Re: [OC_Research] Re: [oc_legal_police] Re: [OC_SM] Re: sooo, no interest in discussing this?

[kieran aarons]

Keith I've talked to you before about spamming us with your prepaid legal bs. Please stop.

---

From: Keith Smith <s61...@gmail.com>;
To: <oc_lega...@googlegroups.com>;
Cc: Michael Herbert <mher...@prodigy.net>; secretaria...@googlegroups.com <secretaria...@googlegroups.com>; socia...@occupychi.org <socia...@occupychi.org>; occupychieducationcommittee <occupych...@googlegroups.com>; oc_dire...@googlegroups.com <oc_dire...@googlegroups.com>; oc_soci...@googlegroups.com <oc_soci...@googlegroups.com>; 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>; conf...@occupychi.org <conf...@occupychi.org>; coordi...@occupychi.org <coordi...@occupychi.org>; hou...@occupychi.org <hou...@occupychi.org>; outr...@occupychi.org <outr...@occupychi.org>; oc_s...@googlegroups.com <oc_s...@googlegroups.com>; secre...@occupychi.org <secre...@occupychi.org>; Kelly Hayes <kellyh...@gmail.com>;
Subject: [OC_Research] Re: [oc_legal_police] Re: [OC_SM] Re: sooo, no interest in discussing this?
Sent: Fri, Apr 20, 2012 10:24:58 PM

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!

[j...@theroadtowallstreet.org]

Hi all,

As a rehab counselor and occupier I agree with Kelvin and others who've expressed an interest in making this a central issue for Occupy. I don't say this just because this issue is close to my heart (which it is), but also because this issue is emblematic of the larger societal issues we are addressing.

For over 30 years many of these programs have been gutted from the inside - removing essential funding, forcing staff to take on two, and sometimes three, caseloads. As a result outcomes diminish while counselors, psychiatrists and management scramble to provide services that make a life and death difference.

Meanwhile the govt. spends billions producing weapons of war. The line workers in those industries sometimes make as much as the MD psychiatrists who juggle case loads of hundreds of severely ill people. So "middle class" workers construct the weapons of death - making up to $100K per year, the military/industrial complex reaps the profit and as always, the poor get squeezed a little more.

THIS IS THE FIGHT!

I'm so glad to see Occupy in the neighborhoods, because this is where we need to shine the light - to show, and link in the publics' mind, the true cost of tax cuts, budget cuts and perpetual war.

But I also realize this is not the only issue. I think we should hit 'em on several fronts - evictions, prison industrial complex, education, the abuse of police power in neighborhoods of color.

I would really like to speak with others in Occupy who have similar ideas - I've been out of the loop for the last couple of months - so I maybe this is happening now.

But I don't want to "talk" about it on GoogleGroups for obvious reasons.

Jim

On Saturday, April 21, 2012 12:25:53 AM UTC-5, Kelvin Ho wrote:

Hey, great discussion going on here. I'm stayed away cause well, you know, these things tend to be a shitshow. It'd be great if we could all sit down and talk about this in person sometime though.

Anyway, it sounds like there are a lot of people who want to escalate the pressure in this fight. At the same time there's people who think that the escalation should fit under a broader strategy/campaign. Then there's people who are concerned with how this might impact the larger movement.

Well here's an idea. We've joined into a great campaign with the Mental Health Movement recently and as far as I can tell, there's not a single soul that thinks that this is an unimportant issue that we shouldn't be devoting out time too. Sure, not everyone can commit to camping down at Woodlawn, but it sounds like everyone understands why this fight is so crucial in the larger fight against austerity that is to come later this summer. Think of what it might mean for the teachers, the librarians, and all the city workers if we managed to keep all the clinics open?

But anyway, there's a lot we can do to escalate this fight that we've already unconciously commited ourselves to - in a way that would best utilize our resources. The clinics are slated to shutdown April 30. Let's help the mental health movement heat up the pressure on rahm in the week leading up to the closures. Sure, I think many understand that for more "radical" actions like occupying a clinic, it's really much more effective for those on the grounds and in the trenches -the consumers/advocates/and doctors in particular to be the faces of such an action. But here in OC we can put a call out for a banner drop day -say next Thursday. Host a training session sometime early next week and people can self-organize groups of 4-5 people to pull it off. No one needs to know where or when groups will do this - but we can talk about the action openly so as to build up interest. I know there's at least 2-3 affinity groups organized in OC that could easily pull this off. Let's get more people on board! For another day, like Friday, these groups could organize hits on various people that Rahm's been in bed with - disruptive delegations at their offices and the like to really heat up the pressure. Another day we could train people to wheat paste Rahm's face in a WANTED poster with a telephone number to his office, or we could put up fake posters that would advertise for free clinics/stuff that would instead be a number to his office! All of these things don't take all that much to plan and can easily be taught to interested groups. And yeah for the whole security culture thing, just don't tell anyone where or when you'll do it! Let's just figure out the general call to action, the day, the training, and get going!

I know people want to do stuff for MayDay - and they damn well could - but why not get some practice and put some time into a struggle that we're already engaged in and is meaningful to pretty much all of our base?

Thoughts?

-Kelvin

On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 5:35 PM, kieran aarons <sketchy...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Keith I've talked to you before about spamming us with your prepaid legal bs. Please stop.

