Endorsements of other groups and actions

[Sugar]

All other groups including unions, many be well intentioned, however, they are associated with lobbyists, politicians, and have their own agenda. They only represent a fraction of the 99%. By endorsing other groups, organizations, or actions, we are a movement in and of itself. If they wish endorse us, and they will and already have, then they are free to do so. After having extensive conversation with experts on peaceful and lawful movement who work on a national level, Chicago seems to be the ONLY city that has done any kind of endorsements of groups or actions. We are NOT in line with the national and world Occupy Movement.

 

1) Occupy Chicago will no longer endorse any group or action outside other than Occupy Movement as a whole.

2) Occupy Chicago, in line with the national Occupy Movement, adopts a total non-partisan stance.

3) Occupy Chicago, like all other Occupy Movements around the country, will continue to represent the entirety of the 99%

[mattjohnson]

I am a middle-class working person who is an employee and member of a local union.  I mention that because it has a lot to do with how I feel about this proposal.  The problems I have with this proposal are as follows:

 

1.) It specifically calls out unions as organizations that OC does not want to affiliate with and not just other groups as a whole.  If the proposal is about all outside groups, why mention unions at all?

 

2.) We are a leaderless and autonomous group and should not have to take instruction from OWS or any other Occupy group or any other group at all for that matter

 

3.) This proposal insinuates that unions are inherently partisan organizations.

 

4.) This proposal insinuates that unions do not represent 'the 99%' but just some fraction of it.  That part is incredibly insulting given that we are holding general assemblies with the Congress Hotel in the backdrop.  This is a hotel where union workers decided they were not going to settle for what the 1% were offering them and they walked off the job, went on strike and every single day for the last 8 years have been having an occupation of their own on that sidewalk.  I find it horrendously arrogant to say that those workers don't deserve our endorsement or gratitude or, frankly from the tone of this proposal, our respect.  I'm sorry if I am misreading you, but this is a very sensitive subject for me.

 

That being said, if we ever feel like we are being co-opted, which I think is what the fear is, then can't we address it at GA?  Like I said in another post on here, I'm not sure I understand why we would want to take power away from ourselves by limiting what we can and can't do?  If there is a group that the GA thinks should be endorsed, why should we pass a rule to stop that?  If there is a group that the GA think should have an endorsement pulled, that sounds good too.  I believe deeply in consensus and I think if we start passing rules to prevent the GA from making decisions, we are no longer working on the type of project that has inspired so many of us.

[Sugar]

So we are reediting as far as only having the 3 line items, which was actually the intention to begin with. What the "Preamble", as people are calling it, was just to give the information that was requested to be shared by National. I would like to be clear that I have mixed feelings all the way around. My heard gets it but my heart does not. I love unions and have history working for them.

 

1) The word union was mentioned once as an example because that has been the main focus of endorsements.

 

2) Agreed

 

3) Please refer to #1

 

4) Again, Unions were just an example and it was the concern of National on this concept as a whole.

 

I am sorry if you felt insulted. It was a difficult thing for me to put out there, but I think that it is all about that concept of keeping our movement as only our movement. 

 

REVISED PROPOSAL:

1) Occupy Chicago will no longer endorse any group or action outside other than Occupy Movement as a whole.

2) Occupy Chicago, in line with the national Occupy Movement, adopts a total non-partisan stance.

3) Occupy Chicago, like all other Occupy Movements around the country, will continue to represent the entirety of the 99%

[MrWrathOfGod]

I feel strongly on this topic. What people are not realizing is that this isn't about how WE THE 99% feel about unions or other organizations. It is about what PUBLIC OPINION feels about them. Tonight at GA there was a cameraman for a major Chicago news team. I believe it was NBC. I found it strange that he left as soon as the Teamsters packed up and left. Maybe coincidence, maybe not. Either way we need to be careful about who we even allow near our non-partisan group in the presence of cameras and without some sort of press release to defend our stance. Public perception of the varying unions often see them as aligning with a certain partisan political stance or social stance. We don't have nearly enough of a voice in the media to risk being packed in with one side or the other. Having a huge Teamster banner draped over the wall during a GA can easily be misconstrued by the uninformed people of Chicago. We do not want to risk aligning with anyone other than the 99% in general. Right now people aren't going to check our forums to fact check what they saw in a 30 second NBC news spot. They are going to see one group and another group standing together. They will create the end of that story on their own and it may not play in our favor.

