meeting tonight 10/12 @ 10:00pm

[pan_ange...@hotmail.com]

So its been 2-3 days now that we haven't had a meeting, given the
marches, police raids, etc. We will be meeting tonight after the GA at
10pm (I think that even if the GA goes beyond that time, we should
still meet at 10 because we have a lot to discuss and I know that many
people can't stay until the early hours of the morning). I think that
in contrast to our last meeting, this should be much more focused.
We've already gone over a lot of documents and proposals and I think
we have some consensus on several important issues such as taxing the
rich, ending the wars, defending public education, etc. Perhaps
tonight we should go over any documents or political declarations left
(the Occupy Madison, WI declaration that was just posted also has a
lot of solid points that we could seek to incorporate) and then start
thinking about the next step. Generally I think it would be best to
start working on a declaration of grievances/positions, while at the
same time getting the open source document running to get as many
people involved before we go to the GA. Meanwhile here are some
articles that might be of interest:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/oct/04/occupy-wall-street-new-york
http://infrontandcenter.wordpress.com/
http://libcom.org/library/occupy-wall-street-why-struggle-must-go-beyond-occupation

[DAVID KEIL]

Something like the six-point Madison document seems most likely to help Occupy Boston win public support and to stimulate discussion of the similarity between our concerns and those of the 99%. The Madison points are listed below minus the motivating text.

 

Under point 1, it makes sense to add health care. Under point 3, separating money from the political process could be added as an objective. In the title, it might be most effective to use the word "Proposals" in place of "Demands." It might be useful to replace "a fair and just economic system" with, "steps in the direction of economic fairness and justice".

 

I think that the document below strikes a balance between the need to be more specific than the movement has been about its positive objectives and the need to avoid endless detail.

 

David has referred to the possibility that some participants in the GA could block any document that fails to denounce this or that, capitalism or the state, by name. After listening to the GA Sunday night, I can hardly believe that anyone would dare to violate the process and the trust developed in such a strong way. Maybe some discussion on process will help to gain a consensus for giving serious consideration to all points of view without threats to derail the will of the majority.

 

From the perspective of someone who is working from outside Dewey Square, it certainly seems urgent to give clarity publicly about what motivates this protest. The document could go to unions and to student and community groups for endorsement.

 

Best wishes for a successful meeting tonight.

 

-------------

 

1. A fair and just economic system that benefits all humanity not solely the 1%, including but not limited to substantial tax increases on the 1% to fully fund the needs of the 99% such as job creation, education and social services.

 

2. End the wars and redirect military spending to social programs.

 

3. Real democracy that allows the voices of the 99% to heard and acted upon.

 

4. An end to the assault of the top 1% on workers' rights and repeal of all anti-union laws.

 

5. The end of institutionalized racism, sexism, homophobia and attacks on immigrants.

 

6. Protection of the environment, a sustainable economy and an end to reckless pollution in order to preserve the planet for future generations.

[David]

They are not going to violate the process; the anarchists think that specific sets of demands are dangerous to the movement because they cannot achieve consensus. They also object to any set of demands which do not include the ones I mentioned. I have been told this prwtty explicitly by some I have spoken with.

What they will do is block proposed demands on that basis. And they likely have enough support to get any proposal for demands tabled, at present.

We (and others) will have to work with them (among others) to mitigate their concerns and problems. I think this is a solvable problem, but it will be difficult and time-consuming. I think it is unrealistic to expect to get a statement of demands ratified in a timely fashion. If you believe otherwise, I encourage you to open a dialogue with some of the anarchists in camp; perhaps you will have more success than others have, so far.

I strongly expect that some groups, including the anarchists, will not be amenable to processes which reduce their voice; they are some of the strongest proponents of consensus-based decision-making.

[DAVID KEIL]

Are there people who would be ready to walk out if any list of proposals or principles were adopted that did not include abolition of "capitalism" and of "the state"? Have they put this in writing? Has the number of people in the GA who would agree with such blocking behavior been tested? Has the consideration been presented to the GA that support from outside groups and individuals is likely to depend very much on a clearly stated collective statement of aims? Especially after the arrests ordered by the Menino administration?