---

From: Keith Smith <s61...@gmail.com>;

To: <oc_legal_police@googlegroups.com>;
Cc: Michael Herbert <mher...@prodigy.net>; secretariat-occupychi@googlegroups.com <secretariat-occupychi@googlegroups.com>; socia...@occupychi.org <socia...@occupychi.org>; occupychieducationcommittee <occupychicagoedu@googlegroups.com>; oc_directaction@googlegroups.com <oc_directaction@googlegroups.com>; oc_socialmedia@googlegroups.com <oc_socialmedia@googlegroups.com>; OccupyChicagoLaborOutreach <union.taskforce.occupychi@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>; conf...@occupychi.org <conf...@occupychi.org>; coordi...@occupychi.org <coordi...@occupychi.org>; hou...@occupychi.org <hou...@occupychi.org>; outr...@occupychi.org <outr...@occupychi.org>; oc_s...@googlegroups.com <oc_s...@googlegroups.com>; secre...@occupychi.org <secre...@occupychi.org>; Kelly Hayes <kellyh...@gmail.com>;

Subject: [OC_Research] Re: [oc_legal_police] Re: [OC_SM] Re: sooo, no interest in discussing this?
Sent: Fri, Apr 20, 2012 10:24:58 PM

[Mark Banks]

Good thread, lots of good ideas going back and forth.  I have a concern, but I don't know best how to go straight at it, so let me offer an analogy:  

When I worked in a biochem lab doing experimental science, we always spoke in terms of particulars.  Of course, there were always general principles underlying our investigations (physical laws, chemical properties, etc), but we just sort of assumed that those are already understood, and what is not yet understood are the particulars.  So, for example, we may already know that a particular bacterium will die under certain acidic conditions, but for purposes of experimental design, that is not enough information.  So instead of generalizing, we would ask the question in a particular way, such as:  "At what pH level do the bacteria enter the dying phase when they are in 2 mL of aqueous solution at 20 degrees celsius with excess sucrose available to them?"  The generalization 'bacteria die in acid' is not practicably useful.  The specific knowledge that 'a pH of say 5.0 under the specified conditions is sufficient to kill them' is extremely useful.

What I'm driving at here is that the discussion began with Kieran posing not only a theoretical concern, but also a concrete, practicable suggestion:  the occupation of a particular place, at a particular time, for a particular purpose.  Similar to my biochem analogy, I think there is only limited use in asking a question like "how will inactive observers respond to radical actions?".  Radical, not radical...these are generalizations that we have not applied an operational definition to, and moreover, even if we did, the particular circumstances of any particular action are more important (or at least as important), as theoretical, categorical distinctions (for reasons of the necessity to effectively intersect tactics with strategy, as has been discussed coherently by both sides of this discussion).  What I am therefore appealing for is a focus on particulars.  

Although the generalizations have their own importance (especially when deep ideological differences are encountered, as they often are) and are therefore worth discussing, I feel that we spend more time wrapped in those debates than in the analysis of particular options.  We can analyze the strategic pros and cons of a particular tactic (such as Kieran's suggestion) without recourse to generalizations.  Instead of wondering whether 'being radical' will produce our desired effect, let's discuss whether 'occupying space X, at time Y, for purpose Z will produce a desirable effect.  The nature of the effect will determine if it is desirable or not rather than a categorical prerequisite applied prior to the analysis, and the theoretical, strategic end of the action or tactic will get drawn out inevitably, but it will happen in the thick of the discussion rather than as a distracting precursor that goes on forever and precludes discussion of the particular option itself.

With that said, I have no particulars to offer at this time.  :P

Perhaps more emphasis on specific pros/cons with Kieran's proposed action is needed, in addition to theoretical considerations? 

I will be giving a talk on May 13th on the topic of 'future goals and strategic aims of the Occupy movement', so this thread is particularly useful to me.  On that point, I would also like personal and collective input as it relates to that topic, so as to tailor a presentation that is representative of our collective views (feel free to email me or create a new thread on that topic).  

-Mark

On Sat, Apr 21, 2012 at 12:25 AM, Kelvin Ho <hoke...@gmail.com> wrote:

Hey, great discussion going on here. I'm stayed away cause well, you know, these things tend to be a shitshow. It'd be great if we could all sit down and talk about this in person sometime though.

Anyway, it sounds like there are a lot of people who want to escalate the pressure in this fight. At the same time there's people who think that the escalation should fit under a broader strategy/campaign. Then there's people who are concerned with how this might impact the larger movement.

Well here's an idea. We've joined into a great campaign with the Mental Health Movement recently and as far as I can tell, there's not a single soul that thinks that this is an unimportant issue that we shouldn't be devoting out time too. Sure, not everyone can commit to camping down at Woodlawn, but it sounds like everyone understands why this fight is so crucial in the larger fight against austerity that is to come later this summer. Think of what it might mean for the teachers, the librarians, and all the city workers if we managed to keep all the clinics open?

But anyway, there's a lot we can do to escalate this fight that we've already unconciously commited ourselves to - in a way that would best utilize our resources. The clinics are slated to shutdown April 30. Let's help the mental health movement heat up the pressure on rahm in the week leading up to the closures. Sure, I think many understand that for more "radical" actions like occupying a clinic, it's really much more effective for those on the grounds and in the trenches -the consumers/advocates/and doctors in particular to be the faces of such an action. But here in OC we can put a call out for a banner drop day -say next Thursday. Host a training session sometime early next week and people can self-organize groups of 4-5 people to pull it off. No one needs to know where or when groups will do this - but we can talk about the action openly so as to build up interest. I know there's at least 2-3 affinity groups organized in OC that could easily pull this off. Let's get more people on board! For another day, like Friday, these groups could organize hits on various people that Rahm's been in bed with - disruptive delegations at their offices and the like to really heat up the pressure. Another day we could train people to wheat paste Rahm's face in a WANTED poster with a telephone number to his office, or we could put up fake posters that would advertise for free clinics/stuff that would instead be a number to his office! All of these things don't take all that much to plan and can easily be taught to interested groups. And yeah for the whole security culture thing, just don't tell anyone where or when you'll do it! Let's just figure out the general call to action, the day, the training, and get going!

