large to overcome... Similar to zuccotti ... And we will need a strategy to fortify the occupied space within fair legal parameters... I am not suggesting any of Rahms ordinances but human rights that can be clearly articulated by us and understood by the 99% ... This action could inspire a larger chain re-action that could help further the principles of the movement.

Nice work Keiran.

Carter

[Michael Herbert]

"His pride, and the strong arm of the CPD will never let this get established without a violent response"

I whole-heartedly agree with this statement.  Being that Rahm is also super-sensitive to the PR of violent resistance to peaceful protest (as evident in the orders from the higher-ups since last september) I think Occupy Chicago would benefit from focusing on using what Occupy Chicago knows to get what Occupy Chicago wants, namely, forcing the city to use the violent hand its holding behind its back.  The application of this is not a lost concept.  Nor is the result.  Scott Olson in Oakland. Pepper Sprayed White girls in New York.  Radicalization historically happens when the people see the extent to which the state will use violence to oppress democratic assembly.

-Mike

---

From: MC Carter <mccart...@gmail.com>
To: "oc_soci...@googlegroups.com" <oc_soci...@googlegroups.com>
Cc: "oc_dire...@googlegroups.com" <oc_dire...@googlegroups.com>; Michael Herbert <mher...@prodigy.net>; Kelly Hayes <kellyh...@gmail.com>; "oc_s...@googlegroups.com" <oc_s...@googlegroups.com>; "oc_soci...@googlegroups.com" <oc_soci...@googlegroups.com>; "secretaria...@googlegroups.com" <secretaria...@googlegroups.com>; "socia...@occupychi.org" <socia...@occupychi.org>; OccupyChicagoLaborOutreach <union.taskfo...@gmail.com>; "direct...@occupychi.org" <direct...@occupychi.org>; "le...@occupychi.org" <le...@occupychi.org>; "ar...@occupychi.org" <ar...@occupychi.org>; "dona...@occupychi.org" <dona...@occupychi.org>; "rese...@occupychi.org" <rese...@occupychi.org>; "coordi...@occupychi.org" <coordi...@occupychi.org>; "conf...@occupychi.org" <conf...@occupychi.org>; "hou...@occupychi.org" <hou...@occupychi.org>; "outr...@occupychi.org" <outr...@occupychi.org>; "secre...@occupychi.org" <secre...@occupychi.org>; occupychieducationcommittee <occupych...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Thu, April 19, 2012 7:33:17 PM
Subject: Re: [OC_SM] Re: sooo, no interest in discussing this?

[James]

Also Emily, myself, Jackie, Bunny, and others came up with a direct action last night that's a little less risqué but we dint want to discuss it in GG. :) Fun time with CPD is all I will say. It's planned for after MayDay March. 

James

[Nate]

Those of us who attended the discussion and training with Lisa Fithian also wanted to discuss some action ideas.  So, it seems like we definitely need a meeting to handle this.  The sooner the better.

Are peeps able to get together this weekend?  (Somewhere off site, perhaps?)

[Kelly Hayes]

I'm interested in attending a discussion about these things.

[James]

Right fucking on Herbert. We can't be scared to take a risk every now and then. I truly believe that that's why occupations Luke Oakland and Ny are so strong, because they aren't so scared of the police and breaking undemocratic, unconstitutional, bullshit laws. 

Occupy gained steam from Scott Olsen . From the Brooklyn Bridge kettling of OWS. From the pepper spaying of students at UC Davis. From the numerous raids SEVERAL nights in a row. I can honestly say the last time Occupy Chicago took a risk was taking the horse. Trying to set up a camp ground. That in itself in plain context isn't even risky or wild. We have to do something exciting.   

I agree that NATO coming up does play a big role in this action whatever it may be. We have to really think about this, plan, and organize. If we are smart we can make this a way to bring even more people our into the streets to join us in May.

I feel like we all feel the same way and a session is definitely overdue.what's a good day this weekend early next week? I know it's impossible to have everyone be able to make it, but we can try.

James

[Benjamin Burton]

We need goals before we can do what you suggest.

-Ben

Sent from my iPhone

On Apr 20, 2012, at 4:59 AM, Nate <nate.l...@gmail.com> wrote:

> But we need to stop fantasizing about Oakland or the Battle for Seattle and start thinking about how any direct action and civil disobedience will accomplish our goals.

[Amy C. Buckler]

I whole heartedly agree with Nate.

--
Amy C. Buckler
amycb...@gmail.com

[Kelly Hayes]

Sorry for the repetition.  Meant to hit "reply all."

This thread seemed promising, on a number of levels, (even though I think some of the subject matter is best discussed off listserv), but then...

Talk of "normal" people...  um, I am pretty sure that it would be silly to disregard ppl beaten in protests, in the sixties, or now, as abnormal.  Actually, it's just plain offensive.  Also, those images do stir people to action, and have, decades ago, and now.  There is ample evidence to support that assertion.

"From distant observations I'm getting the impression that they are sympathetic to the cause."  That's utterly absurd.  My observations aren't so distant, and I can tell you that everything I have seen indicates otherwise.  Feigning sympathy is a tactic, btw.  Some of them do this, and then show their true colors by getting abusive and dick within the hour, or within a couple of hours.  Being fooled by their bs is a huge mistake.  You may find a VERY rare exception to what I am saying, but let's not be naive here. 

Rahm is savvy enough to level the po against us, while preventing an all out media circus of violence that would ultimately screw him over.  He had summits to worry about, and still has one of them.  Let's get real.  The vast majority of cops are nowhere near being on our side, or even sympathetic, and never will be.  To be frank, I am beyond sick of having to forward that argument.  It is very tiresome to those of us who grew up around them in less pleasant settings.  We know what they are, and what they always will be, and "sympathetic" ain't it.