 

I want to be very frank. As a member of a union, I cannot see how I can possibly ask my union to support an action that is by mutual agreement unwilling to clearly state its aims, now or in the future. Do others think that union or community groups responsible to their members can act otherwise? It is a natural question: "Brother union member, what is the stated purpose of the action that you are asking our local to support?"

[Eli Gottlieb]

There's almost nobody who's seriously going to walk away if we don't demand the abolition of the state... except for a few anarchist nutjobs who, frankly, should be allowed to walk.  I'd like to see them go find someone making more and better steps towards an egalitarian society than us who WILL tolerate being held hostage by a minority interest.

[Aria Littlhous]

I just found this aspect of SPP (been on the wiki) so pardon me if
I'm not quite up to speed. Do you know that there's another list of
"demands" floating around, maybe from NY? Chris, of End Personhood for
Corporations, had a copy of it.
Here are my thoughts on this; I'll really try to be there tonight--
where will you be if it's raining? I've also sent via gmail a copy of
a tool for assessing what large numbers of people think, called
Listening Circles. It could be very useful when you go to the GA.
Also, Allyson from Fascilitators suggested that starting with a
mission statement be good. What you have here seems to be a mix of,
mission statement, goals (what we want) objectives (smaller goals) and
methods (how we're going to get that). I've written my comments,
quickly, along those lines.

Mission Statement: A peaceful, fair and just economic system that
benefits all humanity and respects the earth.
Goals:
A peace time economy.

Real democracy that allows the voices of the 99% to heard and acted
upon.

Protection of the environment, in order to preserve the planet for
future generations.
Objectives
To fully fund the needs of the 99%

An end to the assault of the top 1% on workers' rights

The end of institutionalized racism, sexism, homophobia and attacks on
immigrants.

A sustainable economy
Methods (How)
End the wars
Substantial tax increases on the 1%
An entirely new tax code, written from scratch, as advocated by the
IRS.
Job creation, education and social services.
Redirect military spending to social programs
Jubilee year
End to corporate personhood
Reinstate Glass Steagal
Proportional representation or electronic direct democracy.
Repeal of all anti-union laws.
An end to reckless pollution/a tax system that punishes polluters and
rewards sustainability.


On Oct 12, 1:16 pm, "pan_angelopou...@hotmail.com"

<pan_angelopou...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> So its been 2-3 days now that we haven't had a meeting, given the
> marches, police raids, etc. We will be meeting tonight after the GA at
> 10pm (I think that even if the GA goes beyond that time, we should
> still meet at 10 because we have a lot to discuss and I know that many
> people can't stay until the early hours of the morning). I think that
> in contrast to our last meeting, this should be much more focused.
> We've already gone over a lot of documents and proposals and I think
> we have some consensus on several important issues such as taxing the
> rich, ending the wars, defending public education, etc. Perhaps
> tonight we should go over any documents or political declarations left
> (the Occupy Madison, WI declaration that was just posted also has a
> lot of solid points that we could seek to incorporate) and then start
> thinking about the next step. Generally I think it would be best to
> start working on a declaration of grievances/positions, while at the
> same time getting the open source document running to get as many
> people involved before we go to the GA. Meanwhile here are some
> articles that might be of interest:
>

> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/oct/04/occupy...http://infrontandcenter.wordpress.com/http://libcom.org/library/occupy-wall-street-why-struggle-must-go-bey...

[Eli Gottlieb]

Where the hell are we meeting?

[Lindsey Mysse]

Eli,

I will walk away. I think the SPP is a broken committee, short on ideas and drunk on pride. The committee has not actually worked for this movement, or even with it. I think you all come here with agendas. 

I will demand, right now, the end of the SPP, and the expulsion of the bad actors in the movement who have blocked our democracy and turned our general assembly into a battle field of process. 