I know people want to do stuff for MayDay - and they damn well could - but why not get some practice and put some time into a struggle that we're already engaged in and is meaningful to pretty much all of our base?

Thoughts?

-Kelvin

On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 5:35 PM, kieran aarons <sketchy...@yahoo.com> wrote:

[an non]

I think you raise a great point Mark, thank you for that.

I feel like we need to be more long-term focused. I feel sometimes like we are falling into the same trap that the people we oppose do. I feel like we focus on short-term goals too often (quarterly profits, anyone?). I feel like this is largely due to disorganization and a lack of long-term vision and/or planning. I definitely don't mean to be judgmental by saying this, and I hope it isn't taken that way. I think that Kieran's idea is great, and I do support that kind of confrontation. Why else would I have ever come down in the first place? I struggle with the same mode of thinking all the time too and am probably the most guilty of all.

However I do sometimes feel like we are our own worst enemy. I'm not trying to sap any momentum that this idea may be building, and my feelings of apprehension may be misplaced, but I think we need to start making long-term planning a major defining point of what we're doing. I say all this fully admitting that I frequently see something coming up in the near future and think 'Oh hey it'd be great to do something for that', but knowing that there just isn't enough time. Like Evelyn (I think it was her) said, tactics are different than strategy. Spontaneity is a tactic.

I know that a couple months ago I used to always think 'Oh, we could ask the research committee' to do things like long term evaluation of specific objectives, like keeping track of what the City has planned in regards to things like shutting down public services. I think I need to step up my game and not assume that I can just outsource that to some other committee. On a related note, I think that's another pitfall we've fallen into that could use a course correction. Movement of leaders, not of committees and such...

I know, this is a bit rambly. Just wanted to throw in a couple of cents. I think that your point is valid though, I guess I just feel like we have to have the 'particulars' in concert with long-term vision in order to really really be effective.

Again, I don't want to take away from anything that's happening. I haven't even been to Woodlawn, and I'm proud of you guys. I'm not trying to say any of that shit doesn't matter just because people spontaneously jumped in. We all just jumped in at some point...

I'm glad this is a long thread and staying civil and ideas are being exchanged. Makes me proud guys.

On 04/22/2012 01:29 PM, Mark Banks wrote:

Good thread, lots of good ideas going back and forth.  I have a concern, but I don't know best how to go straight at it, so let me offer an analogy:  

When I worked in a biochem lab doing experimental science, we always spoke in terms of particulars.  Of course, there were always general principles underlying our investigations (physical laws, chemical properties, etc), but we just sort of assumed that those are already understood, and what is not yet understood are the particulars.  So, for example, we may already know that a particular bacterium will die under certain acidic conditions, but for purposes of experimental design, that is not enough information.  So instead of generalizing, we would ask the question in a particular way, such as:  "At what pH level do the bacteria enter the dying phase when they are in 2 mL of aqueous solution at 20 degrees celsius with excess sucrose available to them?"  The generalization 'bacteria die in acid' is not practicably useful.  The specific knowledge that 'a pH of say 5.0 under the specified conditions is sufficient to kill them' is extremely useful.

What I'm driving at here is that the discussion began with Kieran posing not only a theoretical concern, but also a concrete, practicable suggestion:  the occupation of a particular place, at a particular time, for a particular purpose.  Similar to my biochem analogy, I think there is only limited use in asking a question like "how will inactive observers respond to radical actions?".  Radical, not radical...these are generalizations that we have not applied an operational definition to, and moreover, even if we did, the particular circumstances of any particular action are more important (or at least as important), as theoretical, categorical distinctions (for reasons of the necessity to effectively intersect tactics with strategy, as has been discussed coherently by both sides of this discussion).  What I am therefore appealing for is a focus on particulars.  

Although the generalizations have their own importance (especially when deep ideological differences are encountered, as they often are) and are therefore worth discussing, I feel that we spend more time wrapped in those debates than in the analysis of particular options.  We can analyze the strategic pros and cons of a particular tactic (such as Kieran's suggestion) without recourse to generalizations.  Instead of wondering whether 'being radical' will produce our desired effect, let's discuss whether 'occupying space X, at time Y, for purpose Z will produce a desirable effect.  The nature of the effect will determine if it is desirable or not rather than a categorical prerequisite applied prior to the analysis, and the theoretical, strategic end of the action or tactic will get drawn out inevitably, but it will happen in the thick of the discussion rather than as a distracting precursor that goes on forever and precludes discussion of the particular option itself.

With that said, I have no particulars to offer at this time.  :P

Perhaps more emphasis on specific pros/cons with Kieran's proposed action is needed, in addition to theoretical considerations? 

I will be giving a talk on May 13th on the topic of 'future goals and strategic aims of the Occupy movement', so this thread is particularly useful to me.  On that point, I would also like personal and collective input as it relates to that topic, so as to tailor a presentation that is representative of our collective views (feel free to email me or create a new thread on that topic).  

-Mark

On Sat, Apr 21, 2012 at 12:25 AM, Kelvin Ho <hoke...@gmail.com> wrote:

Hey, great discussion going on here. I'm stayed away cause well, you know, these things tend to be a shitshow. It'd be great if we could all sit down and talk about this in person sometime though.

Anyway, it sounds like there are a lot of people who want to escalate the pressure in this fight. At the same time there's people who think that the escalation should fit under a broader strategy/campaign. Then there's people who are concerned with how this might impact the larger movement.