For the record, I am all for canvasing, and flyering, but it's never going to be enough.  And no one is suggesting direct action for the sake of direct action.  Keiran's idea was actually very well thought out, and his reasoning was thoroughly established in his post.  Mike's ideas may seem radical to you, and they are, but we need to stop being afraid of taking radical action, or we are going to disappear completely.

Also, Woodlawn has actually gotten decent coverage.  It may lean toward MHM, but it is their thing, and we have decided, as a group, not to try to usurp their spotlight, which is quite morally correct.  You don't build effective relationships by showing up on scenes where others have carried the bulk of the risk, done most of the planning, and whose futures are on the line, just to jump into the spotlight.  We have done that before, and then quickly leap frogged to the next cause, which is alienating to others, and honestly, downright embarrassing.  I've seen it happen, and it made me feel like absolute shit.  Our role in Woodlawn will ultimately get some attention.  We couldn't avoid that if we wanted to, but seriously...  there is coverage (hell, I've been in that coverage myself a few times), and our efforts have helped with that.  The encampment never would have survived as long as it did without the efforts of some OC members, and ORP (who kicked ass on this thing) - can't ppl just be proud of that, instead of making a big deal that our name wasn't splashed all over that coverage?  Our efforts there were some of the most radical I have seen in quite a while (we held off an eviction order for days, and I am damn proud of that).  That action has inspired people within OC, and helped push some people toward more thoughtful conversations about DA.  That's a good thing.  (I know some people have never stopped having  those conversations, but there's definitely been an overall shift, in terms of what more people are willing to discuss, and what seems possible.)  

End rant.

- Kel


On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 9:41 AM, Kelly Hayes <kellyh...@gmail.com> wrote:
This thread seemed promising, on a number of levels, (even though I think some of the subject matter is best discussed off listserv), but then...

Talk of "normal" people...  um, I am pretty sure that it would be silly to disregard ppl beaten in protests, in the sixties, or now, as abnormal.  Actually, it's just plain offensive.  Also, those images do stir people to action, and have, decades ago, and now.  There is ample evidence to support that assertion.

"From distant observations I'm getting the impression that they are sympathetic to the cause."  That's utterly absurd.  My observations aren't so distant, and I can tell you that everything I have seen indicates otherwise.  Feigning sympathy is a tactic, btw.  Some of them do this, and then show their true colors by getting abusive and dick within the hour, or within a couple of hours.  Being fooled by their bs is a huge mistake.  You may find a VERY rare exception to what I am saying, but let's not be naive here. 

Rahm is savvy enough not to level the po against us, while preventing an all out media circus of violence that would ultimately screw him over.  He had summits to worry about, and still has one of them.  Let's get real.  The vast majority of cops are nowhere near being on our side, or even sympathetic, and never will be.  To be frank, I am beyond sick of having to forward that argument.  It is very tiresome to those of us who grew up around them in less pleasant settings.  We know what they are, and what they always will be, and "sympathetic" ain't it.

For the record, I am all for canvasing, and flyering, but it's never going to be enough.  And no one is suggesting direct action for the sake of direct action.  Keiran's idea was actually very well thought out, and his reasoning was thoroughly established in his post.  Mike's ideas may seem radical to you, and they are, but we need to stop being afraid of taking radical action, or we are going to disappear completely.

Also, Woodlawn has actually gotten decent coverage.  It may lean toward MHM, but it is their thing, and we have decided, as a group, not to try to usurp their spotlight, which is quite morally correct.  You don't build effective relationships by showing up on scenes where others have carried the bulk of the risk, done most of the planning, and whose futures are on the line, just to jump into the spotlight.  We have done that before, and then quickly leap frogged to the next cause, which is alienating to others, and honestly, downright embarrassing.  I've seen it happen, and it made me feel like absolute shit.  Our role in Woodlawn will ultimately get some attention.  We couldn't avoid that if we wanted to, but seriously...  there is coverage (hell, I've been in that coverage myself a few times), and our efforts have helped with that.  The encampment never would have survived as long as it did without the efforts of some OC members, and ORP (who kicked ass on this thing) - can't ppl just be proud of that, instead of making a big deal that our name wasn't splashed all over that coverage?  Our efforts there were some of the most radical I have seen in quite a while (we held off an eviction order for days, and I am damn proud of that).  That action has inspired people within OC, and helped push some people toward more thoughtful conversations about DA.  That's a good thing.  (I know some people have never stopped having  those conversations, but there's definitely been an overall shift, in terms of what more people are willing to discuss, and what seems possible.)  

End rant.

- Kel

[Ben Burton]

Did someone say radical action? "Nautical flares".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z5G3pGFVLOo

They work wonders.

-Ben

[Evelyn]

Hey buds,

 

I just want to say, I'm happy people are talking, but as my daddy always said, no one is ever going to do the work for you, you've got to build it yourself.

 

It's been seven months. At this point, YOU should know:

1) Who you work well with / have similar interests with

2) How to form an affinity group

3) How to plan and execute an action.

 

If you don't know these things, you should give yourself a slap in the face and open your eyes/ears a little more.

 

All it takes to build a very successful action sometimes is 2-7 like-minded people who can figure out a goal, a strategy, and the tactics towards achieving that. You don't need to involve all of OC in early planning stages, or (possibly) ever depending on what kind of action it is. This movement was intended to empower people to take direct action to change the world, and we all need to be leaders in that. We all know who each other are, and we should be reaching out to each other one-on-one to build actions. Think about the strengths of the people you know, what resources individuals have available to them -- who is good at strategy, who is a good organizer, who has balls of steel -- come up with a cool idea, and build a team. Affinity groups happen pretty organically, but you have to take steps towards making things happen in an active way.

