Opportunity Lost - Occupy One Year Later

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...l-Street-1.jpg

There was a parade yesterday in Santa Rosa for the 1 year anniversary of Occupy. See the Press Democrat's surprisingly positive article here. Meanwhile, I can't help feel quite disappointed that more hasn't come out of the largest mass movement on the left since the 60's. Yes, somethings were accomplished, including raising the awareness of the vast inequity of income distribution and the power of the 1%, but next to nothing has been done to change that.

When compared to the movements of the 1960's that resulted in the Civil Rights Act, ending the war in Vietnam and the creation of EPA, Occupy has not only achieved very little (OK, it's early yet) but it also shows very little persistence, despite the anniversary march. It even pales when compared to the "accomplishments" of the Tea Party. The Tea Party achieved much greater mindshare and more importantly, political power. Thankfully it is being undone by the bankruptcy of its philosophy.

All hope is not lost, and I'm sure seeds have been sown, but precious little fruit has been born so far, and its [Edit: apostrophe removed - thanks Larry!] energy continues to wane.

In retrospect I see four reasons for this:

1) No "One Demand". Rather on focusing on making a big change with the amazing swelling of passion, attention and energy, Occupy just became a new brand for a wide-array of familiar left-wing gripes, which dissipated the energy.

When Adbuster's called for the original occupation, their poster tried to help the movement to focus with the caption: What is our One Demand? They also suggested one: Get the money out of politics, or as they stated it:

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Adbusters:

The most exciting candidate that we've heard so far is one that gets at the core of why the American political establishment is currently unworthy of being called a democracy: we demand that Barack Obama ordain a Presidential Commission tasked with ending the influence money has over our representatives in Washington. It's time for DEMOCRACY NOT CORPORATOCRACY, we're doomed without it.

---

I think they had it right. They correctly identified the root of the problem; the source of so many other problems. It had a beautiful simplicity, along with current villain in Citizen's United that pointed to the accumulation of judicial errors (corporate personhood and money is speech). With it, the movement could rightfully claim motherhood & apple-pie banner of Restoring Democracy. Who could ask for more?

While getting the money out politics persisted as one of the many themes that arose from Occupy, it was not dominant. It became just another of the myriad of demands, and its power was diluted.

On one hand, getting the money out of politics is a tall order, since it has now been enshrined by the Supreme Court in constitutional law, and would take a constitutional amendment to undo the damage. On yet another hand, that goal and the large majority of voters and politicians that woud be required to support it would force the movement to remain focused and be broad based. I think it was a suitable cause to get support from people on both the left and the right. That cause continues and is lead, IMO, by Move to Amend.

Even if it failed to achieve a constitutional amendment specifying what is plainly obvious, Corporations are Not People and Money is Not Speech, no doubt much collateral good would be achieved in the process of trying to pass the amendment.

2) Occupying. Way too much energy was was wasted on the physical occupation of public spaces. The writing was on the wall from the first day that that strategy, though highly effective at first to gain attention, was doomed by, if nothing else, the calendar. The camps quickly gained undesirable elements that could not be jettisoned since there as no agreed on demand. It's one thing to subvert the dominant paradigm, it's another to stand up to Mother Nature as winter bore down on the campers. Both the lack of One Demand, and staying attached to physical occupations, point to problem # 3:

3) No leadership. While the notion of not having a leader could be seen as "leaderfull", in practice, IMO, there was not enough wise, strategic coordinated leadership. The original occupations and the beautiful teach-ins, networking and brainstorming that they encouraged was masterful for both being productive, persistent and attention grabbing, however without concerted action around a key objective, no lasting change was made. Yes, there were a handful of regional occupations organized from local groups, most notable and effective, IMO, was the one that targeted ALEC, an organization that I was not aware of until then, and has since withered from Occupy's spotlight.

4) No politics. The Occupy movement as was so distrustful/disillusioned of the political process (for good reason) they refused, by and large, to participate in elective politics. I think this was a huge mistake. So many of the problems are sourced in government and laws they write, as well as the one key answer, getting the money out of politics, requires political action. No doubt many community based initiatives were born during the flowering of Occupy, and good work is being done by them, but they are working to mitigate the damage being done by of the corporatocracy, rather than working to change it.

Here we are, one year later, in the middle of presidential campaign, with a perfect foil in Mitt Rmoney (typo intended), and effect of the Occupy movement is much less that Tea Party movement 2 years ago. Yes, terms such income distribution and 99% are part of the lexicon now, but that's not a lot to show for such a powerful movement.

I can only hope that the energy will rise again another day and we won't squander that golden opportunity.

Barry

Barry,

It's easy to criticize, more work to participate. Locally, in Santa Rosa, Petaluma, Sebastopol, there has been much activity around issues that effect people in the community. In Santa Rosa there are several active working groups, many meetings, ongoing teach-ins.

The Dorothy Day Working Group of OSR launched the Legalize Sleep campaign, challenging City and County ordinances outlawing sleeping for more than two hours, while there are only 1100 shelter beds for over 4500 homeless people in the County. Come to SR City Hall tomorrow – Tues., Oct. 16, 3:15 pm – for the next DDWG action.

You compare the "Occupy" movement to the Civil Rights movement but as you stated, this movement has only been active for one year. Unlike the "Tea baggers" stagings and political successes, this movement is not financed by billionairs.

The "Occupy camps" were necessary to bring people together for face to face dialog. I see it as the re-occupation of the people's commons. It was/is about building community. And it is also about listening to voices expressing concerns rather than having a leader set the agenda for how a "revolution" should look – that's the old paradigm.

What is called the "Occupy Movement" in the US has been brewing in the so-called "Third-World" for decades, if not centuries. People in the US are just beginning to make the connection to the larger picture. More so in Europe. The colonizers/corporations – the "1%" – have exploited the world's resources and people's labor for too long. This worldwide movement is a response, and we live in the belly of the beast.

More than a revolution, I see it as an evolution of the human intellect and spirit. And evolution takes time, but we must be active in the process in whatever capacity one can be.

I'm just writing to thank Barry and Zenekar, both of whom got gratitude from me. They both got thankyous despite expressing different opinions--because of the way those differences were expressed. Relationship not only maintained but deepened, at least from out here in the peanut gallery.

The older I get, the more I believe this: if honoring the relationship doesn't underlie the discourse, winning hardly matters.

Science is churning out an avalanche of evidence that connection really is the substrate of wellbeing...compulsive solitude is a hard habit to break, but I'm working on it!

This goes out with more thanks to the larger wacco community, a shoutout to oxytocin, and happy if slightly shy anticipation of the wacco gathering coming up.

kathy

I appreciate Barry's thoughtful reflections below. I want to offer another point of view. Occupy is still an infant, not yet even a toddler. Its accomplishments in merely a year have been substantial. It continues to grow, not necessarily in numbers. So let's not rush in with too much negativity, though we should certainly apply critical thinking and engage in dialogue to harvest both the wisdom and the lessons from Occupy's first year.

Were mistakes made, of course. Is it over? Hardly. The American Empire is in decline. Though this is an international crisis, in some ways, it is also an opportunity. However, if we act with a crisis mentality and move at a fast pace, that would not be as effective as giving ourselves more than a year to act and reflect.

One of Occupy's accomplishments is to re-assert the value of being de-centralized. The Empire will decapitate any centralized leadership. The value of being de-centralized is essential, as is staying in communication with each other.

For example, here in Sonoma County we have three main Occupy groups--Santa Rosa, Petaluma, and Sebastopol. People from all three groups were at last Sunday's OSR celebration and will probably be at the Oct. 28, Sun., 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. celebration of OP. That will be at Penfry Park downtown, up on a hill, on Petaluma Blvd. North and Washington. That would be a good place to have in-person conversations about Occupy's first dynamic, history-changing year.

I have met so many good people through Occupy, here in Sebastopol, throughout Sonoma County, and elsewhere. I have joined with them on various efforts, such as responding to the international crisis that the Fukushima nuclear plant ongoing disaster represents. Building community and identifying who one can work with and help care for our threatened Earth is an amazing accomplishment during this time of mass distraction by our fast-moving society.

I do not agree that we need One Demand. We cannot reduce what needs to be done to One Demand that we could all rally around. That is Old Politics. This is the new 21st Century and needs other ways of functioning.