I block whatever this committee brings to the table, as you all have blocked my sincere work for this movement. 

In short: this committee will end, or I will demand it's end. 

I will win this battle. 

Lindsey

--
Lindsey Carl Mysse
lindse...@gmail.com
323.684.1536

[Eli Gottlieb]

Oh, good, our very first hostage-taker.  And all because I asked where, as in "at what physical location?", the meeting will take place.

[Lindsey Mysse]

Don't deflect the process. 

You said: 

"There's almost nobody who's seriously going to walk away if we don't demand the abolition of the state... except for a few anarchist nutjobs who, frankly, should be allowed to walk.  I'd like to see them go find someone making more and better steps towards an egalitarian society than us who WILL tolerate being held hostage by a minority interest."

I have made these steps. And with great sincerity. You are the minority interest here. 

[Eli Gottlieb]

Oh, that.  As I said before: oh, good, a hostage taker.  This serves as an effective demonstration of a thesis I've been putting forward for a while: "the [consensus/super-majority] process" does not put power with the people, the majority, at all, but with the blockers.  It works the same way in the Senate: she who takes getting the job done hostage, gets her way.

[Daria Casinelli]

I've sharpened up what I just posted on the group. I think dividing topics into mission statement, objectives, etc. will help the process and look forward to your comments. FYI: I'm not for a lot of it, but I included what went before anyway.

[Lindsey Mysse]

The fact that you do not know who I am, the fact that I've never seen you at the camp, really makes me wonder how involved with the day to day politics that run this movement you are. 

I have built consensus and trust with the vast majority of members of this movement. I have displayed my trust worthiness through the quality of my work and my dedication to the cause. 

I have been blocked in motions, by your members of your committee who claim power that your committee does not have, that were built from consensus from the people that are at the camp at all times, from proposing ideas that can shape this movement. 

This is a power grab, and I despise it. 

[Eli Gottlieb]

On Oct 12, 2011, at 7:42 PM, Lindsey Mysse wrote:

The fact that you do not know who I am, the fact that I've never seen you at the camp, really makes me wonder how involved with the day to day politics that run this movement you are. 

Oh, and look who's bringing her big name and authority into play.

I have built consensus and trust with the vast majority of members of this movement. I have displayed my trust worthiness through the quality of my work and my dedication to the cause.

Thereby implying that others cannot be trusted?

I have been blocked in motions, by your members of your committee who claim power that your committee does not have, that were built from consensus from the people that are at the camp at all times, from proposing ideas that can shape this movement. 

This is a power grab, and I despise it. 

Hey, if you want to eliminate blocking and work by regular majority votes at GA, you have my full support!

[Daria Casinelli]

Does anyone know where the meeting will be held?

[Daria Casinelli]

Look at the Listening Circles document, it will help with the power issue.

[Eli Gottlieb]

This looks pretty good to me as a statement of moral principles.  I do think we should avoid saying that anything will be "free", however, because it gives the impression that we don't understand the basic There Is No Such Thing As A Free Lunch law of economics.

Also, when talking about institutionalized prejudices, we should give specific examples, and examples we've actually thought through.  For example, some people say that ending discrimination against immigrants means complete legalization of all immigration and complete open borders -- yet this is a *dismal, shitty* public-policy idea (just allowing people to walk over the Canadian or Mexican border and declare themselves United States permanent residents or citizens), for public-health reasons among other things.  Specifying that we mean, in contrast, things like the DREAM Act that fix the "holes" in our immigration system would help.

Anyway, point is, we don't have to actually *be* policy wonks if we make it at least *sound* like we've done some public-policy reading.

<Mission Statement.docx>

[Daria Casinelli]

LISTENING CIRCLES

A tool for assessing the opinions of the people present.

 

Method

 

A. Part I: Choosing the Topics

 

The facilitator will ask the larger group for topics that meet these criteria:

 

1. Address the issues of economic justice or horizontal democracy.
2. Are BIG, that is create broad, far reaching, systemic change, see below.
3. Are legislate-able.