 

On another note, if you are going to do something that might get you in trouble, don't share it with this list. I'm pumped that you're building an action James, but I don't want an informant on this list (and there are informants on these lists people) to use any information that you give out about who is involved in your action against you later. I don't want someone to pull me into an interrogation room and ask me about something that I may have read on the GG. Security culture, folks.

 

I mentioned at the GA last night to a few of you that having some kind of meeting or session where we could build affinity groups would be great if anyone wants to organize that (please!), but personally I think it's more important that people use their noggins and their newfound activist skillsets and put them to work. Start small if you've never organized anything, but dip your toe in the water and try to get a minor action going if you're interested in pushing this movement forward towards greater things.

 

For the record, if you are building an affinity group and you need graphics or a clown or whatever other skillset you perceive me to have, you can always hit me up.

 

Love,

your clown friend

ev

[Ben Burton]

[Michael Herbert]

Nate,

Encouraging police brutality is not the same as creating a situation where the state must either yield to the right to democratic assembly or use violence to repress it.  That is not encouraging police brutality.  It is refusing to ask for that right, and refusing to walk away from it when instructed.

Your comment that "You never plan an action" that does this is simply demonstrably untrue. 

Another important discrepancy you've missed is the difference between "recruiting... hardcore activists" and creating them. 

Your email is riddled with baseless generalizations, one being that "FAR more" people being pushed away by what you call "crazy" actions than there are that are drawn in.  I'd like to see your data on this. 

Taking a stand is not "crazy" and I find the flippant use of such descriptors to be indicative of a vision that doesn't encompass real meaningful change. 

When police use violence against peaceful protestors, it doesn't teach the public that the protestors are dangerous.  There is no logic to that claim, nor any supporting evidence of which I am aware.  There is no more apparent illustration of the threat posed to the state by an organized populous than it's consistent use of violence against peaceful assembly.  That's the lesson and it's an important one that shouldn't be trivialized. 

I feel these tactics are not as off-putting and fear-instilling than the rhetoric you are using to talk about them.  They are not "crazy."  They're not even that radical. 

Direct participatory democracy is at the heart of this movement.  Occupy has seen irrefutable evidence that the state will stop at nothing to repress the constitutional right of public assembly and there is consistently a bump in support and energy that follows violent evictions by the ruling class.  These are not baseless, rhetorical claims, but demonstrable facts.

Regarding tailoring tactics to campaign strategies, it's kind of all I've been talking about.  I don't know how you've missed it.  I've invited feedback in two different threads, including this one, on a proposal for facilitating campaign orientations and structuring campaign spokes councils.

-Mike

---

From: Nate <nate.l...@gmail.com>
To: James <james...@gmail.com>
Cc: "secretaria...@googlegroups.com" <secretaria...@googlegroups.com>; "oc_s...@googlegroups.com" <oc_s...@googlegroups.com>; "oc_soci...@googlegroups.com" <oc_soci...@googlegroups.com>; "oc_dire...@googlegroups.com" <oc_dire...@googlegroups.com>; Michael Herbert <mher...@prodigy.net>; "socia...@occupychi.org" <socia...@occupychi.org>; OccupyChicagoLaborOutreach <union.taskfo...@gmail.com>; "direct...@occupychi.org" <direct...@occupychi.org>; "le...@occupychi.org" <le...@occupychi.org>; "ar...@occupychi.org" <ar...@occupychi.org>; "dona...@occupychi.org" <dona...@occupychi.org>; "rese...@occupychi.org" <rese...@occupychi.org>; "coordi...@occupychi.org" <coordi...@occupychi.org>; "conf...@occupychi.org" <conf...@occupychi.org>; "hou...@occupychi.org" <hou...@occupychi.org>; "outr...@occupychi.org" <outr...@occupychi.org>; "secre...@occupychi.org" <secre...@occupychi.org>; occupychieducationcommittee <occupych...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Fri, April 20, 2012 5:00:16 AM
Subject: Re: [OC_Secretariat] Re: [OC_SM] Re: sooo, no interest in discussing this?

Pause.

Look James (and everyone else), I'm down with civil disobedience and direct action.  I've put my ass on the line with Occupy and numerous other organizations over the years, including bum rushing a unit of riot police during the Bush administration, getting in a shoving match with sheriffs at the blockade last week, and going to jail in October.  I hear what you are saying about direct actions being badass and encouraging people to be more radical and get involved, but I don't agree with a lot of what you are suggesting.  Direct actions are not going to be what makes Occupy Chicago awesome.  Getting shit done is.

Direct action for the sake of direct action is stupid.  I thought that a lot of the actions done by Oakland and New York were terrible, and have done more to push "normal" people** away from Occupy than they have done to recruit hardcore activists.  I'll be frank, I have no interest in doing anything to recruit the hardcore activists drawn by an action like Oakland's phalanx.  My interest is in making Occupy a successful movement that creates change, which will happen in a large part by recruiting people who don't want to get caught in a riot or go to jail for the cause.  The people attracted by crazy direct actions are a minority, and they are the last people we should be putting thought or effort into recruiting.  They're drawn to successful movements like a moth to a flame.

And in the same vein I am strongly pushing back against the idea that we need to encourage actions that get people hurt in order to expose police brutality.  You never plan an action that will intentionally encourage police brutality.  That is not fair to the people participating in the action (unless every single one of them knows that is the goal, which is almost impossible with a mass action) and that is horrible public relations for Occupy.  As much as that does to highlight the injustice of the system and radicalize some people...it does FAR more to push other people away from attending.  It shows people that being a part of Occupy is dangerous.  That's why they beat us.

Like I said, I'm down with direct action and civil disobedience, including hardcore shit when the circumstances call for it.  But we need to stop fantasizing about Oakland or the Battle for Seattle and start thinking about how any direct action and civil disobedience will accomplish our goals.  It is really easy for people regularly engaging in civil disobedience to get caught up in thinking about theatrics or making an action newsworthy or particularly badass while forgetting the big picture.  It happens all the time.  But you don't engage in actions for the sake of an awesome action.  You do them to accomplish a particular goal, and that is what I think has been missing from a lot of discussion lately.  