Beware of getting too involved in national electoral politics. That will drain our energy. Both parties, at the top, represent the 1%. Local politics is another story. Here in Sebastopol, for example, supporting Robert Jacob and John Eder for City Council makes sense. They have made it clear that they oppose Chase Bank/CVS Pharmacy from moving to our downtown commons. The mega-corporations continue on their march to further centralize their power. The struggle against them, including the nuclear power industry and the tar sands pipeline, are important.

Occupy could benefit by working more with environmental, anti-war, and other groups, in my opinion. Digging in for the long haul would be important. Blessings to the youth who rose up at Occupy Wall Street and continue to guide Occupy!

There were quite a few gray haired people there and I think that making younger people aware of the issues and their willingness to step into planning sessions (work groups) and take leadership roles in such movements as this gives value to our demonstration. We may not have been able to foment change, even locally, but we keep chipping away at it hoping at least to educate people and to let them know they are not alone in the struggle. Join us with more than criticism, with more than hope; join us with ACTION.

Barry,
I agree with much of your analysis, although not with the inappropriate apostrophe in "it's". The original occupation of Wall Street sparked a great number of sympathetic local actions around the country. Unfortunately, the attempt to duplicate in other communities a symbolic act (camping in public spaces) that was successful in New York, failed to capture the imagination of an American public that was originally very supportive. Instead, it became a cliche that the major media were happy to exploit in order to marginalize the entire movement.
Locally, the Occupy Sebastopol group has effectively alienated a large part of the community who still agree with the larger goals, ie. ending Wall Street's hegemony over our democracy. By demonizing community members who support the CVS project and by framing a local planning issue as "us versus them", it has played into the 1%'s tried and true tactic of divide and conquer.
It seems we have once again initiated the circular firing squad that has decimated the ranks of progressive activists for generations. While this is discouraging, I still believe that we have a chance to build a national - and perhaps international - movement for economic justice. But this will require the discipline to focus on the structural issues and forging broader coalitions so that we truly engage the 99%, not just the 10% of true believers.
Larry

As founder of Move to Amend Sonoma County it is tempting to agree with Barry that focusing on one issue-ours-would be the best choice for Occupy. But that is not within the nature of Occupy, nor would it have been a desirable strategy for that Movement.

First and foremost, Occupy was a primal cry of recognition of the reality of our lives. It was a great collective "no" to the dehumanization and atomization of our society. It was a chance for people to meet and recognize each other and to feel the global connection of humanity. This is not something that can be reduced to a single issue-and certainly not within a year's time.

We are living in a time of economic, political and spiritual corruption. Changing the political system is important, but without changing an economic system that depends upon destroying the world it is meaningless. And none of this can happen (IMO) without changing the larger story of materialism that denies a place for the human spirit in the ordering of our affairs. Thus, there are three "fronts" to our struggle, and it is crucial to support those who work in each of these areas and to recognize and consciously nurture the connections between those who work for political equality, for individual freedom and for an economy based on sharing rather than greed.

IMO there is no one "correct" action. Of course I believe that the work of amending the constitution to end corporate constitutional rights and "money as speech" is the most important political action to be taken. That is why, given my talents and proclivities, I volunteer my time with Move to Amend. I also recognize that building an alternative food supply through urban farming, community gardens, CSA's, etc., is also crucial. I have less to offer in that regard, but I support the work wholeheartedly. I know that "it is difficult to get the news from poems, yet men die every day for lack of what is found there"(WC Williams). So I find great hope in movements such as 100 Thousand Poets (and Musicians and Mimes, etc) for Change. We depend on our storytellers to tell us a new story of positive transformation and it is art in all its forms that touches and inspires our deepest humanity. Without the artists, we are lost.

No matter what happens to Occupy as a "brand", the world landscape will never be the same because of its presence. Personally, I feel more hopeful now than I have felt in my entire life. This last year has been wonderful in so many ways, and Occupy has been the source of much of that. And, of course, Shepard is right-Occupy is barely into its toddlerhood. It is up to all of us to nurture the emerging Spirit housed within that bodily framework, and to help it grow up to fulfill its destiny. In the meantime, I can only wish it a very wonderful 1st birthday and to make sure to go to all the parties!!

Abraham Entin
West Sonoma County

I want to take up just one sentence in Barry's article:
"The camps quickly gained undesirable elements that could not be jettisoned since there as no agreed on demand."

(with thanks for others who have already articulated many of my other thoughts and feelings)

These "undesirable elements" are our community members. They are people who have been jettisoned by the ruling class as not useful to our capitalism in it's current state of automation. Should we also have jettisoned them too? Of course not.

Building a movement across race and class lines is very hard work. I'm sure many campers in every camp across the nation were hugely surprised and caught off guard. Many didn't have the background knowledge and practical experience to make the community work well with people who had suffered the worst of society's hardships, homelessness, mental disability, poverty, the criminal justice system, untreated alcoholism & drug addiction. But, all of us got a close up and personal look at how life is for these folks. That is one of the most hopeful aspects to come out of Occupy.

I applaud the Dorothy Day Working Group of Santa Rosa Occupy and others for moving directly with people from these communities toward concrete change.

It's tempting to think we "should" have become a single-pointed political machine like the tea party. And, it's hard to watch the conservative ideology sweep across the country one more time. But, as others have pointed out, a movement is not a 1-2 year project. It takes many years and many people in it for the long haul. The lessons of the past (civil rights, abolition of slavery, women's suffrage, anti Vietnam war) tell us to build a community of committed, deeply-rooted-in-community activists who are forever replacing themselves. And then fight like hell.

I agree with the four major points in Barry's critique of the Occupy movement, but not with its conclusion that there was a "missed opportunity." The capitalist system spent a century decimating its political opposition (purges of leftists in government, media, entertainment, universities, labor unions and so forth). Its unrealistic to expect resistance to the corporate state to gets its act together after a year given this historical context. Revolutionary patience is necessary for the movement to bear fruit.

I have been impressed by the vision of people like Shepherd (Occupy Petaluma) and Emerald (Occupy Santa Rosa) who have worked hard to create a regional hub of Occupy groups in Sonoma County (I'm a member of Occupy Petaluma) to engage in common actions, strategizing and visioning. They have rightly understood that laying a good foundation is necessary for sustaining our activism.

I have written about the spiritual roots of activism; and we have spent time in OP discussing the relationship between spirituality and activism. I believe it's not only organization and strategy that is needed for a successful movement, but everyday practices like compassion and nonviolence. Look at the important role that spirituals played in the development of the African American liberation movement. They were a lived experience of liberation that sustained the movement for centuries. What is our lived experience of liberation in the rebellion against the corporate state?

If you want to discuss some of these issues directly with others: Here's something that works well and is already planned.

Monday, October 22, 2012
7:00pm
Unitarian Universalist Church, 547 Mendocino Ave., Santa Rosa

An Occupy Santa Rosa (OSR) strategy session to answer the question: ''How could the 99% come to hold democratic power?'' Everyone who identifies with Occupy is encouraged to attend! (There will be a brief OSR Spokes Council meeting before the strategy workshop begins). Co-sponsored by the OSR Free School and the OSR Strategy Working Group.

SCENARIO: The 99% has achieved democratic power!!!
1%-corporate rule is no more!!!
Power is in the hands of the people!!!

Please take a moment, quietly, to envision society after this change. What is it like? What is the energy level of people? What is the level of engagement and involvement? How do people relate with each other? How are differences expressed and decisions made?

CONSIDER THESE QUESTIONS:
Looking back, how did this great change happen, nationally??? Internationally???

What events brought this about?
Who participated, and how?
How could it finally happen, when for so many years before, it didn't/couldn't?

What event or events started it off?
Describe the developments.
Was there a key event or turning point?

What went "right" for the people?
What went "wrong" for the 1%?
What was the role of 99%ers who had been fearful, hateful, protective of privilege, racist, pro-imperialist, and/or holding strongly to the old ways and thinking?

What was the most difficult part? Who did the heaviest lifting?
What was the role of existing institutions: schools, media, police, prisons, legislatures, military, executive, courts, banks, corporations, private organizations, cultural organizations, religious organizations?

What was the role of popular social movements? How did we build to be ready for these events? Organizing in small groups on many issues? Uniting under one banner?
A charismatic national leader? What were the roles of unorganized people? Remember youth!

What was the worst that happened? What was most inspiring or noble?

Looking back, is there a phrase which, for you, summarizes what it all hinged on?

