Endorsements of other groups and actions

[windycityken]

I'm cross-posting this because I think it relates to this amazing proposal and the preamble proposal. I found this language in a Creative Commons book, Apprenticeship Patterns...

A focus on individuals rather than groups. This is not a movement with leaders and followers. Instead,we are a group of people who want to improve our skills and have discovered that debate,dissent,and disagreement rather than blind deference to self-proclaimed authority are the way to get there. We believe that we are all on the same journey and that the change we seek is in ourselves,not the world.

Although not a perfect fit, I felt it rang the song this proposal is singing. I wish I could be at the GA tonight to support this proposal, but I wont be back at GA until tomorrow night.

In Solidarity,

Ken

[BenBurton]

Dialog will bring the two groups closer and more in alignment.  We can learn plenty from Unions, as well as work towards mutual benefits.  

 

Many Unions have corrupt management.  You can't condemn the entire system because of problems with a minority of them. We can work with good Union members to help pass legislation that makes it more difficult to corrupt Unions in the long run.


That would be a win/win.

[jbachtell]

Why would we reject the solidarity of another organization or movement? Especially the labor movement, who have been in the streets all week protesting for precisely the same things we have been - against corporate greed, for jobs and a fair economy.

In fact, the labor movement has been out there protesting against corporate greed long before Occupy Wall Street began.

Why would we want to appear to be isolated from others at a moment when we need all the public support we can muster? The labor movement isn't interested in taking over the occupy movement. They want to join with us for common cause.

Should the Civil Rights movement have rejected the support and solidarity of labor and other organizations? Even when their interests were alligned?

Should the peace movement reject the support and solidarity of other groups when we needed and still need a vast majority to end the wars and cut the military budget?

No victories will ever be won without a broad, all inclusive movement, that unites many organizations, groups, coalitions, etc. Instead of rejecting alliances and solidarity, including the labor movement that many of us and our parents and friends are members of, we should be embracing it.

[optessimist]

Because we don't want to be compartmentalized into small boxes. A large part of America doesn't subscribe to Peace/Labor/etc labels, the group is trying to avoid stigmatization, which will help increase solidarity, not reduce.

[Joe Vegan]

I agree to several of the posts that were previously discussed. We cannot support organizations for several reasons. Through my experience of working in a unionized steel warehouse, I know that unions can be extremely important and helpful for its members (the 99%). But I also know that as unions grow, there becomes a larger possibility that representatives can become part of the establishment, or become corrupt. Now unions should support our movement in that we represent the 99% (them and us). However, we cannot put ALL of our stock into an organization that could hurt us indirectly. Once we proclaim our support for an organization, every thing that organization does comes back directly to our movement. So we open ourselves up to being dragged through the mud of another organizations problems. So I think that as a movement, we can say that "yeah, unions can be a spectacular idea." However, supporting SPECIFIC unions or groups will make us vulnerable. We have enough to worry about!!!

 

And now to the action part of the discussion. It was mentioned that if specific actions did not represent the 99%, why was the Afganistan War strongly protested against. Now, I feel that the wording is especially important in this part of the sentence. Taking out the strong argument of lost lives around the world because of the 10 year (so far) war, financially, many companies thrived. The heads of major war profiteering companies in both Iraq and Afganistan increased their wealth including companies from Halliburton to Lockheed, or GE. So the 99% suffered severe brutally both mentally and physically. That is why the action was done... because the action was a direct representation of the 99% against the greed of the 1%. I don't want to get off topic but I believe that actions in the future must directly relate to all of our representations of the 99%. If a movement does not represent the 99% in solidarity against the 1% then the action does not represent Occupy Chicago. Sound ok?

Again the reason that organizations should not be endorsed is because they are corruptable. But actions that defend a particular idea should not be considered corruptable in their base form. It just depends if that base form is also the base of Occupy Chicago.  

Thanks for reading!

[MrWrathOfGod]

I just want to re-iterate that I am all for unions. I am just fearful that the mere sight of us alongside any particular group could be twisted into our blind support of said group. I am all for unions, social clubs, moose lodges, whatever. I just know that the media isn't necessarily on our side and we need to be careful about how we allow them to paint us. With such limited numbers and such limited voice in the media we can't combat an unfair portrayals of our affiliations. That is my main concern. I just don't want to leave ourselves open to being labeled as something we are not until we have the voice to correct the masses. We can severely limit our growth by unfairly being labeled as aligning with one party or another. We pride ourselves on non-partisanship. The media has the ability to steal that from us simply by showing us standing side by side.

From what I heard at base tonight this isn't an issue anymore since GA tonight. I was working and couldn't make it in time but I stopped at base and got the details. I am all for unions. I just don't want to risk being unfairly labeled.