I'm not saying we shouldn't come up with some crazy stuff to do.  I'm saying that we need to work our way backwards, start by thinking about what specific, tangible (and winnable!) goals we want to accomplish, and then plan out an action that will get us there.  Actions aren't a goal or a recruiting tool, they're a tactic used to influence the playing field to create favorable results.  Generally to lobby a recalcitrant opponent or block their moves.

~Nate

Footnote:

** By the phrase "normal people", I mean people with full time jobs or families.  People who sympathize with our general message but are still sitting on the fence.  People who, for one reason or another, cannot or are not willing to put themselves in front of a line of riot police.  The actual 99% that we're supposed to be winning over.

Watching a bunch of activists at a direct action get beat up on TV is not going to win them over or radicalize them.  It's too easy to say that we brought it on ourselves by being troublemakers.  These people are radicalized when the oppression of the "system" starts to impact their lives, too.  Like the security restrictions from NATO or the fully armed blackhawks circling the city this week.  Watching college kids get abused on TV is not enough to do it.  These days we call that entertainment.

Yeah, I know, I'm long winded.  But I had a lot to say.

[X X]

I agree with a lot of what Nate had to say.   Direct Action for the sake of Direct Action doesn't serve us a purpose.  Creating a situation in the hopes that you will elicit violence from the state is not only stupid, its morally wrong.   Putting people into a situation where they may get hurt because you hope it will "grow the movement" is flat out disgusting.  The reason that people are often inspired by state backlash is because those on the receiving ends were simply exercising their rights.  I am all for radical direct action but it needs to be well thought out and part of a larger tactical plan.  When committing a radical direct action you are creating a moment of crisis, if you don't have something to push forward during that crisis you are giving the state an excuse to get away with whatever it wants due to the hooligans in the street.  We should all take a deeper examination of what led to the Woodlawn occupation.  This tactic was part of an ongoing campaign that slowly escalated.  If you jump to the most radical tactic on a campaign out of the gate you have nothing to build up to, you've shown all your cards.   Che once said that you only use violence in a revolution when you've won over the populace.  I'm not advocating violence but would recommend interchanging "radical direct action" with violence when planning action.  Ask yourself how those you've yet to win over will interpret your act.   If we want to win (which I'm sure most of us do) we need to win over the general populace.   This doesn't mean stick to letter writing campaigns, it means think tactics.  I understand everyone's frustrations, I'm frustrated too.  I like some of the ideas I've seen in this thread but I would place caution on others.  With Love, Matt __________________________________________________________________________________ "You can blow out a candle but you can't blow out a fire, once the flames begin to catch the wind will blow it higher" ________________________________________________________________________________ "Your reputation as a putz certainly precedes you."David Krzesinski --- On Fri, 4/20/12, Ben Burton <toa...@gmail.com> wrote:

From: Ben Burton <toa...@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [OC_Secretariat] Re: [OC_SM] Re: sooo, no interest in discussing this?

[Kelly Hayes]

None of this is meant to sound contentious or bitchy, so let me apologize in advance if it comes off that way.

I agree that some conversations are better had offllist, but Mike is talking about getting funding, which requires a larger conversation.  I also agree that we need to cultivate more affinity groups, but it's not surprising that people are trying to influence the larger sphere.  Doing so (particularly at this point) is sort of necessary.  Also, planning a major action often involves more than just a few people.  This is true for practical reasons, and for reasons that apply specifically to OC.  Big things require numbers, and when people in this movement aren't consulted, they often blame the organizers for a lack of transparency, or for failing to get the word out (to turn out numbers).  When big things start pulling in better numbers (as happened recently), some people act like an ongoing action is somehow responsible for people failing to give attention to other things, when, in reality, people were already dropping the ball left and right. 

The truth is, with or without notice, turn out is always a struggle, but we have definitely cultivated a damned if you do, damned if you don't atmosphere for those who want to plan DA.  We have not been an environment that is welcoming or encouraging of radical action in quite some time.  That's a problem.  No one is wrong for trying to influence the culture of this movement, especially when that culture has been tipping toward something so timid that it will never get the ongoing coverage that some people are so worried about (since there's nothing particularly appealing, to the media, about a "movement" that's just another typical protest group).  I have actually heard some people talk about OC being a "mainstream movement," as though that were a good thing.  I have heard people demonizing "radical" actions (as though anything would get done without the more "radical" members of this group).  Let me just point out that when I am the most radical person in any given room, it creeps me out, because in the realm of activism, I'm not sure I am wildly radical at all. 

If I ever really see us as a mainstream movement, I'll pack up my shit and go back to the organizing that I was involved with long before this movement started.  That's not an "I'm going to quit" threat, it's just a personal evaluation of what makes this movement worth something, and what would make it utterly meaningless.

- Kel

[X X]

"When police use violence against peaceful protestors, it doesn't teach the public that the protestors are dangerous"Mike sure but it does scare many from coming out.  large arrests like the Brooklyn bridge also keep felons, undocumented, people who simply can't get arrested from coming out. I'm not saying we shouldn't be taking actions that may result in either of those things.  I would just urge us to be thinking about how they fit into the larger struggle.  My initial response was greatly influenced by personal conversations I've been having where many people want to do something simply because they are antsy.

With Love, Matt __________________________________________________________________________________ "You can blow out a candle but you can't blow out a fire, once the flames begin to catch the wind will blow it higher" ________________________________________________________________________________ "Your reputation as a putz certainly precedes you."David Krzesinski

--- On Fri, 4/20/12, Kelly Hayes <kellyh...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Michael Herbert]

Just to touch on something Evelyn said,

All it takes to build a very successful action sometimes is 2-7 like-minded people who can figure out a goal, a strategy, and the tactics towards achieving that.