 

We, the 99%, stand behind all people within. We accept the support of all of the 99% regardless of their respective group affiliations. We, however, are not here to endorse organizations or groups, but the people those organizations and groups are comprised of.

 

I feel this is something we need to FOCUS on making public. The moment we are stuck with the stigma of a particular partisanship or group affiliation, be it union, church, or whatever, is the moment our cause ends. That is when we become divided. This is why our country sits divided.

 

Just keep in mind that even having a group come and publicly endorse us, until we have a voice in the media, it will appear on tv as anything the popular media wants it to appear as. I feel the Teamsters tonight were a great addition, but could be potentially harmful to our growth in these early stages if the media decides to spin us the wrong way. This isn't about disrespect the unions, but about protecting our movement.

[Billy]

     I am a member for more than 20 years of the Pipefitter's Local number 597 of the UA international union. In 2010 I made an attempt to get on the ballot for the US senate. Without going into a very very long explanation and keeping in mind that I can only speak for my own experience of my union know the following:

 

1)     Union members and Unions are not one in the same.

 

2)     Unions almost universally blindly support the Democratic party

 

3)     Unions are typically not incentivized to have the interests of their members in mind and in many cases are more closely guarding the institutions that they are supposed to be negotiating against.

 

4)     Many Unions are extremely corrupt institutions.

 

     While I whole heartedly agree that we must support union members as their goals are in line with our own I strongly opposed any support of any union other than on an event by event basis. 

 

     Union members are no more or less equal than any other individual in our horizontal movement that includes union leaders but the organizations themselves are a whole different story. 

 

     We need to let any organization know that if they are politically involved with the partisan system at all we can not and will not swear any solidarity with them. We can let them know that will not prevent us from working with them on a case by case basis but each event will need to be taken into account on it's own. 

 

     I can understand the not wanting to single out unions, as groups like MoveOn.org I put in roughly the same category as far as we are concerned. However I think it is also important to note that I do feel it is good to single them out due to the unique situation that those groups occupy. More precisely I think it is a good idea to almost fire a shot across the Bows of unions and let them know we support their members and only back them in so much as they back their members.

 

     As far as the press comment I think it is very important to note that the MSM press will misquote us. They will attempt to minimize us. We are a threat to the corporate structure that runs them. If we try to please the press or stand in fear of what they might say then we will most certainly wind up falling by the wayside like so many other movements have.

 

     It is important to note that this is not their first rodeo. This is not the first popular uprising of the people. If you read the the founding fathers one tends to get the feeling that not only were they in much the same situation as we are now but had a similar relationship with the press. 

 

     The MSM knows exactly how to frame conversation and how to misquote, take out of context or flat out lie about what we do. Further they will, have and do use that intentionally to guide our actions through fear of what they will say or how they will cover it. There is plenty of material out there to not only back this up but train you on the tactics if you care to look into it deeply enough. 

 

     The simple act of thinking what they might say or do is giving them control over your actions. You are forming your thought patterns in a manner that puts them at the root or priority of importance. This is a known manipulation tactic that is used. In some circles this art is referred to as social engineering. It is the study of social structures and how to use knowledge of them to manipulate or control the actions of others. 

 

     On monday we had assembled collectively several thousand people to march on and party crash the mortgage brokers. It was covered in the MSM as several hundred. We had 6 helicopters overhead and I saw no aerial photos. This is going to happen. This is to be expected and not feared. As with all things in warfare you should not look upon what your enemy calls your weakness and try to fix it. You should look upon what your enemy calls your weakness and see how to make it your strength. 

 

     In this particular case I say let the MSM not cover us or mis-cover us. Let google roll us down to page 2. Let twitter block our hashtags at crucial moments. The more they do this the worse they look when people see what is going on. When I tell people about the movement if they ask me" if it is what you say it is then why have they not heard more about it on the news? " To them I say that's a good question why don't you ask the news. I also tell them if they don't believe me check into themselves. I then give websites or tell them to go down and check it out on their own.