COME MONDAY NIGHT, Oct 22, AND WE'LL CONVERSE ABOUT IT ALL..

Thanks for all the thoughtful comments! :waccosun:

In general, let me say that my comments come from my perception that the large energy swell around Occupy that captivated the country and world, that had the potential for real substantial change (on a Tea Party scale, if not a Arab Spring scale) has all but dissipated. So while Occupy may be an "infant", it's an infant on life support system, if alive at all.

I don't see much difference from the relatively small group (vs. mass participation in Occupy's heyday) of dedicated activists that gallantly fought against inertia and indifference to move the progressive agenda forward before Occupy, and the remaining relatively small group of activists, now claiming the banner of Occupy, gallantly pushing forward on largely the same agenda with largely the same limited traction.

My point here is not to be negative, but to realistically take stock. The wave has passed and we're not on it anymore and there's precious little to show for the time when we were on it. I think it's worthy to come to grips with that, try to understand why that happened, and how to do better next time.

To some of Zenekar's points (Zenekar being one of those dedicated activists before and after Occupy) Legalizing Sleeping in public ( a worthy compassionate initiative to help the homeless) pales against banking reform or election reform. Regarding not being financed by billionaires, yes, that's true, but'd I'd argue that the leadership the billionaires provided was more important than their dollars.

To my friend and fellow Occupy co-conspirator, who wrote:

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Shepherd:

I do not agree that we need One Demand. We cannot reduce what needs to be done to One Demand that we could all rally around. That is Old Politics. This is the new 21st Century and needs other ways of functioning.

---

I think you have it precisely backwards. It's the Old Politics to work on this issue, and that issue, and all the rest of the issues, that are symptoms of the root issue, that isn't being effectively addressed - the blatant purchase of the government by the wealthy. It would be New Politics to get focused and remain focused the core issue. Other issues can be addressed, but having a clearly identifiable goal that is broad based (restore democracy!) would attract a rising tide that would lift all ships/isssues.

Ice Queen comments reminded me another worthy, if subtle for the time-being, accomplishment of Occupy: the political awakening of large numbers of young people. Whether or not they'll remember and embrace these values in the future remains to be seen, but there is reason to be hopeful.

While I sheepishly accept Larry's grammatical criticism, I disagree that it is a mistake to frame the CVS/Chase as a fight against the 1%'s wealth extraction means, vs just a local planning issue. I do agree that "demonizing community members" is not the right way to go about that fight.

I was surprised to see Abraham's comments. I'm still digesting them. I wish I felt similarly that "No matter what happens to Occupy as a "brand", the world landscape will never be the same because of its presence."

Additional comments are most welcome!

It does seem mysterious. Many people working hard and smart in small bands all over the U.S. for decades and no mass movement. Then.... suddenly... a surge. Could "we" have done anything different to maintain that surge and turn it into a tidal wave? Barry has his four ideas and, I suspect, if each one of us were pressed we could make our own list of 4-5 items.

Sitting on the OSR Strategy Working Group, I see people who have an idea for how Occupy could be more effective, or do something specific to find that surge again. And I see how difficult it is for anyone to gain traction for their singular great idea. Some do it by joining or starting a working group and, with a small team, they accomplish a great deal. But, it's nothing like what we all wish, that we, or a group of we's with the same idea, could take to the head of the crowd and move it down the path we see so clearly.

As I'm sure most of you know, that takes some kind of group consensus. And, we don't have it... or maybe we have some of it and just need some more.

I've realized that, in our community of activists and peacemakers, we have a lot of skills. Skills of kindness, of poster making, press releases, facilitation, organizing... many important and necessary skills. And, since for the most part, we've only had a chance to hone those skills in local campaigns on discrete issues, we lack some of the skills of imagination and visioning we need. We don't know how to think about how we could move our "act locally; think globally" strategies to something that resembles, The 99% in Charge of the U.S. Government.

We need more group consensus in how to move forward. But, to get there we, as individuals need to learn how to think about the big issues of strategy. Whether or not, you can make it to the event on Oct 22 at the Unitarian church in S.R., look at the questions that will be used that evening (in my post above). Think about them. When each of us have our own answers to 99% of these questions, we will be much closer to the 99% taking charge of our government.

Here's a couple these questions, slightly rephrased:
What is the role of 99%ers who are fearful, hateful, protective of privilege, racist, pro-imperialist, and/or holding strongly to the old ways and thinking?

Describe the developments.
Will there a key event or turning point and, if so, what could it be?

Thanks everyone for a great conversation.

Reading Barry’s woes that the Occupy Movement resulted in lost opportunity, while the Civil Rights era resulted in some powerful changes, I starting thinking about and comparing the activism of the ’60s and ’70s to that of the present.

The one major difference between the Peace and Love Generation and the Digital Age is, well the digital age. I got my news from live black and white television after school, watched Oswald shoot JFK and Ruby shoot Oswald, but the people surrounding me were just my parents. I didn’t know if my friends saw and what they thought.

In 2012, we are all digitally connected now in a way that could only have been imagined by a few rare visionaries of the ’60s and only on acid. Yeah. As many saw the YouTube footage of Davis students Occupying the campus and getting hit with pepper spray, just moments after it happened, I had already watched it on FaceTime via my kid’s iPhone while it was happening. This is Flash Gordon news reporting.

And we old guard, remembering how demonstrations meant that people gathered and marched, forget that people are gathering and texting and uniting - in the ether.

So I am not discouraged when I see fewer people at the Occupy crowds than one would wish. I just figured they are saving gas and doing it online.

I pulled out of BofA and joined a credit union. I learned about the groundswell on HuffPost, MoveOn, Change, BoldProgressives, Truthout and Facebook. In fact, I closed the damned BofA account ONLINE. Did it make an impact? Yes. Small, maybe, but when I went to Redwood Credit in Sebastopol, it took several tries to open an account, since the lines were out the door for a week. That was followed by a record number of BofA locations closing.

I also signed a petition for the UC Davis Chancellor to be accountable for the actions of the “riot” control. Did that work? They just settled a million dollar settlement, giving each student in the suit $30 thou and paid their legal fees.

How else could I have heard Elizabeth Warren speak and had the opportunity to drop her twenty bucks now and then, than the internet. Does my pittance make a difference to her campaign? No, but my pittance amount multiplied by one million might.

OK, so, maybe the Occupy Movement hasn’t done anything much yet. Maybe it is too young yet for us to judge its importance. Every baby takes a few days to open its eyes. But what is true is that we are connected and united in the cloud and have the potential to do incredible things... as soon as we figure out what we want to do and how we should do it. That’s the challenge. But while we are all scratching our heads and looking for One demand, One leader, One platform, we have to take care of the powerful open highway to the world that could be in danger of narrowing to a one-way street.

Governments in several countries now regulate social networks and internet access and suppress web sites. Iran, China, Korea, Russia, Cuba.. all have limited, suppressed or government controlled internet.

Even in Tunisia, the birthplace of Arab Spring, the transitional government is continuing its previous regime’s censorship of the web.

Governments everywhere know the dangerous power of people being digitally connected, and control of the people is a major concern of any government. There is pressure on the US to conform with the rest of the global community for more interference in and control of the internet.

Perhaps it is the next generation that will take up the Occupy flag to do greater things, but only if there is a way to meet and gather freely within this incredible technology. It is critical that we keep it free for them.

Hello Barry,

I was at the Occupy anniversary last Sunday, October 14, with my wife and our daughter. I saw "Zenekar" there and we spoke briefly.

I fully understand your frustration at slow social and political change, especially when there is a serious need for it. I have felt that exact same frustration throughout my life as a political activist, whether here in the U.S. or while I sojourned in Europe for ten years.

I wouldn't despair as much although the impatience is justified. Me and my family cared enough about the Occupy Movement to show up at Santa Rosa City Hall for the anniversary (and I think that our daughter was the more motivated of the 3 of us).

As they say in Spain, "Hay que tomarlo con filosofia." This translates to something like, "You have to take it with philosophy." Which is supposed to mean that you have to interpret things a little differently, more deeply, with imagination as to the why's, and with greater accuracy. With a better understanding of the situation at hand then you will know better what to do (and not do). And with the resulting plan of action in mind you will begin to feel better about things because you have something concrete to carry out and improve the situation. In this case, the question is what to do to move along the Occupy Movement (OM) and keeping in mind that the purpose of the Occupy Movement is to usher in social and political reforms, big reforms.