Ideally, our actions relate to each other in a larger strategy.  Our goal be concretely defined and should exist somewhere down the line at the end of a series of actions that compliment each other in a focused way. 

Think of hunting T-Rex.  Our goal is to bag a T-Rex for a communal feast.  We can all chase a stampede of them with shotguns shooting at any one we see, or we can trade our shotguns for rifles and all focus our sites on one at a time.

I'd like to repeat my offer to host some campaign and strategy building orientations.  If this is something people are interested in, I'll put some time into it, because I think O.C. would benefit from planning actions within a larger context to achieve some intentional and pre-defined goals.

-Mike

---

From: Evelyn <evelyn...@gmail.com>
To: oc_soci...@googlegroups.com
Cc: occupy-chicago-recre...@googlegroups.com; James <james...@gmail.com>; "secretaria...@googlegroups.com" <secretaria...@googlegroups.com>; "oc_s...@googlegroups.com" <oc_s...@googlegroups.com>; "oc_dire...@googlegroups.com" <oc_dire...@googlegroups.com>; Michael Herbert <mher...@prodigy.net>; "socia...@occupychi.org" <socia...@occupychi.org>; OccupyChicagoLaborOutreach <union.taskfo...@gmail.com>; "direct...@occupychi.org" <direct...@occupychi.org>; "le...@occupychi.org" <le...@occupychi.org>; "ar...@occupychi.org" <ar...@occupychi.org>; "dona...@occupychi.org" <dona...@occupychi.org>; "rese...@occupychi.org" <rese...@occupychi.org>; "coordi...@occupychi.org" <coordi...@occupychi.org>; "conf...@occupychi.org" <conf...@occupychi.org>; "hou...@occupychi.org" <hou...@occupychi.org>; "outr...@occupychi.org" <outr...@occupychi.org>; "secre...@occupychi.org" <secre...@occupychi.org>; occupychieducationcommittee <occupych...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Fri, April 20, 2012 10:07:54 AM
Subject: Re: [OC_Secretariat] Re: [OC_SM] Re: sooo, no interest in discussing this?

[Evelyn]

Yep, I do agree with you on that, Mike.

 

I've felt for quite some time that Occupy (or at least this branch of Occupy) needs a well-defined goal to work towards. Not something we need to share with the press or media, but something that we are working towards internally. An action is only successful if it feeds into the over-arching strategy, and many people confuse strategy for tactics, which is a distinction we have to overcome.

 

At the same time, I encourage people to build actions in the sense that I think that it helps people refine for themselves what they really want out of Occupy. If they are able to sit down and think about an action with a specific goal in mind, they can ask themselves, how does this goal serve a greater purpose? And they can more concretely define for themselves what direction Occupy needs to go in.

--
Evelyn DeHais

evelyndehais.com

Graphic Design, Illustration & Amateur Clowning

evelyn...@gmail.com

914. 439. 2960

[Ben Burton]

I believe when the Goals and Vision committee formed I said "This might be the only committee that can save Occupy Chicago", and I meant it. The lack of strategy has really hurt us. I've quietly campaigned for this for a while. I'd love to get together with people to work on this as it's the only way to get us to the next level.

"Make no little plans..."

Daniel Burnham.

-Ben

[Kelly Hayes]

Matt,

I think you misunderstand some of what is being said here.  I don't think anyone is advocating DA for the sake of DA.  I likewise do not think that people are really pushing to take action just to elicit violence from the police.  The Brooklyn Bridge incident is what forced the media to take notice, and start covering OWS.  I think the point that is being made is that we should not operate in a state of fear, but rather, worry about executing effective tactics. No one wants to see their friends get hurt, but some forms of protest carry risks, and participants sometimes choose to accept those risks.

Some of us have been pushing for more well thought campaigns for a while now.  But I also support radical steps that are taken to support groups that have already gone through the motions of less radical tactics, and all that jazz.  That's what we've done here, and I think it's what Mike was talking about when he mentioned the idea of purchasing equipment.

- Kel

[X X]

I sent a follow up email but my response was also coming from many personal conversations.  i would argue that some people are pushing for just that.  I realize they are a minority but thats who I was speaking to.

With Love, Matt __________________________________________________________________________________ "You can blow out a candle but you can't blow out a fire, once the flames begin to catch the wind will blow it higher" ________________________________________________________________________________ "Your reputation as a putz certainly precedes you."David Krzesinski --- On Fri, 4/20/12, Kelly Hayes <kellyh...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Michael Herbert]

Matt,

Your email doesn't suggest an objective view on calculated use of tactics. 

"stupid," "disgusting," "morally wrong," are highly emotionally charged words, all of which I disagree with in the context of your email. 

I would apply those words to the use of violence against democratic assembly.  But that's irrelevant to the conversation at hand. 

I don't see anything morally reprehensible about committing to democratic assembly in the face of violent repression, or speaking openly, in a conversation about tactics in a larger narrative, about how such a clash would effect an increased momentum.

Above all, I think it's important, if we are going to be having constructive conversations about tactics and strategy, that we are all mindful of the language we are using and how it contributes to the purpose of the conversation.  These are tools. 