Well here's an idea. We've joined into a great campaign with the Mental Health Movement recently and as far as I can tell, there's not a single soul that thinks that this is an unimportant issue that we shouldn't be devoting out time too. Sure, not everyone can commit to camping down at Woodlawn, but it sounds like everyone understands why this fight is so crucial in the larger fight against austerity that is to come later this summer. Think of what it might mean for the teachers, the librarians, and all the city workers if we managed to keep all the clinics open?

But anyway, there's a lot we can do to escalate this fight that we've already unconciously commited ourselves to - in a way that would best utilize our resources. The clinics are slated to shutdown April 30. Let's help the mental health movement heat up the pressure on rahm in the week leading up to the closures. Sure, I think many understand that for more "radical" actions like occupying a clinic, it's really much more effective for those on the grounds and in the trenches -the consumers/advocates/and doctors in particular to be the faces of such an action. But here in OC we can put a call out for a banner drop day -say next Thursday. Host a training session sometime early next week and people can self-organize groups of 4-5 people to pull it off. No one needs to know where or when groups will do this - but we can talk about the action openly so as to build up interest. I know there's at least 2-3 affinity groups organized in OC that could easily pull this off. Let's get more people on board! For another day, like Friday, these groups could organize hits on various people that Rahm's been in bed with - disruptive delegations at their offices and the like to really heat up the pressure. Another day we could train people to wheat paste Rahm's face in a WANTED poster with a telephone number to his office, or we could put up fake posters that would advertise for free clinics/stuff that would instead be a number to his office! All of these things don't take all that much to plan and can easily be taught to interested groups. And yeah for the whole security culture thing, just don't tell anyone where or when you'll do it! Let's just figure out the general call to action, the day, the training, and get going!

I know people want to do stuff for MayDay - and they damn well could - but why not get some practice and put some time into a struggle that we're already engaged in and is meaningful to pretty much all of our base?

Thoughts?

-Kelvin

--
Solidarity and <3,
Ruben

I'm Occupied

[Kelly Hayes]

I have to point out that the Woodlawn situation isn't wholly spontaneous.  ORP worked on this issue a lot, and some folks from OC showed up months ago for a sit in at City Hall with these folks (there weren't nearly as many of us as there should have been, but OC did claim to be committed to this cause).

ORP has staged actions around this, and, as a member of ORP, I personally debated Joe Moore on the radio, about this very issue.  ORP mic checked Joe Moore for the budget that slashed these clinics (w some from OC joining in, and others objecting that Joe Moore was our ally).  The problem here, I would say, isn't spontaneity, but a lack of follow thru.  Perhaps we should leap frog less from issue to issue, and see things a thru a little more.  ORP has tried to do that, and I think it's a good overall practice.

By the way, OtSS was awesome about backing up ORP's Mental Health related actions.  ORP and MHM have been working in concert for some time.  

- Kel

[Mark Banks]

I don't accept the notion that we could have 'swayed' local representatives to our side with respect to Sit Down and Shut Up.  The 45 aldermen who voted for it did not do so on moral grounds, but on the grounds of a delicate game of politics-- Rahm has the power of controlling the redistricting process...each alderman had one thing in mind:  the demographics of their next election.  My point being that I put little stock in the notion of 'swaying the 99% as a complete whole', especially bourgie bureaucrats who work for the very state that has repressed our movement nonstop.  I do agree with Nate's point that we should be considering the public impact in everything we do, and that it should be a principle determinant of our action types and forms, but not to such an extent that we fool ourselves into thinking a guy like Joe Moore will jump on board for the win.  

Anyway, I think I'm off topic.  

On Sun, Apr 22, 2012 at 3:53 PM, Nate <nate.l...@gmail.com> wrote:

Point of clarification: as one of the people most vocally in opposition to the Joe Moore mic check, I want to point out that the argument was not that Moore was an ally of Occupy, but that he is one of the people who could have been most easily converted into an ally.  I still think that singling out members of the Progressive Caucus (and only members of the Progressive Caucus) was a big mistake.  Sit Down & Shut Up would have had a much more difficult time passing had we had allies on the city council.

Anyway, I'll debate that with you 'till kingdom come, but on another thread.  Don't want to hijack this one, just wanted to point that out.  There's a big difference between is and ally and could be.

[MC Carter]

Pre-read warning:  This is a Sunday Evening reflection not trying to offend anyone and it is not in response to anything.

I am afraid the movement is getting too fractured, and trying to present solutions for all things... In my mind we garnered the attention of the 99% because we claimed to represent their frustration around in-ept politicians that have been corrupted by big money from big business, with the largest offender being Wallstreet.  We also claimed to represent their fear of falling behind because of the widening income disparity in this country, and the un-willingness of those co-opted politicians to do anything.... We stood up to these perceived "untouchable" powers and dared to say shame!  This bravery attracted people to come stand with us... All other issues regardless of how personal they are for you, will not yield the same result regardless of how creative the action, street theater, signs, tweets, whatever.  I like Kierens idea because it is bold and will garner attention, but it will only be successful if we take the opportunity to highlight how big businesses money is being courted by co-opted politicians to further privatize profits and publicize the risk across the 99%, because no-doubt there will be tax payer pockets put on the line in order to sweeten the deal, if a deal is to be had.  We can then present an alternative way of using the space for the greater good of the community.

I did not join this movement to bring down the system, rather hold accountable those within the system that are changing the rules to better themselves regardless of the impact to society.  Weather we like it or not our great city of Chicago is one of the frontlines where that happens everyday, starting with the moment Rahm wakes up and starts his day.

Peace,

Carter

[Ben Clifford]

All I can say is thank you for this.