 

    On my personal website I have links to various sites associated with the movements and some videos of some of the bigger marches. I usually tell people to check my site and some of the links. The globalrevolution live stream is a good one to link. It is really nearly impossible for someone to spend an hour or two online looking into this movement and then go watch the nightly news and not wake up. 

[mattjohnson]

Thanks everyone for this incredibly fruitful discussion.  

 

In reply to Billy:

 

I appreciate your qualifier that you were speaking of your experience and your union.  I have a different experience with my union and feel there is more cohesion between membership and the organization than you have experienced with yours, but I think that's only telling that the labor movement is not perfect.  Occupy Chicago is also not perfect.  Hopefully we are all moving forward and growing.

 

I agree that there is no reason to endorse any particular organization as a whole, but I also believe that passing this proposal makes us look contemptuous.  It makes us look like we think we are better than or doing something more noble than what the labor movement does.  

 

As I said above, I don't think it's a wise strategic choice or an example of good consensus decision-making to cut ourselves off from the possibility of endorsing other movements or organizations outside of "Occupy" (how do we even define that?) if the GA decided it was important.  That being said, I don't know of any union that is asking for anything other than to endorse OC without reciprocation.  The unions I have experience with in Chicago see OC/OWS as part of the same struggle of working people against the plutocracy.

 

Like Billy, I can't speak for all unions, I can only speak from my personal experience. 

 

On a separate note.  When we say we were given direction from "national," what specifically does that mean?  Did the OWS GA have a discussion and vote to say Chicago shouldn't be seeking allies outside the Occupy movement?  Who told (and who was told) OC that we are not in line with "national"?

 

Thanks again!

[m_x]

"1) Occupy Chicago will no longer endorse any group or action outside other than Occupy Movement as a whole"

 

I do not see the benefit of doing this.  Should we have not  participated in the march against the Afghan war?  If other groups are willing to stand with us I see no reason to stand with them if the event is in align with our agenda.  

 

I agree that we shouldn't endorse a group wholesale being as though we have no control over every stance they take but I see no point in only taking actions that originated with the Occupy movement. 

 

In New York occupiers marched with other groups on behalf of Troy Davis.   Should they have held their own protest simply because they were not the originators of the march? 

 

I don't see the benefit to not working with other organizations or taking part in actions that are in line with our message.   If we have this sort of isolationist attitude I believe we will loose support of a lot of people who we should be working with. 

 

I would recommend amending this portion to say that we won't give a group a blanket endorsement.  

[AndersonJP]

I agree with the several people that have stated their opposition to endorsing particular groups and unions. Regardless of whether Unions are entrenched in the party politics of Washington, they are generally perceived as entrenched in another battle: Labor vs Management.

 

I realize it is a sensitive issue and may be hard to accept, but I think it is important to realize that the professional and management "class" are also suffering the consequences of immoral actions in congress. 

 

Another reality is that for every business lobbying and donating to politicians there is an organized union doing the same. 

 

Finally, the idea of renouncing support is appalling to me. So long as we establish clearly that we do not reciprocate political endorsement, nominal endorsement, or resource donations we are not implicated in the project of whatever organization offers us support.

 

Further, I think we should reach out to sympathetic companies such as small business and utilities and ask them to issue statements of support for our fight. If we do that, there is no question of whether we are being co-opted by one side or the other, and it will legitimize the claim of represting the 99%

[SavageButtonGuy]

Like Sugar, I have mixed feeling on this as well. I agree with Billy too

I understand where the concern for endorsing other groups comes from. We need to stay independent to represent the 99% as a whole. If we start endorsing other groups we can be seen as going to a certain side of things, and it will divide us. We can not let that happen.

I think this is spawning from not sticking to the issues that the occupy movement revolves around.

We shouldn't have to worry about occupiers supporting other groups, we just shouldn't officially endorse them. Like the gentlemen at last night's GA that was talking about the Keystone pipeline.

I understand why he feels like something needs to be done about it, it's just not what occupychi is about. Everyone seems to think that this group is out there to solve everything wrong with the world and it's not. 

The whole occupy movement was started to get corporate money and lobbyist out of Washington.

I think we need to stick to those issues, and not officially endorse others. We should be able to show our support as individuals though.

[m_x]

I see the need not to endorse other groups. 

 

Can someone who supports not endorsing other actions explain why?

I can't see why we should come together with other groups for specific actions.