 

-Mike

---

From: X X <moccu...@yahoo.com>
To: oc_soci...@googlegroups.com; oc_dire...@googlegroups.com

Cc: occupy-chicago-recre...@googlegroups.com; James <james...@gmail.com>; "secretaria...@googlegroups.com" <secretaria...@googlegroups.com>; "oc_s...@googlegroups.com" <oc_s...@googlegroups.com>; "oc_dire...@googlegroups.com" <oc_dire...@googlegroups.com>; Michael Herbert <mher...@prodigy.net>; "socia...@occupychi.org" <socia...@occupychi.org>; OccupyChicagoLaborOutreach <union.taskfo...@gmail.com>; "direct...@occupychi.org" <direct...@occupychi.org>; "le...@occupychi.org" <le...@occupychi.org>; "ar...@occupychi.org" <ar...@occupychi.org>; "dona...@occupychi.org" <dona...@occupychi.org>; "rese...@occupychi.org" <rese...@occupychi.org>; "coordi...@occupychi.org" <coordi...@occupychi.org>; "conf...@occupychi.org" <conf...@occupychi.org>; "hou...@occupychi.org" <hou...@occupychi.org>; "outr...@occupychi.org" <outr...@occupychi.org>; "secre...@occupychi.org" <secre...@occupychi.org>; occupychieducationcommittee <occupych...@googlegroups.com>

Sent: Fri, April 20, 2012 10:35:10 AM

[X X]

Mike there is nothing I agree with more than standing up for whats right.   I was replying to suggestions that I've heard that we should do things in hopes that we will be repressed.

With Love, Matt __________________________________________________________________________________ "You can blow out a candle but you can't blow out a fire, once the flames begin to catch the wind will blow it higher" ________________________________________________________________________________ "Your reputation as a putz certainly precedes you."David Krzesinski

--- On Fri, 4/20/12, Michael Herbert <mher...@prodigy.net> wrote:

[Michael Herbert]

It's not about 'hoping' to be repressed.  It's about informing our actions with what we know about how our opposition will respond, and using that knowledge tactically. 

If the response of our opposition is predictable, and we can use it in some way, that should be considered for what it is. 

Planning an action that counts on that response may be re-framed, by some, to mean "hoping" for that response, but saying as much within a tactical context has a different meaning than outside of one.

It's important that we remain in that context for the purposes of this conversation.

-Mike

---

From: X X <moccu...@yahoo.com>
To: oc_soci...@googlegroups.com; oc_dire...@googlegroups.com

Cc: occupy-chicago-recre...@googlegroups.com; James <james...@gmail.com>; "secretaria...@googlegroups.com" <secretaria...@googlegroups.com>; "oc_s...@googlegroups.com" <oc_s...@googlegroups.com>; "oc_dire...@googlegroups.com" <oc_dire...@googlegroups.com>; "socia...@occupychi.org" <socia...@occupychi.org>; OccupyChicagoLaborOutreach <union.taskfo...@gmail.com>; "direct...@occupychi.org" <direct...@occupychi.org>; "le...@occupychi.org" <le...@occupychi.org>; "ar...@occupychi.org" <ar...@occupychi.org>; "dona...@occupychi.org" <dona...@occupychi.org>; "rese...@occupychi.org" <rese...@occupychi.org>; "coordi...@occupychi.org" <coordi...@occupychi.org>; "conf...@occupychi.org" <conf...@occupychi.org>; "hou...@occupychi.org" <hou...@occupychi.org>; "outr...@occupychi.org" <outr...@occupychi.org>; "secre...@occupychi.org" <secre...@occupychi.org>; occupychieducationcommittee <occupych...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Fri, April 20, 2012 11:12:59 AM

[Jay Becker]

Regarding the proposal for May 21: So, NATO is holding its annual summit in Chicago in exactly one month, the first ever held in the US outside of Washington, DC. NATO - the military arm of the top imperialist countries in the world, with the US in command. It has about 75% of the military killing power in the world.  Right now, the US & NATO are mired in the longest war in US history, being waged against the people of one of the poorest countries in the world, Afghanistan. Reports indicate that finding ways out of that mire will be a top focus of the war makers’ summit here. That’s just one part of the killing machine. The generals and heads of state convening here command torture apparatuses that stretch from the south side of Chicago to the prisons of their member states to black holes where people are disappeared while these “guardians of human rights” threaten Syria (only the latest) for its abuses. NATO should know – the Assad regime tortured at US direction! What will Occupy Chicago have to say about this killing machine during its Summit here in Chicago? Over 2000 journalists from around the world will be here, including from many countries targeted by NATO, and countries where grassroots  movements and Occupations have opposed NATO/US and the inequalities they enforce and attempt to expand through war. The proposal unanimously adopted by the NATO/G8 working group for May 21 aims to provide a platform for voices of people from those countries - and here - to condemn these generals and heads of state who pose as the “guardians of peace and stability.” We propose to rip the “peacemakers” mask off the death and destruction done at the command of these ruling classes.  What better time than in the midst of their deliberations on more destruction, and what better place than the commander in chief’s hometown as he attempts to shore up his electoral base? There are deep connections between the devastation NATO wreaks on other countries and the repression, mass incarceration, and hollowing out of what remained of some basic rights in this country. The People’s Investigation of war crimes we proposed for May 21 can bring those to light and win more people over to seeing those connections. Can we bring charges against the war criminals? No, we can’t, just like we can’t call out the police to defend our rights in the streets, at schools or clinics. Their job is to defend the rights of property and privilege. But we can contribute to changing the political climate in this country, and sometimes beyond. The howling inequities that Occupy so brilliantly highlighted from the first – highly symbolic! – occupation of “Wall Street” (really, a park nearby) changed the conversation across this country (inspired by others around the world).  Those inequities run deep, across the globe, and resistance from around the world has fueled Occupys everywhere.  Remember Tunisia?  I think the proposal for a May 21 People’s Investigation into US & NATO war crimes, followed by a GA to discuss and ratify the results (yet to be finalized) would be an exercise in accountability (a cornerstone of democracy) and a fitting contribution from Occupy Chicago to all those people from Tahrir Square to Rome to Madrid etc. etc. who have inspired us who can’t be here in May.  For those who weren’t at the NATO/G8 working group last week, I’d be happy to send you the proposal that was approved. I'll also bring a few copies to the NATO/G8 meeting tonight, see some of you there. Jay "The whole point of principle is that you have to fight for it when it is not easy to do. There is no need for principle if the only time it is applied is when it doesn't matter."  --  Quote #6.3, from "BAsics, from the talks & writings of Bob Avakian"

--- On Fri, 4/20/12, Michael Herbert <mher...@prodigy.net> wrote:

From: Michael Herbert <mher...@prodigy.net> Subject: [oc_legal_police] Re: [OC_Secretariat] Re: [OC_SM] Re: sooo, no interest in discussing this? To: "X X" <moccu...@yahoo.com>, oc_soci...@googlegroups.com, oc_dire...@googlegroups.com

[David Orlikoff]

I'm pretty sure Matt's a cop.