 

A. Part II:  Narrowing the Topics, if necessary

 

The number of Topics is determined by the number of 5 person Listening Circles created. If there are more Topics than circles, the topics that create the largest, most far reaching change go to the top of the list.

 

B. Part I: Creating Listening Circles

 

Divide the entire group into smaller groups of five. Ask one person in each group to be a “Radio Station.” The other 4 people are “Spokes.” Give each radio station a topic.  Ask the group to talk about the topic for a set amount of time.  At the end of the discussion period, the spokes move to another Radio Station and another topic. The Radio Station does not move and does not change topic. Spokes are encouraged to join Circles with people they haven’t spoken to at length.

 

Role of the Radio Station & Spokes.

           

The Radio Stations must understand and remember, generally, the opinions of all the Spokes per talks to, and transmit the information per hears from one small group to another and to the larger group at the end. Radio Stations are allowed to give their opinion and they are allowed to be experts on the topic. Spokes must speak concisely and respectfully. They may not abdicate their responsibility to participate or question the process once it has started.

 

B. Part II: Fish Bowl

 

The Radio Stations gather in the middle of the circle. Each one presents what per learned during the small groups; including per opinion, about the topic, and then the Radio Stations discuss each topic one at time. The larger group listens.

 

 

RINSE AND REPEAT

The process can be repeated until all the topics the larger group wants to discuss, however many times it wants to discuss them, are discussed, or until the larger group feels that the process has become redundant and it is time to work on consensus. Between formal Listening Circles, folks should be asked to seek out people with whom they disagree/who’s opinions they don’t’ understand and to continue the discussion.

[Eli Gottlieb]

Can someone please define "consensus" as something other than "[completely unrealistic] unanimous agreement"?

[georgel...@gmail.com]

I do think the comment about "anarchist nutjobs" was across the line and against the need to build unity.

I am also not clear who's in the group, I don't recognize some names from these e-mails.

Whether through this committee or not, I'm interested in working with people to design a real process that works.

Peace, community, justice,
- George

[Eli Gottlieb]

Oh, I'm sorry, next time I'll have some more respect for the people who work to prevent anyone else from accomplishing anything.

There was a bloc of anarchists that (ahaha) literally blocked *everything* they could in GA, and were thus told to go form the Anarchists' Caucus. I'm pretty pissed off, actually, to hear that they're still up to their old trick, deliberately blocking anything that's not anarchist from moving forward.

Anarchists: I will tolerate you when you tolerate dissent.

[pan_ange...@hotmail.com]

We will be meeting at the Gandhi statue I think, and it would be a
good idea to make an announcement at GA as well (will try to take care
of that).

On Oct 12, 8:02 pm, Eli Gottlieb <eligottl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Oh, I'm sorry, next time I'll have some more respect for the people who work to prevent anyone else from accomplishing anything.
>
> There was a bloc of anarchists that (ahaha) literally blocked *everything* they could in GA, and were thus told to go form the Anarchists' Caucus.  I'm pretty pissed off, actually, to hear that they're still up to their old trick, deliberately blocking anything that's not anarchist from moving forward.
>
> Anarchists: I will tolerate you when you tolerate dissent.

> On Oct 12, 2011, at 8:00 PM, georgeleejr...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > I do think the comment about "anarchist nutjobs" was across the line and against the need to build unity.
>
> > I am also not clear who's in the group, I don't recognize some names from these e-mails.
>
> > Whether through this committee or not, I'm interested in working with people to design a real process that works.
>
> > Peace, community, justice,
> > - George
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > Date: Wednesday, October 12, 2011 4:34:40 pm
> > To: occupy-b...@googlegroups.com
> > From: "Lindsey Mysse" <lindsey.my...@gmail.com>
> > Subject: Re: meeting tonight 10/12 @ 10:00pm
>
> > Don't deflect the process.
>
> > You said:
>
> > "There's almost nobody who's seriously going to walk away if we don't demand
> > the abolition of the state... except for a few anarchist nutjobs who,
> > frankly, should be allowed to walk.  I'd like to see them go find someone
> > making more and better steps towards an egalitarian society than us who WILL
> > tolerate being held hostage by a minority interest."
>
> > I have made these steps. And with great sincerity. You are the minority
> > interest here.
>

[georgel...@gmail.com]

Thanks Daria this is really helpful.