[Michael Herbert]

Carter,

A couple of generalizations you made don't represent me or why I am here, and since you mentioned your concern about a fractured movement, I thought it important to explain.  For one, I don't believe that any politicians are changing the rules of an otherwise democratic system.  Capitalism has one rule, and that's to make maximum profit at all costs.  Washington plays by that rule, as do the CEOS of global corporations.  This is the connection you speak of.  It's not a few bad apples.  It's cooperation among those at the top of a capitalist system to perpetuate and maintain power.  They are not "co-opted." They have not been "corrupted."  They've always been on the same team.  James Madison, the father of the consitution, said one of the roles of government was to "protect the minority of the opulent against the majority."  This is the man who drew the blueprint of the government you claim has been "corrupted."

If you feel this movement is fractured, consider what it means to those here who recognize the bigger systemic problem of capitalism who have to continuously push back against those trying to treat the symptoms rather than the disease. 

Also, I never claimed to represent anyone's frustration but my own.  I'm not a representative, nor am I interested in building a representative government.  Occupy has never about "representing" the 99%, as you say, but giving the 99% a platform to take control and come together to make decisions, through direct participatory democracy.  Trying to turn this into a representative government defeats the purpose of empowerment that brought everyone here. 

Again, I'm not representative of anyone but myself, but judging from what I know of Kieren's politics I suspect this is the spirit from where Kieren's proposal comes.  I hope this doesn't seem like a trivial discrepancy.  I'm not trying to focus on our differences, but I think if we are going to talk about fixing a fractured movement we should lay it all out on the table, because the conflict is not for nothing.

-Mike

---

From: Ben Clifford <benclif...@gmail.com>
To: oc_soci...@googlegroups.com
Cc: "oc_lega...@googlegroups.com" <oc_lega...@googlegroups.com>; "secretaria...@googlegroups.com" <secretaria...@googlegroups.com>; Nate <nate.l...@gmail.com>; "oc_dire...@googlegroups.com" <oc_dire...@googlegroups.com>; "direct...@occupychi.org" <direct...@occupychi.org>; "le...@occupychi.org" <le...@occupychi.org>; occupychi educationcommittee <occupych...@googlegroups.com>; "ar...@occupychi.org" <ar...@occupychi.org>; MikeHerbert occupy housing <mher...@prodigy.net>; "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>; Keith Smith <s61...@gmail.com>; "outr...@occupychi.org" <outr...@occupychi.org>; "oc_s...@googlegroups.com" <oc_s...@googlegroups.com>; "secre...@occupychi.org" <secre...@occupychi.org>; James Manos Occupy <union.taskfo...@gmail.com>; "Socia...@occupychi.org" <socia...@occupychi.org>; "oc_co...@googlegroups.com" <oc_co...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Sun, April 22, 2012 6:07:21 PM
Subject: Re: [OC_Research] Re: [oc_legal_police] Re: [OC_SM] Re: sooo, no interest in discussing this?

[Mark Banks]

Carter, while I respect where you are coming from with this analysis, I must caution that it is a bit of a middle-class reaction.  While it may be true that many/most/all of the middle-class, usually white, and typically somewhat privileged occupiers responded primarily to the notion of 'getting money out of politics' rather than other goals, it is not true that this is a universal perspective.  For example, I myself would not remain involved if the goal was simply to 'reform' capitalistic institutions (whatever that means), or to simply focus on making elections of state officials 'more fair' (again, whatever that means).  I would quit tomorrow if we passed a universal declaration that that is our sole intent.  Likewise, I'm sure many feminists, people of color, LGBTQ supporters, undocumented persons, union workers, and other marginalized groups would not be very interested if their particular struggles were de-prioritized.  The same holds for many of our socialist allies and our anarchist allies.  Our goals are political, economic, and cultural, but, significantly, they are diverse, and that has been an important anchor that has made our support so broad.  I would urge caution when expressing the view that your (or any) particular interest is the sole cause of the success of Occupy in reaching the people.  

[David Orlikoff]

The true problem of the middle class is in not recognizing the obvious demand of occupy: that we make a SIGNIFICANT change.

All our problems are connected. Any serious and meaningful changes we can create will necessarily impact a wide range of areas and issues.

Defining our purpose only limits us. Our purpose is to change the world.

[Benjamin Burton]

David, Michael and Mark,

Do you want corporate money out of politics?

-Ben

Sent from my iPhone

[Mark Banks]

Since I contributed to knocking the discussion off-track despite my insistence upon particulars, let me try to pull it back.  

I think the occupation of public space with the qualification that we seek a place that can have a functional, social utility (feeding/housing the poor and vulnerable, facilitating the creation of a space where ideas can be exchanged openly, and addressing property relations through action that is at once both symbolic and manifestly rooted in the act of a re-appropriation of a commons in fact and not only in principle) is a good way to proceed.  Such an action will assuredly receive state repression as a consequence (not because we 'provoked' it, but because it is already waiting at the gates to be activated in response to the slightest deviation from bourgeois conceptions of property and justice), and I feel that state repression will likely have the affect of galvanizing the movement and its supporters, as has historically been the case.  With that said, and with respect to the points made by Matt, Nate, and others, this is not an advocacy of leading unsuspecting activists into the jaws of police repression.  Rather it is an advocacy of a concrete tactic that is (unfortunately) likely to produce an escalation on the side of established power (any concretely important action that is not merely symbolic will do that).  I'm advocating full cognizance of that at the outset.  

Also, consider that the occupation of public space fits our own history (and our name), and so this sort of thing also has an intrinsic marketing applicability.  We (and other occupy movements) have already established a precedent for this type of activity.  We won't need to build up a justification from scratch.  

Has anyone had a chance to look into the suggested location?  Does it still stand?  How long do we think it would take to mobilize an idea like this, and what sort of messaging will we require?  