I notice, and so does everyone else, that you contribute to the OM through your website, WaccoBB.net! That is really cool because most of us don't have this kind of a great community resource to contribute to the OM. It's great that there is someone like you doing what you're doing with this great, community oriented website.

Are there other things that can be done? Sure there are. Lots. But this forum is a place where many people from the Santa Rosa Occupy Movement have conferred with each other and made MANY announcements, debated extensively, etc, etc, etc.

Thank you for your contribution and you are a part of the solution no matter how slow or humble it may be. Two steps forward and one step backward is the way I like to look at social evolution. If you look at history, you will see that we (humans and our imperfect societies) almost always get there...eventually. Even if it takes hundreds or even thousands of years, we get there. Susan B. Anthony (1820-1906) and Elizabeth Cady Stanton (1815-1902) dedicated their ENTIRE lives to the women's suffrage movement. Neither one of these great American lady warriors saw the Constitutional right for women to vote come into fruition, which was when the 19th Amendment was finally ratified in 1920.

Stay steady, stay strong.

Edward

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Barry:

Thanks for all the thoughtful comments! :waccosun:

In general, let me say that my comments come from my perception that the large energy swell around Occupy that captivated the country and world, that had the potential for real substantial change (on a Tea Party scale, if not a Arab Spring scale) has all but dissipated. So while Occupy may be an "infant", it's an infant on life support system, if alive at all...

---

On the one-more-thing tip:

Barry said: "The Tea Party achieved much greater mindshare and more importantly, political power. Thankfully it is being undone by the bankruptcy of its philosophy."

The Occupy will not be undone by the bankruptcy of its core philosophy. That is a huge strength. And, a tribute to those who made correct choices at dangerous forks in the road.

I had written a longer response to Barry's piece, and accidentally deleted it, so here is my (slightly) shorter response. I am focusing on Barry's points in the context of Occupy Santa Rosa, which I am most familiar with. One could go on for days listing all the amazing work that is now being done across the country because of Occupy, whether or not those groups still call themselves Occupy (and I may cite a few of them). But for now I am going to stick to what I know best.

Lastly, let me say that I hate always having to defend Occupy, because I too have my critiques. But the criticisms that Barry makes (as with the criticisms I hear all the time) are coming from a perspective that I think is flawed and misses the point in a lot of ways. Below are my thoughts only, not the feelings of our entire organization. However, I hope to have done my best at representing at least a major current of opinion within occupy santa rosa.

1.) Our Leadership:
Occupy Santa Rosa has developed hundreds of leaders who are capable of facilitating large meetings, talking to the press, building multi-racial coalitions, planning large actions, organizing study groups and winning direct action campaigns. We have held facilitation workshops, media workshops, our Free School working group raises consciousness through book clubs, teach-ins and dialogues, and we have held a day-long training to build up our anti-racist practices and consciousness (being a majority-white group in a city that is almost 50% non-white, this is quite important). The Working Group I am most involved in, the Solidarity Network, is intentional about rotating leadership tasks within the group. We have a set of four or five regular tasks that happen every week, and they always rotate to make sure someone new gets experienced. This is intentional leadership development, but it is a non-hierarchical leadership model:leadership is conceived as responsibility, not authority.

2.) Our demands:
I think many in Occupy Santa Rosa have made the assessment that our "demands" (which can be broadened to basically mean our political work or program) must reflect the lived experiences of the poor and working class of our community, that is, the people most affected by wealth inequality. And while I have deep respect for the work of Move to Amend and I think it is very worthwhile, we have seen that it is not the issue that regular working folks are most drawn to, and most people (within occupy and outside of it) have not identified "money in politics" as the central issue affecting their lives. Now, either they're wrong about their own lived experience with suffering and exploitation (doubtful), or we in OSR have made a correct judgment in advancing political demands that emphasize justice for working and poor people, redistribution of wealth and fighting back against the wave of privatization and budget cuts (which almost exclusively impact poor and working-class communities, workers, students, the elderly and the homeless). The Legalize Sleep campaign was developed after a process that directly involved homeless and poor people, who indicated clearly that this was the issue that most affected them. I think it is a privileged position to be able to say "no, that's not the 'core issue,' what you should really be talking about is the banks...," not realizing that one major by-product of the shenanigans of big banks is that thousands of people are out on the street and the state is so bankrupt that it can't pay for shelters or food for people. Responding to the concrete manifestations of our failed economic system, by organizing people to resist their exploitation directly, is in my opinion a better strategy for building a mass movement that will fundamentally transform the country, then just saying "you all need to focus on this one issue, which I have identified as more important than your day-to-day suffering."

The Solidarity Network is another example of the political direction that Occupy Santa Rosa has taken that has lead to increased participation, specifically from working people and younger people. A great example of what we do: we literally had an interview this morning with an immigrant construction worker who has performed remodeling work for a local contractor for six years, while living at one of his bosses houses for free. He hasn't been paid for several years. He is owed approximately $190,000. He contacted our group and wants to take on a campaign with us to get his money back. Rather than focusing on some vague political demand directed at bought-off politicians, the Solidarity Network is using direct action to literally take back the wealth (whether its wages, deposits, or whatever) from employers, landlords, and otherwise wealthy people, and giving it back to workers directly. And through this process, our members gain experience, learn how to stand up for themselves in the workplace, and build their own leadership. The amount of calls we get every week, from people with similar cases, tells us that this strategy is effective.

Again, the demand of getting money out of politics is certainly worthwhile. But I would again have to disagree with Barry's assessment that it is even the root of our problems. The problem is not that wealthy people control our political process. It is that there ARE wealthy people and poor people. We live in a class system, which necessarily means that there can be no real democracy for working people. I have to break it to you, before Citizens United, the rich controlled our government. And before the Reagan Revolution, the rich controlled our government. And if we overturn Citizens United, they will still control our government, because they control the means of production and they have the power to steal the labor of the majority of this country. Fighting to get money out of politics is a good idea, but under capitalism the rich have a thousand and one ways of maintaining political control. Increasing our political rights is certainly noble, but as revolutionaries throughout history have had to realize, political rights means very little if you do not have economic rights. The Russian Revolutions are a perfect example. In 1905, Russians rose up and demanded political rights. They eventually won a representative government and overthrew the monarchy. But their main problems still persisted and the government was still run by and for the elites. So they went beyond their political revolution and organized an economic revolution which physically removed the wealthy from their wealth. As an anarchist author wrote in the 1930's (I'm paraphrasing): "In America you have the right to eat three square meals a day, but not the means to do so. Therefore, the right means nothing." Overturning Citizens United may help protect some basic political rights, but it is far from the root of our problems. The claim that it is, in my opinion, lacks any historical basis.

3.) Our politics:

Occupy Sant Rosa is a politically diverse group, no doubt about it. Our various Working Groups contain people from many different political tendencies, from liberal Democrats, progressives, anarchists, christian marxists, and many more. However, there are some tendencies which have been fairly constant since the founding of Occupy Wall St. in 2011. One of the constant principles has been a rejection of the mainstream political system, positing that it is hopelessly drowned in money and corruption, and that its structure is inherently anti-democratic. Therefore, we organize ourselves using consensus and a directly-democratic process known as the General Assembly (with smaller Working Groups and Affinity Groups that take on specific areas of work). This has been a facet of the movement since the beginning, and it separates our movement greatly from any comparisons to the Tea Party (which, according to Barry, we should be learning lessons from).

The popular talking point among liberal critics of Occupy is that "Occupy was great at first, but then it strayed from its original concept..." I find this argument disingenuous, especially locally. In reality, Occupy Santa Rosa has remarkably kept true to its core principles. From the beginning, our massive General Assemblies (massive by SR standards at least) maintained a distance from elected political officials. We held true to the consensus process and our commitment to allowing all people to step into leadership roles. We have stayed committed to transparency, holding many of our meetings outside, and posting notes on easily accessible websites. While our political demands and program have become more narrow (which I think is a good thing), our organization looks very similar to how it did when we began. So it boggles my mind when I hear that people used to support us, but no longer do. If anything, we have become more organized and more focused. It seems like a cop-out, to say the least. If we were to embrace Democratic Party candidates and work primarily in the electoral arena, we would have massively betrayed our original founding principles. I wouldn't be a part of this movement if it had decided to do that, nor would a strong majority of current Occupy organizers I know (most of whom have been around since Day 1 of the encampments and stuck through many many difficulties).