Consensus: coming to an agreement that everyone can live with, after actively listening to each other and working to address concerns.

This means that everyone work to build with each other, without abusing blocks or attacking each other.

Peace, community, justice,
- George

-----Original Message-----
Date: Wednesday, October 12, 2011 4:59:15 pm
To: occupy-b...@googlegroups.com
From: "Daria Casinelli" <da...@casinelli.org>
Subject: Re: meeting tonight 10/12 @ 10:00pm

*LISTENING CIRCLES*

A tool for assessing the opinions of the people present.

*Method*

* *

*A. Part I: Choosing the Topics*

* *

The facilitator will ask the larger group for topics that meet these *
criteria:*

* *

1. Address the issues of economic justice or horizontal democracy.
2. Are BIG, that is create broad, far reaching, systemic change, see
below.
3. Are legislate-able.

*A. Part II: Narrowing the Topics, if necessary*

* *

The number of Topics is determined by the number of 5 person *Listening
Circles* created. If there are more Topics than circles, the topics that

create the largest, most far reaching change go to the top of the list.

* *

*B. Part I: Creating Listening Circles*

Divide the entire group into smaller groups of five. Ask one person in each

group to be a *?Radio Station.?* The other 4 people are *?Spokes.?* Give

[Daria Casinelli]

I'm leaving work now. My plan is to eat at in Chinatown, would love
company, then head over. Please text me the meeting location! 617 312
7650.

Sent from my iPhone

[Daria Casinelli]

This groups mission should be a list of topics for GA listening circles, and nothing more.

[Eli Gottlieb]

I would go beyond just a list of topics.  We should be coming up with a "skeleton" that will, if not actually adopted by GA listening circles, give them lots to talk about.  We should at least manage to summarize and list the obvious proposals that everyone will inevitably come up with and put them in a little detail so the larger group can spend more of its time on the less obvious and more important stuff.

[Sarah Barney]

I also think this subject has been brought up, but I haven't heard any
feedback:

Can this meeting be held any earlier in the day? 10pm (or later when
the GA runs long) is really a restrictive time for a lot of people. I
work early in the morning and I have a child, 10pm isn't feasible. Is
there any way to meet earlier? I'm sure I'm not the only one with
this thought.

Thanks,

Sarah

On Oct 12, 2011, at 1:16 PM, pan_ange...@hotmail.com wrote:

> So its been 2-3 days now that we haven't had a meeting, given the
> marches, police raids, etc. We will be meeting tonight after the GA at
> 10pm (I think that even if the GA goes beyond that time, we should
> still meet at 10 because we have a lot to discuss and I know that many
> people can't stay until the early hours of the morning). I think that
> in contrast to our last meeting, this should be much more focused.
> We've already gone over a lot of documents and proposals and I think
> we have some consensus on several important issues such as taxing the
> rich, ending the wars, defending public education, etc. Perhaps
> tonight we should go over any documents or political declarations left
> (the Occupy Madison, WI declaration that was just posted also has a
> lot of solid points that we could seek to incorporate) and then start
> thinking about the next step. Generally I think it would be best to
> start working on a declaration of grievances/positions, while at the
> same time getting the open source document running to get as many
> people involved before we go to the GA. Meanwhile here are some
> articles that might be of interest:
>

> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/oct/04/occupy-wall-street-new-york
> http://infrontandcenter.wordpress.com/
> http://libcom.org/library/occupy-wall-street-why-struggle-must-go-beyond-occupation
>

[David]

Jeez, I missed a lot in the last few hours. Let me try to respond to everything, and hope I don't inflame things unnecessarily:

On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 10:19 PM, Sarah Barney <sarah....@mac.com> wrote:

I also think this subject has been brought up, but I haven't heard any feedback:

Can this meeting be held any earlier in the day?  10pm (or later when the GA runs long) is really a restrictive time for a lot of people.  I work early in the morning and I have a child, 10pm isn't feasible.  Is there any way to meet earlier?  I'm sure I'm not the only one with this thought.