-Mark

[MC Carter]

Mark,

I appreciate your perspective.  You are very astute to identify my perspective as primarily a white, middle class, privileged, (whatever that means), position.  I never meant to suggest getting "money out of politics" is or should be a universal perspective, I am merely expressing the viewpoint that this focused idea motivated a large number of people, that were apathetic to our current system, to join the movement, and try too create a space for change.  Myself being one. 

When considering our founding fathers, they first attempted reform of the system before choosing a complete change.  Evolution of thinking for the masses takes time and consideration.  To automatically assume a complete and drastic change will solve our cultural, economic, and social problems is folly.  History has shown time and again this kind of folly leads to violent chaos.  I do not think our system is so broken to warrant such a step at his time, and I am suggesting a vast majority of the middle class in this country would agree.

I am not suggesting we de-prioritize anyone.  I think we need to remove the problem before we can tackle all of the symptoms.. And I choose to believe the problem is politicians who choose to ignore the 99% because they are sponsored by big business.  

I dis-agree that our strength is in having such a "fractured" or "diverse" system of allies.. This is diluting our effectiveness, the Anarchist, Socialist, LCBTQ, labor, etc.. Have been organized long before Occupy and will still be organized long after, why do we need to take up the flag of all their causes?  What is our cause?  (you know my view)... We help all of them more by creating a new space and filling it with new people.  Awakening the millions of Chicagoans that are more concerned about the Hawks winning tomorrow night than if the clinics are shuttered April 30th.

Carter

[MC Carter]

Michael,

I appreciate your passion.  I dis-agree with your broad generalizations of capitalism and insistence that it is the root of all our problems.  People are.  The definition of capitalism is bit more complicated than:

 "Capitalism has one rule, and that's to make maximum profit at all costs."

While it is true capitalism motivates people to make a profit, I have issue with the "at all costs" part.  In truth capitalism is about making sure the wealth in a society is being used efficiently.  In a sense there isn't any lazy money.  When done appropriatly there is a social contract between the entrepreneur class, banking, and the people  , that profits will be made for taking risks, and the people will benefit from innovation, shared growth, and the employment, opportunities that result.  Without the potential for profit, innovation and risk taking will decrease.  

The real issue is that people get greedy, and the social contract is broken.  The system doesn't get greedy, people do. 

So if we are to tear down capitilism what would you replace it with?  Socialism?  Communism?  I don't think we have created an "ism" yet that can fortify us from our selfs.

Carter

[Benjamin Burton]

Before this gets too far I would like to state for the record that "capitalism" and the government in the United States are not necessarily related and should not be described as one in the same.

-Ben

[Michael Herbert]

Carter,
 
When/how did the people enter into this social contract? 
What is the corporations incentive to keep their side of this social contract? 
How is this hypothetical social contract served by the legal requirement for a corporation to do everything it legally can to maximize its profits? 

Ben,

I'm curious as to how you would go about adequately explaining the concentrated political power of rich white men for the last 236 years, at the expense of everyone else, without mentioning capitalism.

-Mike

---

From: Benjamin Burton <toa...@gmail.com>
To: oc_soci...@googlegroups.com
Cc: Ben Clifford <benclif...@gmail.com>; "oc_lega...@googlegroups.com" <oc_lega...@googlegroups.com>; "secretaria...@googlegroups.com" <secretaria...@googlegroups.com>; Nate <nate.l...@gmail.com>; "oc_dire...@googlegroups.com" <oc_dire...@googlegroups.com>; "direct...@occupychi.org" <direct...@occupychi.org>; "le...@occupychi.org" <le...@occupychi.org>; occupychi educationcommittee <occupych...@googlegroups.com>; "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>; Keith Smith <s61...@gmail.com>; "outr...@occupychi.org" <outr...@occupychi.org>; "oc_s...@googlegroups.com" <oc_s...@googlegroups.com>; "secre...@occupychi.org" <secre...@occupychi.org>; James Manos Occupy <union.taskfo...@gmail.com>; "Socia...@occupychi.org" <socia...@occupychi.org>; "oc_co...@googlegroups.com" <oc_co...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Sun, April 22, 2012 10:22:40 PM
Subject: Re: [OC_Research] [oc_legal_police] Re: [OC_SM] Re: sooo, no interest in discussing this?

[Benjamin Burton]

Michael,

I do sometimes answer a question with a question when there's a correlation but I asked a question earlier that you've ignored. You should probably answer that if you're going to ask a new question.

As to your question, there have been a LOT of politically powerful rich people over the last 236 years, and not all have been white. As a matter of fact some of the most powerful people in the world right now are light brown skinned Arabs in the Middle East. There are some pretty fucking powerful Chinese in China and they're not white.  I'm pretty sure "Capitalism" isn't the primary economic structure in either of those two parts of the world either.

If we're going to get technical about it I'd say they're "Fascist", not "Capitalist", and "not white" as opposed to "white". So if you're fighting "Capitalism" I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest you're quite possibly missing the mark.

-Ben

-Ben

Carter, 

A couple of generalizations you made don't represent me or why I am here, and since you mentioned your concern about a fractured movement, I thought it important to explain.  For one, I don't believe that any politicians are changing the rules of an otherwise democratic system.  Capitalism has one rule, and that's to make maximum profit at all costs.  Washington plays by that rule, as do the CEOS of global corporations.  This is the connection you speak of.  It's not a few bad apples.  It's cooperation among those at the top of a capitalist system to perpetuate and maintain power.  They are not "co-opted." They have not been "corrupted."  They've always been on the same team.  James Madison, the father of the consitution, said one of the roles of government was to "protect the minority of the opulentagainst the majority."  This is the man who drew the blueprint of the government you claim has been "corrupted."