;)

Haha, sigh.      the thing is, we actually have far less control over getting masses of people to act based on our individual and collective decisions and actions.
We have far more control over ourselves and the people self-represented by our collective decisions.

Plans for actions assuming large theoretical involvement haven't panned out for us. We had momentum the first 3 weeks downtown, growing every day, and saturday and sunday, leading to take the horse 1 and 2. that was interest from ows, and also the underlying issues that made ows possible. we had 1400 at a7. turns out i think most were not totally new fresh people like with the start of all this. they were people who had had a dip in the waters but were not active recently. None of our other attempts for mass action have worked. We had more media than protestors at some things like G8 leaving celebration because the media agreed with us it seemed like it should be a mass thing. But the people didnt agree. not that they decided that, but it just never ends up where we make a call and the people respond. OUR people respond. And we have a lot of people. 5000 at least, or in the tens of thousands depending how you count it, but most are not active.

So instead of debating about things we don't really consciously control, we should debate about what we really can control. Even though only 30 or a dozen people show up sometimes, we've still taken the street with that many, gotten on the news with that many, pushed a message with that many.

Occupy isn't a porthole to the masses. It's a framework for activism that many find more inspiring and oddly accessible in its newness than any previous means. A large part of the framework is the big tent aspect of Occupy which I separate into two parts that are extremely inspirational: 1) Our struggles are connected with common systemic causes, 2) Together, we can create a society free of that systemic cause. Another way of saying 1 and 2 is that Occupy allows you to be yourself and Occupy has the potential to change the world.

Rather than worry about the mainstream, we should worry about the people who are inspired by occupy and could potential join and be real activists. We need to worry about those 2 things. If we broadcast THAT message, as subtext or whatever, people will be inspired to work within occupy. almost everything we debate on is predicated and precluded on the assumption that there are people willing to work within occupy.

People's consensus-made conscious decisions don't directly translate into changing the world in the ways they envisioned. I don't think we can actually create from our own elbow-grease directly a cataclysmic shift. Directly is an important word here. I think we have power to push ideas and get messages out and with our elbow grease move the mountain of our warped american zeitgeist ultimately making feasible many alternatives to the status quo.

What's more effective than 12 people showing up to an action? 12 people planning one. or two groups of 6 planning two.

It's okay to have lots of actions and different kinds of actions. I don't think we're diluting anything. the more people flex their organizing muscles the better, essentially.

the big/small, many/few, mass-mainstream

[Kieran]

The trouble with Matt and Nate's arguments has already largely been addressed by others, which is great (thanks Mike and Kelly especially), so there's no need to reiterate all of it here. Two quick points to add:

First, something to watch out for: you don't want to be the white liberal savior sticking up for the poor defenseless black felons and undocumented people, as this is a pretty bogus political position to take.  It smacks of condescension, racism, and a legacy of colonialism. Brown, red, black and otherwise vulnerable people don't need to be told who is most at risk or impacted. I'm sure any trace of that here is unintended (or I'm willing to assume it is for now), so I say this more as a caution, as something to watch out for. Kelly already indicated this problem, so I won't belabor the point. 

A second, practical issue is also linked to this, however. Such a 'protective' (paternal) attitude can also run the risk of perpetuating the illusion that undocumented people are *ever* safe, or that rallies, demo's and political involvement in general is ever safe, or -- last and most importantly -- that permits are any guarantee of safety from the police. On the contrary, and especially a group wants to do anything that involves sticking around longer than a 1 hour march, usually it only guarantees police repression as soon as the permit expires, if not sooner, as well as guaranteeing in advance that swarms of police will show up and cordon off one's event. Waving permits in the face of people of color or undocumented folk as a promise of safety is disingenuous and dangerous, as it creates a false sense of security that one cannot be sure to deliver. I do want POC to participate in these actions, but not by naively thinking they're safe. 

Third: @Jay's recent comment...It is certainly true that part of Zuccoti Park was symbolic, I agree. But I (and I think others here are also saying this, though I do not wish to speak for them) would argue that what energized and transformed the discourse had much less to do with its symbolic content than it did with the fact of actually taking over a space, creating a place where food was served for free, where an ongoing experiment in commoning could be found around the clock, where conversations about another form of life beyond this shit-show spectacle of capitalism could be had, and out in the open...and then defending this space when it got attacked. Hence I'm saying that while there was something symbolic about the space itself, the rubber hit the road when people saw others like them out in the street fighting over a political space that served them. It was a form -- paradoxical as it was, given that it began as a takeover -- of self-defense against the pigs. 

Occupy Oakland -- a different situation than NYC to be sure -- has always considered their Commune a form of self-defense on behalf of those who are hated, maligned, abused and murdered in that city by (largely)out-of-towner pigs. 

tl;dr : the point is not reckless endangerment (as if there was a safe political option worthy of the name 'politics'), but rather to intervene in our city in such a way as to create a situation where the State has to be seen as the defender of the worst parts of this world, while we are merely fighting for our survival and the survival of others around us, which -- incidentally -- is the only "goal" most of those most impacted by capitalism who are not yet involved in OC will be able to resonate with. Symbolic actions 'stage' a fight, but everyone knows they were empty-handed from the start. Let's get something in our hands before we (invariably) take arrests. 