Our independence from the political parties has allowed us, in my opinion, to reach out to a broader swath of people. What happens when we adopt a mainstream political framework is that we divide ourselves along a false line. The argument becomes "Democrat vs. Republican." This effectively cuts us off from a sizable chunk of the working class who either a.) vote Republican or b.) do not care about the political system. By focusing almost exclusively on the class question ("How are the elites and the rich screwing you over?"), we are able to build with the majority and we can have discussions with people who otherwise wouldn't join a self-identified "liberal/progressive" movement.

The political landscape of the U.S. and the world is clearly moving in a more militant direction, with strike actions and mass non-cooperation winning huge victories for people. We see this in Chicago with the successful teacher's strike. We saw it in Quebec with the successful student strike. And we are seeing it all over with an almost spontaneous spark of strikes and walkouts led by Wal-Mart workers. Our choice to orient Occupy Santa Rosa in a way that appeals directly to the needs and struggles of poor and working people was the correct one, in my view. And that opinion is being validated by the worker-led actions occurring all over the country, and by the successful fights against foreclosures and against anti-union employers that in many cities are being led by, or at least supported by, Occupy groups. It is good we moved away from the camps, but we would be mistaken to move into the electoral arena. We are working at moving ourselves into the streets, into the workplaces and into the neighborhoods and campuses. This is where we have to go, and the best way to do that is focus our rhetoric and our program on working-class struggle.

4.) Our organization

It is true that one of the flaws of Occupy Wall St. has been its hesitancy to form a more formal organization. In this sense, Barry is right to criticize us for not embracing "leadership," though I'm not sure if we are on the same page about what he meant. Having clear responsibilities and roles, defined structure and the possibility of a formal membership, is something that other successful movements have done for generations. I have been a constant advocate for developing Occupy Santa Rosa into a more well-defined organization, with membership and a more cohesive decision-making structure. However, up until now, Occupy Santa Rosa has maintained a rather sophisticated organization, with over a dozen Working Groups at times, coordinating through weekly General Assemblies and Spokescouncils. We arguably have one of the largest "rank-and-file" organizations in the County, meaning that the number of people who actively and regularly participate in our Groups and our events is larger than almost any other organization (although many groups have larger "memberships"). Occupy Santa Rosa easily has 50 regular organizers who routinely do work for the group. We have a Treasury, a Media committee, a strategy group, a marching band, a theater group, a Free School, three campaign-oriented committees, a new committee that is preparing for long-term campaigns to fight budget cuts and privatization, and a weekly General Assembly. The fact that we have maintained these groups for a year, in the face of police repression, media slanders, and internal strife, tells me that something is going right.

We may have a lot of work to do to create a more welcoming culture that retains new people and grows. But it is simply not true that our decision-making structure and concepts of leadership and organization have in any way contributed to us "missing an opportunity." In fact, I think we have taken advantage of an opportunity in that we have advanced an alternative model of social movement-building, that doesn't rely on professional non-profit staff, is independent of mainstream political structures, and that speaks truth about economic suffering and is not afraid to directly confront the rich and powerful people in our backyard. We have learned from recent struggles in Latin America, the Middle East, Chile Spain and Canada, and elsewhere, where massive social movements have been able to win huge transformational changes by directly confronting the power elites (not cooperating with them and working with their system). Our organization allows for independence, direct participation, and mass, nonviolent militant direct action. It is flexible and thus easier to access for most regular folks who are not already self-defined "activists."

In conclusion, I am really proud of the work of our local Occupy movement. People like Adrienne, Attila, Shepherd, Emerald have commented here and have all stuck with the movement because they understand its potential. Many many others are still involved and are moving forward a positive program of struggle that is deeply rooted in a belief that regular working people know what problems are most important and often have lessons to teach us about where to best direct our movement. I believe Barry's criticism, while well-intentioned, is severely misguided, lacking historical justification, and in general it illustrates a lack of understanding of what it is that the local Occupy groups even do. I suggest he look into our group a little more before making these broad critiques. The 200 people who came out on Sunday didn't seem disappointed or demoralized. In fact they looked energized and thrilled to death that Occupy Santa Rosa has survived and is still advancing the struggle. Perhaps Barry can check out our various websites and look into our work and learn more about it. I'd suggest starting at www.socosolidarity.net to read about successful campaigns for workers that we have organized already.

I appreciate this discussion, and I hope I made myself clear.

in solidarity,
Carl Patrick

I've been a member of this community for about 45 minutes, and I'm already impressed with the level of analytical and even introspective insight. And it's also great to see the words of people I know, Adrienne, Abraham, and Shepherd, and how they fit into this dialog.

I think Barry's concept of "opportunity lost" is a little harsh; it is too black and white. Occupy has been driven by all the shades of gray; the differing viewpoints that sometimes lead to a consensus and sometimes not. Similarly, the four points he mentions should also be subject to those shades of gray. They are valid issues that need to be addressed, and Occupy can benefit from taking a close look at them. But the jury is still out on how debilitating they will be. These four points are in essence born out of the concept of leaderless democracy and the fear of being perceived as a movement co-opted by the Democratic Party.

And if the baby Occupy is on life support, make no mistake: this preemie is a fighter. What may be lacking in numbers is made up for by the dedication and vision of those that remain. What Occupy started on Wall St. produced the baby's initial rallying cry, "We are the 99%." That's a simple concept that has had unbelievable power in creating a dialog, a perspective, that has never existed before in the mainstream.

And this baby has done so much more than just dirty diapers. On the streets and in our daily lives, we have already pushed the wave of Move Your Money to get people to dump the big banks and get into credit unions where the money stays local. The working groups have helped the homeless, poor, and immigrants directly and also through stating their cases at City Hall. We are now working on all aspects of community, educating our members about key issues and putting them to work about bettering them. So some of our actions have larger impacts, and some have very small ones. But it's very hard for the general public to understand and value what we've done. Without a thousand people at a downtown rally, there's not likely to be any press coverage, so the impact is limited to the number of people that drive or walk by; and then it's up to them to discern what we're there for.

In applying the shades of gray to Barry's original premise, I feel that Occupy isn't "lost," it simply is not yet optimized. There are things we can do with the passion, knowledge, motivation, and activism that haven't been explored yet. And I would like to address the issues Barry speaks of and offer my own solutions.

As to the original process of Occupying, it was a hugely important for the tents and sleeping bags to be visible for the initial months, and I thank everyone who has spent even one night outdoors at an Occupation. You are the soul of Occupy, the foundation of our strength, and through your working groups we have created the ability to address issues large and small, immediate and generational. The thinking has been bold, albeit all over the map. There have been a billion upraised wiggling fingers over the last year.

But in the quest for attention, sometimes Occupy did short-sheet itself with civil disobedience actions that caused traffic tie-ups that merely alienated the average Joe and Joan, those who only were able to focus on their busy day being messed with. That is what my liberal sister saw in Portland, and Occupy actions of this sort left her unimpressed with Occupy in general. Sometimes 600 people would do more harm than good in this context; not being a big enough crowd to attract the media to make their voices heard yet certainly able to hinder thousands on the streets.

I offer an efficient alternative, the simple yet effective concept of miniprotesting. It uses the three-part, "Burma Shave" style of messaging as its hook. You put groups of four on three consecutive street corners. In the center of each group someone holds a main 30" x 40" sign at waist level. The three main signs make a running message that motorists will be drawn to follow. The other three folks in each group hold traditional overhead signs on the theme. But the focus should be on the primary message of the three main signs which are at eye level for motorists.

Here's an example of a miniprotesting main sign inscription set that could be used nearly everywhere in America where a Republican is running for a House seat:

Corner #1: Isn't [local US House and/or Senate candidate]'s Support of the Ryan Budget Favoring BLUE BLOOD WELFARE?
Corner #2: Ryan Budget Drops Top Tax Tier by 14.6%, Gives Every Millionaire $146,000 For Each Million He Makes
Corner #3: A Vote for Romney/Ryan and [local US House and/or Senate candidate] is a Vote For the 1% Privilege Posse

So rather than have folks drive by a huge, amorphous crowd of waving signs with no apparent rhyme or reason, they can be drawn into your concise, fact-supported message that uses the Socratic method and its inherent ability to convince.

That's the concept. The power is what you can do with it. When a politician lies, you can point out the lie, then present the facts to refute it, then draw a conclusion from the evidence through the third 30" x 40" sign.

Rather than focus (often in vain) on media coverage, this brand of activism has the goal of spreading concise messaging directly to motorists trapped in bogged down traffic. So instead of consolidating everyone in one place looking for TV cameras, break them up in dozens and send them to clogged commute arteries all over the region. Take those 600 activists mentioned above and apply them to this model. That would yield 50 SEPARATE MINIPROTESTS that could blanket a county with coverage of every single inbound evening commute artery in big towns, but also little communities as well - as long as they've got three consecutive four-way stop signs that people have to queue up for. Every single one of those 50 miniprotests could connect directly with 100 to 200 pairs of eyes per hour.

See more about miniprotesting at https://miniprotests.com

The main signs can be created in under an hour. Just type them up in Word or Pages in arial, spaced 1.5 apart, with the margins expanded as far as possible. Email the pdf of them to FedEx Office and have them printed out on their 36"-wide roll paper. Pick up a three-pack of 1/4"-thick white foam core 30" x 40" poster board at Staples and cut rectangular hand holds near the top. Presto! Rapid Fact Activism is ready to roll. Pass the hat among participants to cover costs.

But lets look at miniprotesting as more than a tactic. Let's look at it as a strategy that Occupy could harness to reach those who have no other outlet to see the truths that they really need to see. Miniprotests can be the direct voice of every working group, presenting their specific goals, rants, or hidden facts, and connecting with people as we OCCUPY COMMUTE ROUTES. The impact of these actions is completely positive. No one is delayed or dismayed. Participants feel the tangible joy of solidarity with strangers and experience the look of recognition when an unknown fact hits home.

Of course, with the length of the sign inscriptions above, traffic definitely has to be at a crawl. And that is why in Santa Rosa our primary miniprotesting location starts on northbound Farmers Lane at Sonoma. The three positions are at a long light, mid-block where traffic bogs down badly from 4 to 5 p.m., and finally a second light. On tax day we caught the attention of virtually every motorist, and showed them that B of A, Exxon/Mobil, and GE pay NO taxes on billions in profits. Scores of eyebrows were raised.

Back to Barry's beefs. He mentioned the issue of not having "One Demand." Rather than putting all this energy into a very narrow focus, how about a detailed platform that addresses many issues under the same banner? For that I present what I call the Fair America Platform found at:

https://miniprotests.com/Fair_America_Platform.html

which brings fairness to elections through hand-counted paper ballots and making campaigns for all offices publicly funded. It also asks for fair taxation through a new "1000 families" top tax tier. For those making as much as 1000 families, which I put at $35 million per year, the tax rate should be 72%. In the Eisenhower/Kennedy/Johnson era the top tax rate was 91%, and that was for people making $2 million or more at the time. There's a lot more in the Fair America platform, so please check it out.

Regarding Barry's ideas on not having figureheads for the Occupy movement, having an individual spokesperson gives the opposition an easy target to vilify. If we present a platform instead of a person, the ideas within it are the only things that can be assaulted, and even in that our objective is met in that a dialog about these issues is started.

Lastly, with regard to remaining apolitical, I have to agree mostly with what Barry says. Supporting the Democratic Party over the Republican Party in the short term is the ONLY way to head towards the goals of inclusion, fairness, and community that virtually every Occupy champions. Ignoring that fact and remaining neutral simply to make sure we don't alienate any members of the 99% is simply tying our own hands. In the past, people have balked at my signs that say things like, "Romney Thinks GOP = FFF: Freedom From Facts." They say don't use the GOP for the reasons I mentioned above. Frankly, I think there is room for both perspectives. Offer up this miniprotest on a Tuesday and another one that doesn't mention the GOP by name the next Friday. And by nailing individuals, and not denigrating the GOP as a whole, you sidestep this dilemma.

So, if you've read this far, I've got you thinking. I would love to hear anyone's thoughts on these notions either indirectly on this thread or via the About Us page for miniprotests.com. And please make it to the Oct. 22 event at 7 p.m. in combination with the Spokes Council meeting in Santa Rosa and share your own solutions. The exercise the strategy working group is putting out there that night is "Big Strategy: Working Backwards." We'll try to envision what the world will look like when the 99% returns to power in America, and the 1% is no longer dictating policy and resource allocation. The event Facebook page is at:

https://www.facebook.com/events/123210497830006/

You can find the list of questions that we'll pose to drive discussion under the post on that page by Adrienne. Hope to see you there, and see your visions.

Barry's letter was also posted on Facebook on the Sonoma County Occupy Town Hall wall there. I responded to that post there. Several people (including Barry) have asked me to include it here:

Emma Occupy Gold@Barry: I am appalled by the deep criticisms of Occupy that you published publicly. The remarks you made are exactly what Occupy opponents say about our movement. I have my own complaints and criticisms about Occupy, having been intrinsically involved every day for this one year and before, but I would not consider publishing them. I have thought of you as ''one of us'' but now I wonder. I am so angry that you wrote what you wrote in a public forum! This is a time of building our movement to take us to the next stages, not tearing us down. If you are indeed part of Occupy please take each of your complaints and make a proposal that you intend to enact. One of the things that I learned long ago about Occupy is that if I have an idea I'd better be prepared to make it happen. And please attend the Big Strategy workshop that OSR is putting on this coming Monday: https://www.facebook.com/events/123210497830006/
The town hall meetings that you helped make happen were such a great contribution to Occupy here. Why did they end? Let's have another one to take a POSITIVE direction towards a common vision that includes your concerns.

Barry, I share your disappointment. My opinion from the outset is that nothing would be accomplished unless the movement coalesced into an effort to focus on our elected officials and demand that they draft and pass legislation that shifted the priorities of our country. I'm referring to economic relief for the millions of homeowners who are "under water" or were foreclosed, more of an effort to boost the research and development of alternative fuels to offset the spike in conventional energy prices and reverse climate change, the creation of stronger laws to prevent Wall Street from creating another financial collapse and the shifting of our federal budget away from so much defense spending and into education, health care and infrastructure rebuilding. The latter idea would do the most to rebuild the economy and simultaneously chip away at the enormous budget deficit.

I think people should have become more aggressive in demanding these changes from our politicians or threatening to vote for those who would commit to doing so. Granted, it's hard for most people to mobilize when the need to scratch out a living to survive in an era of a cost of living consumes so much of our time and energy.

I also believe our freedoms and the health of our democracy in general or gravely threatened by the advent of the vast amounts of money that drive our politicians and their election campaigns. Our only hope is that the Supreme Court reverses the horrible decision with the Citizens United case or a constitutional amendment is passed to prohibit the enormous amount of corporate and foreign money invested into lobbying and election campaigns.

I strongly disagree with what my good friend Larry Robinson says below. Occupy is guided by the value of transparency, which is one reason it has rallied against the U.S.'s largest bank, Chase, and its 18th largest corporation, CVS Pharmacy, from anchoring our downtown commons. We have not been "demonizing community members." We have opposed their lack of transparency and their outright lies. For example, there is a group that falsely calls itself "Sustainable Sebastopol." Yet they are merely pro-business, including big business that would damage small businesses. They green-wash the term "sustainable."

Chase/CVS has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to move downtown, which the majority of our population has fought against for over two years. City Council candidate Kathleen Shaffer has been the cheerleader of these big businesses, "under the radar," as she says. It is now documented that she and Kathy Austin are receiving funds for their campaigns from Southern California real estate interests and who knows who else, since such things can be hidden. How does that help our local small town? The documentation for this is available through the City.

Occupy Sebastopol does not engage in a "circular firing squad." They oppose the massive influx of big money into local politics. Robinson, who once served this city well, has done himself and our small town an injustice by his attack below against those who would defend our small town against those who would give it away to the highest bidder.

Alienating "a large part of the community" is a risk when one speaks truth to power. This happened at the beginnings of many movements for social change that, thankfully, eventually prevailed. Robinson contradicts himself when he supports "ending Wall Street's hegemony over our democracy" but fails to speak out against those who lack transparency.

The "economic justice" that Larry talks about includes speaking out against the ideas of those in power who give Wall Street access to the wealth of our small town in order to take it away to corporations who do not love our town, as Larry and Occupy Sebastopol do. Perhaps it is Larry himself who is demonizing those of us who disagree with him.

Yes, Larry, lets focus on "structural issues." If Chase/CVS moves downtown, the structure of our town would be forever changed, not for the good. The former lumberyard now tractor store would be likely to fall to big business soon after a capitulation to Chase/CVS. If Wal-Mart tried to move in there, which some people would support, perhaps Occupy would be accused of engaging in a "circular firing squad," if we opposed Wal-Mart.

By the way, since Larry corrected a minor error of our mutual friend Barry, let me note that his comma below should go before the end quote following "them," rather than after. :) I apologize for any errors that this hastily-written note may include.
Shepherd, still your friend, in spite of such sharp political differences

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Larry Robinson:

...Locally, the Occupy Sebastopol group has effectively alienated a large part of the community who still agree with the larger goals, ie. ending Wall Street's hegemony over our democracy. By demonizing community members who support the CVS project and by framing a local planning issue as "us versus them", it has played into the 1%'s tried and true tactic of divide and conquer.

It seems we have once again initiated the circular firing squad that has decimated the ranks of progressive activists for generations. While this is discouraging, I still believe that we have a chance to build a national - and perhaps international - movement for economic justice. But this will require the discipline to focus on the structural issues and forging broader coalitions so that we truly engage the 99%, not just the 10% of true believers.
Larry

---

Dear Carl (et al),

I realize that this thread is about Occupy, but Move to Amend has been brought into it a few times now, and I just want to clarify a few things about us as an organization and individually:

1. We have never been about "overturning Citizens United". We always say that CU is a symptom, not the disease, and we are constantly coming up against other (larger) groups who focus on CU as if overturning it would somehow re-institute a republic that has never really existed.

2. We are not even about "money in politics". Our proposed constitutional amendment has two parts. The second part (not even the first) states that "money is not equivalent to free speech", which would open the way to addressing the issue of "money in politics". The first, and more important part of the amendment (IMO) addresses corporate constitutional rights (corporate personhood). This is the basis of how corporations are able to control the story by which we live, and the assumptions we make about our society and how it should operate. It can and does lead to the corruption of our picture of what it means to be a human being, as well as allowing corporations to control the mass media and to pump their propaganda into our inner lives on a 24-7 basis.

It is also the basis for corporate control over core institutions, such as the educational system, that are now designed to meet the needs of corporations rather than human beings, up to and including the student debt crisis that threatens to put college graduates into perpetual peonage. Move to Amend is constantly trying to develop materials and programs that make plain the connection, for instance, between corporate needs and the school to prison pipeline affecting communities of color all over the country.

The people at Move to Amend do not believe that overturning CU or even passing our amendment is The Solution to all our problems. We do believe it is a key component and as well as a great organizing tool and vehicle for speaking about corporate power. We put forward a concrete proposal and action that can engage people and bring us all closer to our long-term goal of social, political and economic transformation leading to the creation of a free, just and sustainable planet for us all.

And, we do love and appreciate Occupy and the people who have brought it to life. We look forward to working with you as we take our Movement into the next phases of development.

Abraham Entin

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by CarlP:

...
Again, the demand of getting money out of politics is certainly worthwhile. But I would again have to disagree with Barry's assessment that it is even the root of our problems. The problem is not that wealthy people control our political process. It is that there ARE wealthy people and poor people. We live in a class system, which necessarily means that there can be no real democracy for working people. I have to break it to you, before Citizens United, the rich controlled our government. And before the Reagan Revolution, the rich controlled our government. And if we overturn Citizens United, they will still control our government, because they control the means of production and they have the power to steal the labor of the majority of this country. Fighting to get money out of politics is a good idea, but under capitalism the rich have a thousand and one ways of maintaining political control. Increasing our political rights is certainly noble, but as revolutionaries throughout history have had to realize, political rights means very little if you do not have economic rights. The Russian Revolutions are a perfect example. In 1905, Russians rose up and demanded political rights. They eventually won a representative government and overthrew the monarchy. But their main problems still persisted and the government was still run by and for the elites. So they went beyond their political revolution and organized an economic revolution which physically removed the wealthy from their wealth. As an anarchist author wrote in the 1930's (I'm paraphrasing): "In America you have the right to eat three square meals a day, but not the means to do so. Therefore, the right means nothing." Overturning Citizens United may help protect some basic political rights, but it is far from the root of our problems. The claim that it is, in my opinion, lacks any historical basis.
...

---

Thank you Abraham. I agree that the deepest problem we have is that money has come to dominate political speech, and as a result, we have a Government By the Corporations who fund multimillion dollar TV ad campaigns, for these corporations. And the people are simply the voter who need to be deceived enough to vote according to who is buying our politicians. Every aspect of our economy and government has been corrupted by those who pay the campaign ad bills, from the prison industrial complex and their inhumane, unjust, devastating war on marijuana, to a food system which allows Monsanto to refuse labeling GMo food while poisoning humanity and our planet.

But I am concerned that the focus on amending the Constitution is too far off, and too disempowering for activists who want to be the change we want to see NOW. And I am not holding my breath that we, the people, can sway politicians who have gotten where they are today (elected) by urging them to vote for a different campaign financing system.

I believe strongly in PUBLIC CAMPAIGN FINANCING and using our social networks to elect candidates who pledge to ban corporate money from politics, or who pledge not to take this money. That's why I created BeYourGovernment.org earlier in the year, and a video here (check it out and share) that expresses where we are and how we might truly change it.

Peace and thanks to both you and Carl for the important work you do in our community! :heart:

Jonathan

First Year Anniversary Celebration

and Really Really Free Market!

We are the 99% — Presente!

https://www.occupypetaluma.com/wp-co...-1-300x200.jpg

October 28, 2012 - Penry Park, Kentucky Street in Petaluma

• Join us for an exciting all-day birthday party! We're still here, defending the community we share, and we still care, about a world where old-fashioned values like honesty and fairness, justice and compassion still count.
  
  OP has been growing all year, working in small groups to launch effective campaigns on a number of social issues, all of which grow out of Occupy's core mission: to resist corporate power.
  
  O P's First Anniversary Celebration Program:
  
  8:00 am - The Longhouse: The familiar white tent that crowned the hill above Kentucky Street for several months last year represented "moral high ground," literally looking down on a branch office of Bank of America, one of the many banks criminally complicit in the epidemic of mortgage fraud that has ravaged the economy and community we live in. The longhouse will be re-constructed early on the morning of the 28th.
  
  9:00 - Fukushima Response: Sidewalk Storybook: Chieko's Story. The finishing touches will be applied to a 100 ft. long chalk art storybook about a woman who came to Sonoma County in July to tell us about what's happening in Fukushima since the 3/11 nuclear disaster. (Artists will be working on this project Sat. Oct. 27th so join us then as well.)
  
  11:00 - Occupy the Corners: Petaluma's Occupiers return to the corners of Washington & Petaluma Boulevard to creatively demonstrate their continued demand for a better society. (Big John will be at the corners at 9:30 with supplies for sign-making.)
  
  12:00 noon - March and Street Theater: Blood-sucking 1% Vampires will March through the downtown and street theater will be performed by the "The Really Big Bucks Brigade"
  
  1:00 - 5:00pm - The Really Really Free Market celebrates a space where people come together to provide for each other, inspire each other, and share together in the abundance of goods, skills, and creativity of our community. No barter, no sale, no trade – EVERYTHING IS FREE! Come check out Community Computers, Free Advice, Community Bikes, Free Chinese Med Consults, Kombucha Tea, Presidents Wheel and much more. Bring something to share & take something away!
  
  2:00 - 3:00 - General Assembly meeting will convene for a collective visioning of the best future that Occupy can imagine. All are welcome!
  
  4:00 - Community Potluck & Anniversary Cake, with music by local legend Larry Potts.
  
  5:00 - Occupy Storytelling: Take 3-5 minutes to tell your favorite Occupy story around the fire pit. Moderated by Steve D. of West Side Stories fame.
  
  7:00 - Films In The Park: A festival of Occupy Petaluma videos and movie entertainment will close the day.
  
  For additional information, contact:
  Tim Nonn - 364-3795 - [email protected]
  Amy Hanks - "Really Big Bucks Brigade" 415-846-4643 - [email protected]
  Soneile Hymn - "Really Really Free Market" 765-5741 - elienos@yahoo

Dear Abraham;
Thank you for clarifying what Move To Amend is NOT. That is new and valuable information for me. I am still not clear now what Move To Amend IS and since it is not what I thought it was I really wish to have that clarified. I can go to the web site and read up on it if this is a boring question. But if you have a moment and wish to educate me and your now captive audience I would be very happy to know this more clearly. Overturning Citizens United would be a very good thing and getting money out of politics would be amazing so if you are doing something even more fantastic than that I would like to support you even more than I already do.
Love,
Emerald

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Abraham Entin:

Dear Carl (et al),

I realize that this thread is about Occupy, but Move to Amend has been brought into it a few times now, and I just want to clarify a few things about us as an organization and individually:

1. We have never been about "overturning Citizens United". We always say that CU is a symptom, not the disease, and we are constantly coming up against other (larger) groups who focus on CU as if overturning it would somehow re-institute a republic that has never really existed.

2. We are not even about "money in politics". Our proposed constitutional amendment has two parts. The second part (not even the first) states that "money is not equivalent to free speech", which would open the way to addressing the issue of "money in politics". The first, and more important part of the amendment (IMO) addresses corporate constitutional rights (corporate personhood). This is the basis of how corporations are able to control the story by which we live, and the assumptions we make about our society and how it should operate. It can and does lead to the corruption of our picture of what it means to be a human being, as well as allowing corporations to control the mass media and to pump their propaganda into our inner lives on a 24-7 basis.

It is also the basis for corporate control over core institutions, such as the educational system, that are now designed to meet the needs of corporations rather than human beings, up to and including the student debt crisis that threatens to put college graduates into perpetual peonage. Move to Amend is constantly trying to develop materials and programs that make plain the connection, for instance, between corporate needs and the school to prison pipeline affecting communities of color all over the country.

The people at Move to Amend do not believe that overturning CU or even passing our amendment is The Solution to all our problems. We do believe it is a key component and as well as a great organizing tool and vehicle for speaking about corporate power. We put forward a concrete proposal and action that can engage people and bring us all closer to our long-term goal of social, political and economic transformation leading to the creation of a free, just and sustainable planet for us all.

And, we do love and appreciate Occupy and the people who have brought it to life. We look forward to working with you as we take our Movement into the next phases of development.

Abraham Entin

---

Every contribution is important. Let's support each other's contribution and individual style. We need short, medium, and long-term solutions. We need liberals, radicals and revolutionaries working together in some however loose way to turn the tide. It will take all of us and then some to somehow inspire the masses of all stripes to turn off their televisions and realize that it will take all of us - everyone - 100% - to stop the devastation of our finite planet, to solve the demise of ourselves through poverty and ever-encroaching strife of all humans as the non-ruling class continually sinks deeper, losing our basic human rights, and going off to fight yet another rich man's war. Now aren't I just a glowing ray of sunshine! But there is hope. There is always hope when we learn how to celebrate our differences and appreciate all the ways that there are to get where we need to go. I reach out to the humanity of everyone. Everyone. And seek the best of each of us. And I see that we are all doing that here too. So let's disagree if we do and at the end of the day see that we are all in the same boat and we better all keep rowing. Love, Emerald

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Peacetown Jonathan:

Thank you Abraham. I agree that the deepest problem we have is that money has come to dominate political speech, and as a result, we have a Government By the Corporations who fund multimillion dollar TV ad campaigns, for these corporations. And the people are simply the voter who need to be deceived enough to vote according to who is buying our politicians. Every aspect of our economy and government has been corrupted by those who pay the campaign ad bills, from the prison industrial complex and their inhumane, unjust, devastating war on marijuana, to a food system which allows Monsanto to refuse labeling GMo food while poisoning humanity and our planet.

But I am concerned that the focus on amending the Constitution is too far off, and too disempowering for activists who want to be the change we want to see NOW. And I am not holding my breath that we, the people, can sway politicians who have gotten where they are today (elected) by urging them to vote for a different campaign financing system.

I believe strongly in PUBLIC CAMPAIGN FINANCING and using our social networks to elect candidates who pledge to ban corporate money from politics, or who pledge not to take this money. That's why I created BeYourGovernment.org earlier in the year, and a video here (check it out and share) that expresses where we are and how we might truly change it.

Peace and thanks to both you and Carl for the important work you do in our community! :heart:

Jonathan

---

During my 20 years living in Sebastopol, the most important political issue facing our small town, in my opinion, has been the Chase Bank/CVS Pharmacy development proposed for our downtown commons. To its credit, Occupy Sebastopol has been one of the groups to take this issue on. Other groups active in preventing this development have included the Small Town Sebastopol Committee and Sebastopol Tomorrow, as well as many individual activists. Meanwhile, some who consider themselves "liberals," or even "progressives," have been concerned that opposing this development might alienate some. Such struggles usually alienate those that are either too timid to speak up or favor the development.

I want to draw attention to Tula Jaffe's excellent letter published in this week's Bohemian and Sonoma West. It follows below. Tula is a 40-year resident of Sebastopol with a history of political activity. I hope that others who agree that we should lift our voices to resist the corporate take-over of our town write letters to the Bohemian (address below) and to [email protected]. We now have less than three weeks to mobilize votes for Robert Jacob and John Eder for the Sebastopol City Council.

I especially like how Tula describes the advocates of the development as "two very fine and impressive women," with which I agree. Our support of the other two candidates is not a personal attack on these two women but a challenge to their support of CVS/Chase. Much is at stake in Sebastopol these days, including our future.
Shepherd

What's Right for Sebastopol?
The future of Sebastopol may well be determined by who is elected to the Sebastopol City Council. As a 40-year resident of Sebastopol, I find the CVS/Chase downtown development a defining issue for the town. The CVS/Chase project, approved by a 3–2 vote of the current council, allows these businesses to relocate to downtown Sebastopol. This will mean horrific gridlock at one of Sebastopol's most prominent and heavily traveled intersections. Since CVS/Chase is currently situated in an appropriate location, the move certainly was not designed to enhance the quality of life in Sebastopol.
The approval of this relocation also means that powerful corporate entities can influence local decision-making through the threat of lawsuits (as was reported to be the case with CVS/Chase) at the expense of the vast majority of Sebastopol residents.
Two very fine and impressive women, incumbent Kathleen Shaffer and candidate Kathy Austin, are unfortunately in favor of the project. Candidates Robert Jacob and John Elder oppose it. Robert and John want to create a more pedestrian-friendly town and support sensible growth as reflected by the Barlow Project. If Jacob and Elder are elected, they will join current council members Sara Gurney and Michael Kyes, who are also opposed to the CVS/Chase project. Perhaps a newly constituted and more progressive council could reverse this ill-advised decision and prevent future development from being hijacked by a few large corporations.
—Tula Jaffe
Sebastopol
Write to us at [email protected].

Let's not forget that a major reason why Occupy has not been more successful, including in Santa Rosa, is the extreme police repression, as well as the corporate media attacks. It is too easy to blame the victim, in this case OSR, for how they were ruthlessly fought against by those who represent the 1%.

Following is an email from a member of the OSR Band that was supported by the ACLU and recently won a victory in dealing with the City of Santa Rosa. Structural change usually takes more than a year. OWS has already accomplished so much and continues to work hard, often behind the scenes.

It is so important to keep the good music and good culture thriving. In addition to being fun, it can draw people to Occupy.
Shepherd

Hi OSR Strategy:

I just wanted to let you know - and you can let others know in OSR - about our meeting with City Attorney Caroline Fowler a few days ago.


On Tuesday, October 16, Miles and I and three representatives from the ACLU met with City Attorney Caroline Fowler to talk about hassles that OSR Band had with police last winter. While she initially took a dismissive, defensive posture about our concerns, the ACLU reps were able to convince her on technical grounds that the street performer's ordinance doesn't apply to protesting musicians. She agreed to let the police department know that protesting musicians should not be cited under the street performer's ordinance. This means that we don't have to carry street performer's permits, and we don't have to worry about how loud we play when we appear at rallies and marches, and really, when we engage in any non-commercial non-amplified music activities.

I'm attaching the letter that Marty McReynolds of the ACLU sent to City Attorney Fowler to confirm this fact. When we get a confirmation letter back from the City Attorney, I will send that out as well.

Judith Volkart, one of the other ACLU reps, offered to come to one of our band meetings and offer advice on how to respond if we are hassled by the cops while playing protest music.

Looks like we won't have to pull out our leaf blowers and chainsaws after all (which is what we were planning next)! I am super happy and relieved to have completed this process with the city. It's been a long time coming.

In solidarity,

- Jean