[Michael Herbert]

I don't want this to get too far out of hand, so, let's see how this goes.

First, my implication was not that capitalism is inseparable from the demographic that has used it to maintain and perpetuate their concentrated power in the United States.  You said the U.S. government and capitalism are not related, which is like saying that the U.S. military and weapons technology are not related.  It may be used to perpetuate different manifestations of concentrated power, but these are just different faces of the same product.  My question, which you haven't answered, was how you confront that product without mentioning the system that produced it? 

As for a question you asked me, are you referring to "do you want corporate money out of politics" question?  I didn't answer that for a couple of reasons, One being that I am not hopeful of having a constructive conversation with you, per your history of out-of-the-blue abrasively condescending contributions to google group threads.  Secondly I think it is an oversimplified reduction of a complex problem.  The idea of getting "corporate money" out of politics without addressing the system that harbors that influence is like talking about getting the fleas out of your bed without addressing the dogs that are sleeping in it.  Talking about the problem is a waste of my time until we start talking about the dogs.  I'm not opposed to helping people get there, but I am opposed to spinning my wheels talking shit on the internet.  It's not fun for me.  

Peace
-Mike

---

From: Benjamin Burton <toa...@gmail.com>

To: Michael Herbert <mher...@prodigy.net>
Cc: oc_soci...@googlegroups.com; Ben Clifford <benclif...@gmail.com>; "oc_lega...@googlegroups.com" <oc_lega...@googlegroups.com>; "secretaria...@googlegroups.com" <secretaria...@googlegroups.com>; Nate <nate.l...@gmail.com>; "oc_dire...@googlegroups.com" <oc_dire...@googlegroups.com>; "direct...@occupychi.org" <direct...@occupychi.org>; "le...@occupychi.org" <le...@occupychi.org>; occupychi educationcommittee <occupych...@googlegroups.com>; "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>; Keith Smith <s61...@gmail.com>; "outr...@occupychi.org" <outr...@occupychi.org>; "oc_s...@googlegroups.com" <oc_s...@googlegroups.com>; "secre...@occupychi.org" <secre...@occupychi.org>; James Manos Occupy <union.taskfo...@gmail.com>; "Socia...@occupychi.org" <socia...@occupychi.org>; "oc_co...@googlegroups.com" <oc_co...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Sun, April 22, 2012 11:03:45 PM

[Kelly Hayes]

Nate, I don't have to debate you "until kingdom come," because if Sit Down and Shut Up didn't convince you that Joe Moore was never, and was never going to be an ally, I doubt anything ever will.  If you really think he might have been swayed to our side, if not for a well deserved mic check, which did ultimately help call attention to a very worthy cause...  I don't really know how to argue with that kind of naivety.  Arguing that our mic check somehow made Sit Down and Shut Up happen (or more likely to happen) is absurd, and beyond offensive.  I'm not sure if you noticed, but ORP did a hell of a job mobilizing against Sit Down and Shut Up, as did OtSS (it was those two occupations who actually voted on that name, if you recall), so instead of talking shit, maybe you should just say "thank you." 

Moore's a puppet, and the strings were always going to get pulled by Rahm.  We were never going to change that.  Most of the Occupiers who disagreed with our actions got it straight when Sit Down and Shut Up passed.  I wrote most of that mic check.  It was well deserved, and I will never apologize for it.  If you still think our progressive Dems can make it all better, then why do you think we need an Occupy movement?

Anyway, I appreciate you taking a shot, and then declaring that you won't have that argument in this thread.  If that's true, I'll consider the matter closed.

As for the rest, Mike is 100% correct.

- Kel

[Hooked Oncraigslist]

While y'all are discussing this:

This May Day, Occupy Oakland will not be blockading the Port.

That's because the Longshoreman's union, ILWU Local 10, has pledged to shut down the Port themselves to join us on May Day.

We are building a new radical militant labor movement. Join us.

Tuesday, May 1st.

http://strikemay1st.com/

[Keith Smith]

Imagine a world with no prisons and no prisoners.  Imagine a police force with no guns. Imagine an army with no weapons of mass or even lethal destruction. Imagine a conflict resolution system with inclusion not exclusion as the outcome. Imagine a world with peace and harmony not war and destruction.  Imagine an education system that teaches leadership not following repetitive tasks. That teaches conflict resolution not separation and exclusion. That teaches peace and harmony, love and fellowship. Imagine working for the joy of working. Everyone doing what he or she loves best. Imagine a world without greed. The highest remuneration being recognition for a job well done. Imagine builders building for the joy of building. Cooks cooking for the joy of cooking. Researchers researching for the joy of researching. Educators educating for the joy of educating. Writers writing for the joy of writing. Farmers farming for the joy of farming. Drivers driving for the joy of driving. Leaders leading for the joy of leading. Why teach workers to work jobs they hate when there is plenty of work available in a job they would love. Singers singing for the joy of singing. Actors acting for the joy of acting servers serving for the joy of serving. Another world is possible. Imagine new world  order not based on greed but on need. Not based on supply and demand but supply and a hand. Giving for the joy of giving. Meeting each others needs not because we have to but because we want to.  WELCOME TO OCCUPY CHICAGO.

[Benjamin Burton]

Capitalism relies on the government to exist. The government does not inherently support Capitalism. You can sever that tie and kick the dogs out of bed. 

-Ben

Sent from my iPhone

[Keith Smith]

Please delete my email address and remove me from all of your googlegroups. Thank you

--

Keith D Smith, Independent Associate
Small Business Specialist
www.gosmallbiz.com
A Fran Tarkenton Company
Cell: 630.450.4154
Chicago, IL 60626
atsbh...@gmail.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/keithdsmith

[Kieran]

Actually I think that's a mistake. Over a century of social theory says differently: the State exists to mitigate the struggle between classes, not by neutralizing it, but by actively taking up the side of the bourgeoisie (the class in power, the 1% or those who control the means by which wealth is produced). It does this in a number of way, through violent repression (domestic police), through military campaigns that expropriate foreign wealth, through international treaties that serve the interests of accumulation (WTO, Breton Woods, etc.), and through the imposition of regulations that are necessary not for "responsible" trading, but to check the internal tendency of Capital itself, which tends always toward self-liquidation and dissipation, owing to the fact that its machinations have no rule but its own growth and acceleration. In all these ways, the role of the State is to prop up, expand, and where necessary, to defend the continuation of the rule of the monied class. It's been this way since the 16th and 17th century, and it continues to be this way now. 

And to those who think that we shouldn't talk about the systemic rot and mortal dangers "capitalism" presents us with simply because we don't have a blueprint of what the better world will look like, I ask you to rethink this argument. Mike's better at rhetorical usages of metaphors, but it's something equivalent to denying that one has been wounded (despite the pool of blood forming at one's feet) simply because one isn't trained in medicine. You still need to scour the house for whatever will stop the blood, and this means correctly identifying the problem: capitalism. 

-Kieran

---

From: Benjamin Burton <toa...@gmail.com>
To: Michael Herbert <mher...@prodigy.net>

Cc: "oc_soci...@googlegroups.com" <oc_soci...@googlegroups.com>; Ben Clifford <benclif...@gmail.com>; "oc_lega...@googlegroups.com" <oc_lega...@googlegroups.com>; "secretaria...@googlegroups.com" <secretaria...@googlegroups.com>; Nate <nate.l...@gmail.com>; "oc_dire...@googlegroups.com" <oc_dire...@googlegroups.com>; "direct...@occupychi.org" <direct...@occupychi.org>; "le...@occupychi.org" <le...@occupychi.org>; occupychi educationcommittee <occupych...@googlegroups.com>; "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>; Keith Smith <s61...@gmail.com>; "outr...@occupychi.org" <outr...@occupychi.org>; "oc_s...@googlegroups.com" <oc_s...@googlegroups.com>; "secre...@occupychi.org" <secre...@occupychi.org>; James Manos Occupy <union.taskfo...@gmail.com>; "Socia...@occupychi.org" <socia...@occupychi.org>; "oc_co...@googlegroups.com" <oc_co...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2012 7:11 AM

[Ben Burton]

If we assume you're correct for the sake of argument, I'm not sure that disagrees with what I'm saying.

-Ben

[Kelvin Ho]

Can we please stop having these marathon discussions over google
groups? It's unfair to those who use these lists as an organizing
tool. Also, I don't think anyone would disagree that these discussions
will only serve to drive more people away. There's nothing wrong with
having these discussions of course, but start your own email chain
with the interested people and talk there, don't flood other people's
emails with it. Besides, if your goal is to convince someone it's much
more effective to pick up the phone and call the people. Schedule a
meeting for christ sake. But seriously, nothing good ever comes out of
these longwinded discussions. Inevitably things get personal, conflict
brews and people get angry at each other. More people hop in and
before you know it, we lose another 5-10 people from the movement. We
don't all have to agree about what we ought to do or how we ought to
go about it in order to organize effectively together. Live and let
live. Didn't we all sign on to diversity of tactics?

Bring the discussion to the forums, facebook, twitter, or personal
emails, but please stop doing it over the google groups.

-Kelvin

[Mark Banks]

I disagree Kelvin, although its true that these types of discussions run a high risk of tickling people's emotions and getting nasty, these are precisely the necessary discussions we have been avoiding for months.  

While I did attempt to bring it down from the lofty theoreticals, I don't mind if it keeps going back there.  These are essential topics.  

As for starting a new thread...Kieran started this thread, and everything so far seems (at least somewhat) on topic to me.  

Personally I have moved my arguments to private emails with some of these folks, but I don't think we should come in like a cop and put the clamp on people's theoretical concerns.  Where else do we talk about this stuff?  We never talk about these fundamental questions together.  Please ignore it if it doesn't interest you, but allow it to continue so long as it's productive (which it seems to be at this point). 

-Mark

[Kelvin Ho]

Why don't we set aside some general Assemblies or meetings to talk about it then?

[Mark Banks]

Okay, so I created OC_Discussion as a google group to pursue these sorts of discussions.  The group description is "Discussions of tactical, strategic, political, historical, and philosophical issues related to OC".  I'd be happy to make other interested parties moderators or whatever.  

(Notice that this is not an advocacy of killing this thread, if others are interested in continuing it.  Just offering a new thing here)

Hit me up if you want in.  Spread the word as you wish.  

-Mark

On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 4:52 PM, Nate <nate.l...@gmail.com> wrote:

I think this is an important discussion.  It's also more accessible to people like myself due to being on the Google group -- I couldn't have begun to make many of my arguments at an in-person discussion.  I need time to think my emails out (and usually re-write them a few times to be less of a jerk).  I am not particularly articulate in person.

During the revolutionary war an important aspect of the independence movement was the theoretical debate raging in the newspapers and in pamphlets handed out in various cities.  Those debates helped forge the ultimate structure of our government (Federalist Papers) as well as motivate for the revolution to happen in the first place (Common Sense).  The google group is our newspaper.  We need these discussions to happen.

Although it might be smart to start an open google group for these kinds of discussions in order to avoid an 80-post email chain to every google group in Occupy Chicago.