Proposal to Adopt the Chicago Principles of Solidarity

[education01]

This proposal states that Occupy Chicago should adopt the "Chicago Principles" of solidarity from here on out, which provide a guideline for how we should engage with other groups on the left who are struggling against the same enemies we are, but who struggle in ways and by means of tactics that may differ from those we at OC maintain. The proposal does not mean that OC should itself change its own tactics, e.g. our decision to be a "nonviolent" movement. It merely concerns how we will relate to groups that do not wish to restrict themselves to such a tactical menu, and who we may (and likely will) interact and overlap with down the road.

A version of these principles were put to use during the Republican National Convention protests in 2008, and sought to unite and strengthen the partnerships amongst those planning to confront the RNC. They were called the "St. Paul Principles" (http://rnc08report.org/archive/224.shtml). They were later adopted in Pittsburgh during the G20 summit in 2010. They are pretty standard among leftist activists these days, and (frankly) we would look pretty absurd if we refused to acknowledge them, since groups much less radical have already endorsed them.

The Coalition Against NATO and G8 (CANG8 or CANGATE) has adopted these principles for the upcoming summit in May. We are already working with CANG8. The proposal in this sense is for Occupy Chicago to get on board with what all the other groups in Chicago have already signed onto. CANG8's version of the principles can be seen on this website: http://www.chicagomassaction.org/g-cmai ... ciples.pdf
I propose we accept the language exactly as it appears in that link, which is as follows:

"Chicago Principles
• Our solidarity will be based on respect for a political diversity within the struggle for social, economic and environmental justice. As individuals and groups, we may choose to engage in a diversity of tactics and plans of
action but are committed to treating each other with respect and working towards a common goal of peace and justice.
• As we plan our actions and tactics, we will take care to maintain appropriate separations of time and space between divergent tactics.
• We oppose any state repression of dissent, including surveillance, infiltration, disruption, limiting our action to “free speech zones,” and violence, or attempts to divide our movement through the conscious creation of divisions regarding tactics, organization, strategies, and alliances.
• Any debates or criticisms will stay internal to the movement, avoiding any public or media denunciations of fellow activists and events."

As you can see, this mainly concerns official statements about other groups made on behalf of Occupy Chicago, but I think we should also internalize these principles ourselves, and as a result we ought to avoid making any condescending or self-righteous references to ourselves as "nonviolent" that could be construed as a dismissal of those who struggle differently.

[BenBurton]

"Any debates or criticisms will stay internal to the movement, avoiding any public or media denunciations of fellow activists and events."

That's a pretty bad thing to declare. Personally, I wouldn't support it.

[m_x]

"Any debates or criticisms will stay internal to the movement, avoiding any public or media denunciations of fellow activists and events."

That's a pretty bad thing to declare. Personally, I wouldn't support it.

Why would we want to get into public mud slinging with other activist groups?

[marymcmahon@clear.net]

St Paul Principle #1
our solidarity will be based on respect for a diversity of tactics and the
plans of other groups.
Chicago Principle #1
Our solidarity will be based on respect for a political diversity within the struggle for social, economic and environmental justice. As individuals and groups, we may choose to engage in a diversity of tactics and plans of action but are committed to treating each other with respect and working towards a common goal of peace and justice.

St Paul Principle #2
the actions and tactics used will be organized to maintain a separation of
time or space.
Chicago Principle #2
As we plan our actions and tactics, we will take care to maintain appropriate separations of time and space between divergent tactics.

St Paul Principle #3
any debates or criticisms will stay internal to the movement, avoiding any
public or media denunciations of fellow activists and events.
Chicago Principle #4
Any debates or criticisms will stay internal to the movement, avoiding any public or media denunciations of fellow activists and events.

St Paul Principle #4
we oppose any state repression of dissent, including surveillance,
infiltration, disruption and violence. we agree not to assist law enforcement
actions against activists and others.
Chicago Principle #3
We oppose any state repression of dissent, including surveillance, infiltration, disruption, limiting our action to “free speech zones,” and violence, or attempts to divide our movement through the conscious creation of divisions regarding tactics, organization, strategies, and alliances.

Our unify principle of Non-Violence is being jettisoned, members of OC are getting dual status as independent participants for whatever they choose, and as Non-Violent OCers. Like this distinction has any legal standing and won't endanger our membership and reputation.

And a Gag Rule will be in place so the rest of us go silently along.

[BenBurton]

"Any debates or criticisms will stay internal to the movement, avoiding any public or media denunciations of fellow activists and events."

That's a pretty bad thing to declare. Personally, I wouldn't support it.

Why would we want to get into public mud slinging with other activist groups?

If someone says or does something stupid, why would you want to sit silently? Stupid is stupid. It's not that I would want to but you should be willing to stand against what's wrong and stand up for what's right regardless.

Partisan politics make people stupid.

[Rojo]

Okay.

I'm going to ask a simple question, one that I seem to be asking a lot lately.

I thought this was a NON-VIOLENT MOVEMENT? Even silence regarding the actions of another who seeks to be violent can be seen as supporting the violence. Think long and hard about this. When the arrests begin, and you are in the vicinity of those committing a violent act, you will be hung out to dry with them. These email threads can be used against you in a court of law. So I guess the real question is, how many of you are willing to go to jail for someone else's bullshit just because you didn't wanted to show solidarity?

And what if you had knowledge beforehand, that certain individuals wanted to cause not only property damage, but injury to others? It does happen. And don't give me the BS that it's in direct response to the Police. Sure there are asshole cops, but guess what? There are also assholes in the movement using this as a means to cause harm to others. It's wrong regardless of what side of the fence you land on politically. You can't bitch about the "blue wall of silence" regarding Police Brutality and then implement the same tactic yourself.