I agree with this, and we have discussed it a little, but it has been problematic to get enough participation on the subject to reach a consensus. I'd like the thoughts of those on the group, and I'll try to bring it up tomorrow.


I'd also like to address some of what else has been said in this thread:

>  I think the SPP is a broken committee, short on ideas and drunk on pride.

I agree that SPP has some problems, and while I want to work to resolve them, I have to admit I am in some ways at a loss. I do not think SPP is short on ideas (indeed, quite the opposite), but Lindsey makes a valid point regarding the response of some SPP participants to people working outside the SPP.

> I think you all come here with agendas.

I think everyone came here with agendas, personally. I've tried to move beyond mine to find common ground with others, but much to my chagrin, I have found few such other people (although, based on my limited experience, you seem to be one).

> I will demand, right now, the end of the SPP, and the expulsion of the bad actors in the movement who have blocked our democracy and turned our general assembly into a battle field of process.

If you demand the end of the SPP, I personally won't fight that - while I have endeavored to participate in SPP and make it productive, I have no real attachment to it. I joined the SPP only as a means of gathering interested people to discuss issues and try to work productively, which I feel is very difficult to do in some ways in GA, as dialogue becomes very difficult. If the SPP does disband, I personally will try to do something much like what you did, gathering a group of people (with, I hope, a variety of perspectives) to work on similar issues, preferably in a group small enough to facilitate genuine discussion in an environment of mutual respect (although this does pose issues wrt being inclusive of all the diversity of Occupy Boston, but I think (hope?) there are ways to mitigate this problem). Perhaps making it even less formal than SPP will be beneficial; I don't know.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by the 'bad actors in the movement who have [...] turned our general assembly into a battlefield of process' - I think I may understand, and empathize, but I also have concerns that some people (and I must say, I absolutely do not mean you; my interactions with you lead me to believe you are acting entirely within reason) are unreasonably inflexible when it comes to participating in consensus-building. I want to work to deal with everyone's concerns, but I have had a few conversations where, despite attempts to work to resolve objections, I felt like I was, in essence, being told 'my way or the highway' (with no attempt at building a consensus from the people involved), and I don't think that is especially constructive, either. I'm not going to point fingers or anything, but both 'sides' (so to speak) have been guilty of it, and I think a portion of the people railing against consensus-building have probably witnessed some of the same things I did, and felt that such behavior vindicates their beliefs regarding flaws of consensus-building processes.

> There's almost nobody who's seriously going to walk away if we don't demand the abolition of the state... except for a few anarchist nutjobs who, frankly, should be allowed to walk.

I agree 100% with Lindsey and George that this is unproductive and, frankly, inappropriate. If you think that this movement should move away from ensuring that the concerns of all participants are heard and addressed, and towards simple majority rules, I think that your ideas would cause a rapid loss of support for Occupy Boston as people left when they felt they were no longer being represented (or had no meaningful voice in the process, the same complaint they have about the current US system), and I have to wonder whether you are really participating in good faith. I understand frustration with the deliberative nature of consensus democracy, but if, as we have all agreed in GA, we are here to represent everyone, and build a dialogue, I simply do not see any way to do so using majority rules - I feel that consensus-building is essential, despite how slow and frustrating it can be.

> I have been blocked in motions, by your members of your committee who claim power that your committee does not have, that were built from consensus from the people that are at the camp at all times, from proposing ideas that can shape this movement.