[greggoodman]

This comments comes from the perspective of somebody doing the increasingly difficult job of outreach work.

 

There is already a huge discrepancy between the tens of thousands of people who have come out to march with us (and very much consider themselves part of the Occupy Chicago Movement) and the infinitely smaller number of people who have attended and participated in GA meetings (who eventually determine the formal positions advertised on this website, which end up representing the voice of the Occupy Chicago movement to an internet public as well as to the media; it would might be useful to very honestly ask if GA participants now make up only 1% of the broader Occupy Chicago movement). As somebody who has attended many GA meetings and is working very hard on several GA committees, I want the GA to succeed and to grow. As somebody who is in constant conversation with both individuals and groups, some of who have attended GA meetings and been turned off, others of who have felt that it was never worth their time to affiliate with the GA in the first place, I understand and sympathize with their criticism of the GA and the positions that have come out of it and have subsequently been posted on the website. 

 

There are a tremendous number of community groups and activist organizations (this includes unions) across Chicago working on issues of economic injustice who already have the research and polished ability to defend their positions that our own GA Research Committee has been struggling (with very limited success) to produce. We should want to bring them into our movement. At the same time, the agendas put forth by these groups will never be supported by the entirety of this elusive "99%" that we keep claiming to speak for. 

 

I agree that the GA should not vote to endorse any group (and again emphasize the question of whether or not the GA even has the legitimate authority to endorse any group or position on behalf of the entire Occupy Chicago movement, which has become much bigger than the GA). At the same time, I want the groups mentioned in the last paragraph to rally behind the GA and contribute their resources to what we are trying to accomplish. Any statement that is passed by the GA regarding its relationship to other groups and organizations should be careful to not alienate these groups or further contribute to the growing sentiment that the GA is an unrepresentative and illegitimate body. 

 

I should further note than many of these groups DON'T want to be endorsed by the GA, and currently don't even want to be affiliated with the GA. It's the second part the strikes me as the real organizational and strategic problem.

 

Here's a quickly thought out proposal for some alternative wording:

"By vote of the General Assembly of Occupy Chicago, it has been determined that this body will not and cannot formally endorse any group supporting or participating in the larger Occupy Chicago movement. Occupy Chicago is a horizontal political movement that encompasses a broad range of organizations and individuals who have been united by a common feeling that the present situation in our city, our nation, and our world is an unjust one and must be rethought and reorganized. We invite and celebrate the participation of all individuals and organizations who share this sentiment and feel moved to act. To endorse any single organization, however, is to privilege that organization and its agenda above the many other voices struggling to be heard across the streets of our city. We are excited by all of these voices and eager to encourage and facilitate the emerging dialogue between them. It is our earnest hope that members of many organizations will feel increasingly moved to join our General Assembly and the conversations we are currently fostering in our own meetings, but it is critical that these individuals join us as individuals. We hope that through this policy the General Assembly will become a productive forum for individuals affiliated with larger organizations to find allies for your causes, struggles, and activities."

 

I just wrote this off the top of my head, so there are almost certainly glaring problems with it I'm not seeing right now. I invite comment.

 

In solidarity,

Greg

[McCarter]

Greg and all,

 

I agree with not endorsing any one group but embracing all individuals.  I think this was nicely written in a previous post:

"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."

 

Greg - I think your proposed language is good - maybe a bit strong in the beginning but captures the point pretty well.  Thank you.

 

McCarter

[AndersonJP]

greggoodman said:

Here's a quickly thought out proposal for some alternative wording:

"By vote of the General Assembly of Occupy Chicago, it has been determined that this body will not and cannot formally endorse any group supporting or participating in the larger Occupy Chicago movement. Occupy Chicago is a horizontal political movement that encompasses a broad range of organizations and individuals who have been united by a common feeling that the present situation in our city, our nation, and our world is an unjust one and must be rethought and reorganized. We invite and celebrate the participation of all individuals and organizations who share this sentiment and feel moved to act. To endorse any single organization, however, is to privilege that organization and its agenda above the many other voices struggling to be heard across the streets of our city. We are excited by all of these voices and eager to encourage and facilitate the emerging dialogue between them. It is our earnest hope that members of many organizations will feel increasingly moved to join our General Assembly and the conversations we are currently fostering in our own meetings, but it is critical that these individuals join us as individuals. We hope that through this policy the General Assembly will become a productive forum for individuals affiliated with larger organizations to find allies for your causes, struggles, and activities."

I like this, I think it makes it a lot more clear what we are not willing to do, but what we hope to form. I hope it was understood yesterday that I was re-affirming the point offered here that if we endorse a group we privilege them to the exclusion of other groups, especially management, who unions are notoriously adversarial with.

 

Jon