[phys431]

"Chicago Principles
• Our solidarity will be based on respect for a political diversity within the struggle for social, economic and environmental justice. As individuals and groups, we may choose to engage in a diversity of tactics and plans of
action but are committed to treating each other with respect and working towards a common goal of peace and justice.

I'm sorry, but... er, well I guess I'm not sorry... I am certain that there are going to be groups who are hell-bent on causing trouble. We're not going to be marching with peace-niks and nobody else. Anarchists and anybody else who will exploit a crowd-mentality are going to be there and they are on the CPD's hit-list. Why should anybody respect those people, their philosophy, or their actions? Would they think our non-violent stance is 'ok' when they are willing to go all the way to create distruction and injure other people? Something tells me that they'd think we were 'weak'.

If anything, this is an opportunity to show Chicago and the world that OC can resist the powers without making the place turn into another '68 DNC. The police are also men and women who have a preference to not get hurt and return to their families (the families might be watching TV in the hopes that an anarchist doesn't launch a moltov at their loved one). Doing them a favor now might fare well in the future, "Remember how we didn't throw bricks at you, could you please ensure I don't get injured in your custody??"

I agree with Dr. Lara (in the GG posts) that we ought to re-affirm our commitment to non-violence if any commitment is necessary. I think that everybody in OC can agree that we are a non-violent movement and the Chi-Principles should reflect that. If we did not agree to them, we could just simply state that we do not support actions (e.g. violence) that we would not undertake ourselves. Doing so would set us up for hypochrisy. We can stand against the enemy, but it's too much to expect us to throw rocks with you. The enemy of my enemy is not necessarily going to be my friend. Would you want this person to be your friend after the enemy went away? Who would be next under the their chopping block? Us? The 99%?
-AJ

[education01]

"Any debates or criticisms will stay internal to the movement, avoiding any public or media denunciations of fellow activists and events."

That's a pretty bad thing to declare. Personally, I wouldn't support it.

Why would we want to get into public mud slinging with other activist groups?

If someone says or does something stupid, why would you want to sit silently? Stupid is stupid. It's not that I would want to but you should be willing to stand against what's wrong and stand up for what's right regardless.

Partisan politics make people stupid.

You can have this debate internal to the movement, and you can discuss and reflect and respond and talk to people who struggle differently than you do all you like. That's what "debate stays internal to the movement" means. No one is telling you that you can't express a difference of opinion to another person struggling. The point is that we won't allow a difference of tactics to create a division between groups that really only serves our enemies at the end of the day, and not us. The St. Paul principles (and the other versions here based on them) aim to foster unity and solidarity amongst all groups fighting against racism, economic and social justice, etc., and to try and reach a compromise that rises above sectarianism to recognize our common goals, even where our means are different.

I would ask you to reflect on this before you simply knee-jerk reject it. Do you know how many groups belong to the CANG8 coalition? LOTS. And they're all locals. Don't you think they've thought about this? Why do you think they chose to embrace these principles? I mean that seriously: ask yourself why all sorts of nonviolent activist groups over the past 4 years have signed this. Really reflect on this.

[education01]

email threads can be used against you in a court of law. So I guess the real question is, how many of you are willing to go to jail for someone else's bullshit just because you didn't wanted to show solidarity?

And what if you had knowledge beforehand, that certain individuals wanted to cause not only property damage, but injury to others?

If you're planning violent actions using an unencrypted email account, then you deserve to be busted, and nothing OC says or does will change that. This proposal will not change that.

As for your second point, if you don't commit (or conspire to commit) acts of violence, then you will not be busted for them. And if you're not around when they happen (hence the "separation of time and space" clause) then you can't be blamed for them either.

But what really troubles me is the implication of what you're saying: correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like you're basically saying that you plan to inform the police of anyone who you discover might have a divergent tactic than yours. Is this what you're saying? You'll turn them over to the cops? You're a snitch?

[education01]

Anarchists [...] Why should anybody respect those people, their philosophy, or their actions?

Have you ever actually read any anarchist philosophy? Do you seriously have profound "philosophical objections" to the notions of mutual aid, self-determination, and the rejection of violent coercive relationships? I mean this seriously...do you know *anything* about anarchist philosophy? Or are you just associating all anarchists with blind violence? Sorry but I think it's really important that we not play into media stereotypes of "anarchists", and remembering that anarchism is actually a rich political, ethical and philosophical tradition deserving of respect.

The police are also men and women who have a preference to not get hurt and return to their families (the families might be watching TV in the hopes that an anarchist doesn't launch a moltov at their loved one). Doing them a favor now might fare well in the future, "Remember how we didn't throw bricks at you, could you please ensure I don't get injured in your custody??"
[...]
The enemy of my enemy is not necessarily going to be my friend. Would you want this person to be your friend after the enemy went away? Who would be next under the their chopping block? Us? The 99%?
-AJ

So if I understand what you're saying, if we're worried about our safety, we should worry *not* about Chicago police, who have a proven track record of assassinations, torture, racism and brutality against innocent civilians, no, we should worry about being left alone with "dangerous anarchists" because....why exactly?

Perhaps I should remind you that not only are there "anarchists" among you in Occupy already, but that they are fighting against the same oligarchical authoritarian corporatocracy Occupy is. (...except maybe with the difference that unlike some people here, they can tell their enemies from their friends).

This proposal isn't asking you or anyone in Occupy Chicago to endorse or offer your stamp of approval to actions or ideas of other groups with differing political positions. It's merely asking us to show solidarity and not allow unnecessary divisions to form that only help our enemies and hurt our allies. That's really all this is asking.