I agree completely that people from SPP have not always recognized that we are not necessary to the decision-making process, and that anyone can (and should feel free to) circumvent our process by taking matters directly to the GA (which of course, I shouldn't have to remind everyone that we have to have ratify anything we come up with anyhow), and at a minimum, that absolutely has to change. I would rather SPP be disbanded than see that happen ever again.

> Look at the Listening Circles document, it will help with the power issue.

I like that idea in principle; I'd like to at least start trying it out to see how well it works in practice. I do feel that we attempt to have too much of many discussions in large groups, and often discussions in smaller groups would be more effective; the Listening Circles idea seems like a good way to have such discussions while allowing cross-communication between the small groups.

At the same time, I do agree with Eli that our goal should be to propose more to GA than just topics for listening circles - much as groups like the people Lindsey worked with to create a proposed wording for a preamble to bring to GA, we should also be proposing wording for GA's consideration. In my opinion, of course.


And finally,

> Consensus: coming to an agreement that everyone can live with, after actively listening to each other and working to address concerns.
> This means that everyone work to build with each other, without abusing blocks or attacking each other.

I absolutely, 100% agree with this. Thank you, George, for your well-considered wording.

Dave

[Eli Gottlieb]

If I don't get to force Occupy Boston into being a socialist movement or a Jewish movement, why do anarchists get to force it into being an anarchist movement?

[David]

It's not an anarchist movement. It did originate as a consensus-based horizontal democracy. Now, if anarchists do attempt to force it into being an anarchist movement, there will be a problem (and I think that the more reasonable people on all sides should help to build bridges - which is something I think Lindsey has done admirably). As I said in my email, I have noticed some intransigence on the part of some individuals to working towards a consensus, and that does need to be addressed. But, as was pointed out in the SPP meeting tonight, there are a variety of objections to having 'demands' at all - my prior email only mentioned one example of an objection.

 Saying that anyone who might walk away is an 'anarchist nutjob', implying that the anarchists are all nutjobs, and implicitly saying that we'd be better off without them? That is, as I said, unproductive and inappropriate; it is, frankly, offensive (and not just to anarchists), and does not help to build consensus - which, as I'll remind you, is the thing we are all theoretically here to build, and which you are claiming doesn't work due to bad faith on the part of others.

Dave

[pan_ange...@hotmail.com]

Right now I understand that SPP is having some problems, and has been
over the last 3 days. However, we have gotten some things done. Quite
frankly, wanting to disband the group is useless, as everybody knows
that a group like this will spring up again, albeit with a different
composition and different participants. The necessity of the group
ensures that it will take a different form if disbanded. And quite
frankly Lindsey, the people I know at SPP and myself have always been
open to new members and have never sought to speak down to anyone. In
fact we make sure a variety of perspectives are represented, and every
meeting has new participants, which sometimes makes the process harder
but its worth it. I think if we clear our heads a bit and get back to
last week's kind of work, we can move forward and make progress.

PS: Sarah I realize your concern, and was going to bring it up today
but they kicked us out of South Station and the meeting disbanded. To
be honest you haven't been missing anything lately, but I'm sure
others share your concern and we will work on it.

On Oct 13, 1:57 am, David <ExTerraAdAs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It's *not* an anarchist movement. It *did* originate as a consensus-based
> horizontal democracy. Now, if anarchists *do* attempt to force it into being

> an anarchist movement, there will be a problem (and I think that the more
> reasonable people on all sides should help to build bridges - which is
> something I think Lindsey has done admirably). As I said in my email, I have
> noticed some intransigence on the part of some individuals to working
> towards a consensus, and that does need to be addressed. But, as was pointed
> out in the SPP meeting tonight, there are a variety of objections to having
> 'demands' at all - my prior email only mentioned one example of an
> objection.
>
>  Saying that anyone who might walk away is an 'anarchist nutjob', implying
> that the anarchists are all nutjobs, and implicitly saying that we'd be
> better off without them? That is, as I said, unproductive and inappropriate;
> it is, frankly, offensive (and not just to anarchists), and does not help to
> build consensus - which, as I'll remind you, is the thing we are all
> theoretically here to build, and which you are claiming doesn't work due to
> bad faith on the part of others.
>
> Dave
>

[Brian Weckbacher]

Lindsey,

What are some of your ideas for demands or a statement of principles?

Thanks,

Brian

[DAVID KEIL]

As a member of antiwar groups, the Socialist Party, and a faculty members' union, I have confidence in a working group like the SPP to seek out diverse views and try to bring them together into a proposed statement of purpose that can have a chance to pass in the GA. I appreciate the work of everyone who has participated in the SPP discussions.

 

Earlier almost all the names of persons posting were male. Gender diversity of posts has improved. Is the group diverse in ways other than gender? Are women involved at every crucial step?

 

One advantage of a statement of purpose is that it will enable outreach. It will enable a person interviewed by NPR, for example, to point to the grievances, concerns, principles, or proposals adopted by the GA. Currently, people interviewed just give their own personal opinions, as if the radio journalists had just decided to interview someone at random. The members of the GA have a right and a need to express their views in a collective way.

 

One option, if a majority proposed statement of purpose were blocked, would be for a caucus to form around the statement and to issue the statement publicly in the name of the caucus. No one could object to this. It would be a next best option to having the GA adopt such a document. A downside would be that the media or others could become confused by such a process. But the media and others are certainly confused now, in a situation where the collective purpose of Occupy Boston has not yet been put into words by the GA.

[Nick de Tellis]

I'm wiggling my fingers up at the idea of making statements that reflect the views of a caucus.

I almost started wiggling my fingers at a military briefing this morning. They definitely would have laughed at me.

[Joshua Sager]

The second link in this E-mail is a link to the results of the survey that we have been propagating over the Occupy Boston Email groups, twitter feeds and social media. It may help you determine just what views would be popular enough to to pass the GA when your group is attempting to pass your document by consensus.

As to the Anarchist movement in the Occupy Boston movement, just the initial polling has shown the complete dissolution of the government to be unpopular in the extreme. Even those who want to fundamentally change the government want to shift it into another model of democratic governance (most commonly a pure democracy).

(Survey Link -- https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/viewform?formkey=dHhSSGl1dnVsVFVaOTlUa3RFck04RHc6MQ)

Constantly updating results link -- https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/gform?key=0AqBxYhlFsdpAdHhSSGl1dnVsVFVaOTlUa3RFck04RHc&hl=en_US&gridId=0#chart

I began sending this survey out at around noon yesterday, and as of now we have over 100 results. 

While this is a good start, it is by no means a conclusivet sample, which is something that everybody who looks at it should remember. Until far more people answer, there is no statistical conclusion as to the aggregate views of the Occupiers, but a rough view has begun to emerge.

Josh Sager

[Sage]

Maybe time to "unpin" this message so it doesn't show up on top of
Google groups.

Sage

On Oct 12, 1:16 pm, "pan_angelopou...@hotmail.com"

<pan_angelopou...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> So its been 2-3 days now that we haven't had a meeting, given the
> marches, police raids, etc. We will be meeting tonight after the GA at
> 10pm (I think that even if the GA goes beyond that time, we should
> still meet at 10 because we have a lot to discuss and I know that many
> people can't stay until the early hours of the morning). I think that
> in contrast to our last meeting, this should be much more focused.
> We've already gone over a lot of documents and proposals and I think
> we have some consensus on several important issues such as taxing the
> rich, ending the wars, defending public education, etc. Perhaps
> tonight we should go over any documents or political declarations left
> (the Occupy Madison, WI declaration that was just posted also has a
> lot of solid points that we could seek to incorporate) and then start
> thinking about the next step. Generally I think it would be best to
> start working on a declaration of grievances/positions, while at the
> same time getting the open source document running to get as many
> people involved before we go to the GA. Meanwhile here are some
> articles that might be of interest:
>

> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/oct/04/occupy...http://infrontandcenter.wordpress.com/http://libcom.org/library/occupy-wall-street-why-struggle-must-go-bey...