-Kieran

---

From: X X <moccu...@yahoo.com>

To: oc_soci...@googlegroups.com
Cc: Nate <nate.l...@gmail.com>; James <james...@gmail.com>; "secretaria...@googlegroups.com" <secretaria...@googlegroups.com>; "oc_s...@googlegroups.com" <oc_s...@googlegroups.com>; "oc_dire...@googlegroups.com" <oc_dire...@googlegroups.com>; "socia...@occupychi.org" <socia...@occupychi.org>; OccupyChicagoLaborOutreach <union.taskfo...@gmail.com>; "direct...@occupychi.org" <direct...@occupychi.org>; "le...@occupychi.org" <le...@occupychi.org>; "ar...@occupychi.org" <ar...@occupychi.org>; "dona...@occupychi.org" <dona...@occupychi.org>; "rese...@occupychi.org" <rese...@occupychi.org>; "coordi...@occupychi.org" <coordi...@occupychi.org>; "conf...@occupychi.org" <conf...@occupychi.org>; "hou...@occupychi.org" <hou...@occupychi.org>; "outr...@occupychi.org" <outr...@occupychi.org>; "secre...@occupychi.org" <secre...@occupychi.org>; occupychieducationcommittee <occupych...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Friday, April 20, 2012 10:39 AM

[Babur B]

Great discussions taking place on this thread. I think we should go in depth with group meetings rather than list servers. I agree with quite a few you and like David mentioned we can control and lead better effective actions with smaller groups until we reach that maturity and level to organize grandeur masses. By the way, a few of us already came together and discussed those tactics and many other possibilities. Obviously, we need to involve in order to reach next level. Lets do it.

Babur B
Organizer/Press/DAC
Occupy Chicago

[X X]

Keiran, my points were not directed at the action you were speaking of my point was directed at those who want to see the state clampdown for the sake of seeing the state clamping down.  Your third point is totally on point (in fact I agree with most of your email).  Your points about the "white savior" and a "false sense of security" are also very on point, that said I like to hear your thoughts on how we can encourage wider involvement for POC. The problem here though lies in one group of people who want to build a larger campaign that escalates and another small group  that seems to want action for the sake of action.

With Love, Matt __________________________________________________________________________________ "You can blow out a candle but you can't blow out a fire, once the flames begin to catch the wind will blow it higher" ________________________________________________________________________________ "Your reputation as a putz certainly precedes you."David Krzesinski

--- On Fri, 4/20/12, David Orlikoff <mcf...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Lucas Vereline]

Slightly off topic:

There are several ideas that have been brought up today that fit into tonights discussion of "what do we need from ga".  More broadly, the question is what do we need to do together as a broad movement? 

Examples:

Mikes campaign idea

Evelyn's affinity group formation and development idea.

James' point on the website thread about us not addressing problems proactively.

Please everyone come out tonight and help flesh out how we make these things happen as a movement.

Also, the gg threads have been really productive this week.

Lucas

[OccupyChicago LaborOutreach]

Hey All,

I think civil disobedience does not mean compliance and should be deployed in a smart well thought out manner. I also think that we can and must work from multiple angles.

I just want to clarify something. As someone who has been helping to build the coalition for the march it I think it is necessary that we understand the question of permits came was strongly argued for by those representing the immigrant rights organizations we are working with. Critique away. Nevertheless, the caricature being presented is not factually correct.

Direct action. Marches. All of these things will help push us forward. We can work together in a variety of approaches that neither fetishes one tactic over another, nor works at counter aims. Please get involved in the organizing, these ideas can and should be heard. And please stop misrepresenting the organizing that is happening when you have not been involved in it.

Andy

[Rachael P]

Friends,

What bothers me about this conversation is that all of a sudden, May Day is an emergency. I don't think it serves our organization to keep trying to rush planning. Lets think big, which means having the confidence in our movement to plan actions months or even a year from now, ie. May Day 2013 General Strike. FYI, the Woodlawn occupation took 5 months of planning.

May Day is in 11 days, and I'm actually kind of shocked, Kieran, that you would advocate such a huge and potentially dangerous action with so little time to plan.

We've known for months that the Labor Comm was planing this march. If we were serious about encamping, we could have jumped on the Adbusters call and made it happen, our way. I think it's much to late to try to encamp or take over an abandoned building on that day. If you want to see that type of action, give yourself a few months to plan and get mass numbers. How about June?

That said, I'm interested in helping with press for the autonomous M1 actions. The procedure for 'secret' is usually that the organizers give me a release ahead of time and then call me day-of when the action starts. Then I blast the release to the media and call the top wires, tv and papers.

I love and respect you guys, but I think this rush organizing needs to stop. The Occupation is not leaving.

Rach

--
Rachael Perrotta
773.653.5073
plus...@gmail.com
Twitter: @plussone
Occupy Chicago Press Relations
773.417.6491
pr...@occupychi.org
Facebook.com/PressComm
Twitter: @OCPress

[Keith Smith]

NLG is a GREAT law firm if the focus is 1st amendment rights. LegalShield is a GREAT law firm if the focus is changing what is happening with city agencies!

[X X]

WE may not agree on everything but I think we all agree that spamming the google group sucks

With Love, Matt __________________________________________________________________________________ "You can blow out a candle but you can't blow out a fire, once the flames begin to catch the wind will blow it higher" ________________________________________________________________________________ "Your reputation as a putz certainly precedes you."David Krzesinski

--- On Fri, 4/20/12, Keith Smith <s61...@gmail.com> wrote: