Our Vision: Transforming the System (12/26/11 Draft)

NOTE: I’m circulating the following draft to the Occupy Be the Change Caucus for consideration by its members. I certainly do not believe that this piece is any kind of final word. Some of it might prove to be very contentious. But I do believe that it addresses some important issues that it would be good for the Caucus to discuss. As I argued in "A Glimmer of Occupy Unity May Not Be Enough," I believe, “With a vision of ‘evolutionary revolution,’ as Gandhi put it, and a viable strategy to get there, perhaps we can attract some of those advocates of a 'diversity of tactics' who see the need for systemic change and lash out in counter-productive violence due to desperation.” So perhaps we can forge a consensus on such a vision.

Occupy Be the Change Caucus
Our Vision: Transforming the System
12/26/11 Draft

Introduction
The initial Adbusters call to occupy Wall Street envisioned the fundamental transformation of our social system. “Instead of being caught helpless by the current power structure,” Adbusters recommended “a shift in revolutionary tactics” that would confront “the American political establishment” and result in “a whole new social dynamic in America” that would lead to a “radical democracy of the future.”

That Adbusters declaration focused on “ending the influence money has over our representatives in Washington” by “cleaning up corruption in Washington,” and declared, “It's time for DEMOCRACY NOT CORPORATOCRACY…. Our government would be forced to choose publicly between the will of the people and the lucre of the corporations.”

Since then, most Occupy actions have echoed this systemic perspective. Awareness of the necessity to deal with “the System” has been widespread.

With this vision statement, we, the Occupy Be the Change Caucus, elaborate on Adbusters’ starting point, describe the sort of systemic transformation we seek, and present a general strategy for moving in that direction. Then, in the next section, “Concrete Steps Forward,” we propose specific changes in public policy.

We invite everyone to help us co-create this vision and strategy by offering your feedback and input.

The System
Like any system, our global social system consists of various inter-dependent elements that work together in a self-perpetuating manner to serve a particular function, or purpose. The key elements of “the System” include:
· our major institutions such as the government, economy, media, and education;
· informal institutions such as the family;
· our culture, and;
· ourselves as individuals.

Our society’s primary purpose is to enable those with wealth and power to increase their wealth and power. More than any other factor, this dynamic explains how our society works.

The top-level administrators of the System carefully screen individuals who are accepted into key administrative positions. The most ambitious, greedy, and power hungry individuals invest the most time and energy into climbing the ladder of success. Consequently, those who rise the highest generally fail to operate in a compassionate manner.

Absent effective countervailing pressure from the general public, wealth and power tend to become increasingly concentrated. As Billie Holiday sang in “God Bless the Child,” “Them that’s got shall get/Them that’s not shall lose…. The strong gets more/While the weak ones fade.” And most individuals pass on their advantages to their children, resulting in a playing field that is far from level.

Ever more the System is global. National economies are interwoven with one another. International cooperation has become essential.

Society becomes top-heavy, unstable, and less democratic. Ordinary people end up without enough purchasing power to sustain economic growth, prompting periodic economic downturns that threaten a catastrophic global collapse. Various “speculative bubbles” add to this instability, as investors get seduced into seeking great, sudden gains, only to eventually see the bubble burst.

On the individual level, we reinforce the System in countless ways. By buying its products and services, paying taxes, voting, seeking promotions, being passive, perpetuating the dominant culture by being arrogant, judgmental, and self-centered, and/or believing that one must either dominate or submit, for example, we buttress the System.

No one element controls the System, which is self-perpetuating. To scapegoat any one element, including disposable top-level administrators, does not make sense. We are all responsible. The problem is the System, not any particular individual or group of individuals.

Ever since the birth of centralized agriculture, wealthy elites have used their advantages to benefit themselves, their friends, and their families. This dynamic has been the driving force in human society. Whether under “capitalism,” “socialism,” “social democracy,” or whatever political-economic system, every society has demonstrated the same tendency to concentrate wealth and power to the detriment of ordinary people.

Some individual elites manifest genuine compassion (and we should encourage more of them to tap their deep feelings of concern for others). And many elites demonstrate “enlightened self-interest” and realize that short-term greed can undermine long-term prospects. Henry Ford, for example, famously said that he wanted to pay his workers enough money so they could buy his cars. Especially after a severe economic downturn, many power elites accept the need to jump-start the economy by redistributing income downward.

And in general elites accept that if some wealth “trickles down,” it will help stabilize the system by gaining the allegiance of the middle class, many of whom expect to become wealthy themselves and believe that the poor always deserve to be poor and the wealthy always earn their wealth.

But the boom-and-bust cycle is unacceptable. We need to do more than expand the middle class. We need to transform our social system fundamentally. The question is how.

Evolutionary Revolution
Some day the System may cave in completely, resulting in devastation and suffering never before seen in the modern world. We need to be prepared for that possibility. Having model alternative institutions in place could help fill the void in the event of a total collapse.

But we cannot predict the future. The System may continue to muddle through. We need to be prepared for that possibility as well.

Considering the human misery and environmental damage that would result, it would be unethical to want to see the System crumble entirely. Likewise, it would be immoral to provoke chaos hoping that doing so will hasten a complete breakdown.

So, it seems to us, we are required to pursue “evolutionary revolution,” as Gandhi put it. As water turns into steam, a chrysalis becomes a butterfly, or a species evolves into a new species, we might be able to eventually transform our society through a series of reforms that steadily improve living conditions. At the least, we feel compelled to try.

It’s impossible to know in advance what a transformed global society would look like. Collaborative co-creation relying on collective wisdom is unpredictable as ideas build on ideas. All we can do is recommend a framework of values to guide us.

First of all, to grow a new society, we need to establish a new primary purpose for our global community. We propose that as a society we should establish that our primary mission is to serve the common good of all humanity – as well as individual self-interest and the needs of local communities.

This formulation does not imply self-sacrifice. Rather, it affirms that when we take care of ourselves, our families, our organizations, or our nation, we do so in order to better aid the human family. It’s not a matter of either/or, but both/and.

We foster strong communities that nurture personal development, caring relationships, and healthy families. By becoming better human beings, we better serve others.

We believe humanity needs to create and maintain a healthy planet because our complex, fragile ecosystem is endangered by current patterns of consumption and pollution.

Because life is mysterious, wonderful, and awe-inspiring, we cherish beauty, spread joy, and love others as we love ourselves.

We do what we can to prevent suffering and accept our responsibility to help shape our nation’s public policies.

We come together freely, support each other’s empowerment, and resolve conflicts nonviolently. We use force only as a last resort to protect life or prevent physical injury.

We respect others as equals and criticize individuals for specific actions without condemning them, for all of us are imperfect.

We listen carefully and appreciate what is true about all points of view, without demanding complete agreement. Sharing facts, feelings, and opinions enables us to better understand reality.

We experiment in order to discover what works best.

We support businesses that serve the public interest, empower workers, and care for the environment.

We believe all people are entitled to a voice in matters that affect them.

We hold the federal government responsible for wisely managing the economy, sustaining the environment, protecting national security, safeguarding human rights, and guaranteeing all our people the means to live decently.

We believe mutual respect and cooperation are required to build a loving, global society based on democratic local communities.

When we have achieved these goals, humanity will have fundamentally transformed our global social system.

Strategy
To move toward comprehensive social transformation, the Occupy Be the Change Cause has adopted the following mission statement:

Our primary mission is to help transform ourselves and our society into truly nonviolent and compassionate individuals within a community dedicated to the common good of all humanity. We actively support and participate in the Occupy Movement.

Our members have also signed the following Pledge, which is rooted in deep nonviolence:
Occupy Be the Change Pledge

As a participant in the Occupy movement, I hereby commit my whole self to nonviolence. Therefore to the best of my ability:
I am firmly committed to nonviolence as a way of life, not merely as a tactic.
I meet violence with compassion for others and myself.
I walk, talk and act in love and nonviolence.
I refrain from verbal and physical violence.
I do not accept “a diversity of tactics” when those tactics are violent or damage property.
I am open, respectful, and kind with everyone I encounter.
I invite the 1% to join us and will not insult them.
I seek justice and reconciliation so that we are all winners.
I avoid both selfishness and power trips.
I strive to be in good spiritual and bodily health as we work to build a just and democratic society.

This pledge was prompted by many statements about the need to “be the change” expressed at Occupy San Francisco General Assemblies during the Fall of 2011 and was inspired by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s 1963 nonviolence pledge. Dr. King in turn was profoundly influenced by the work of the great theologian, Howard Thurman, who led the first group of African-Americans to meet with Mahatma Gandhi.

In his book, Jesus and the Disinherited, Thurman wrote, “The religion of Jesus says to the disinherited: ‘Love your enemy…. It may be hazardous, but you must do it.'”

He declared that both privileged and underprivileged persons must liberate themselves from their assigned role in society, because “love is possible only between two freed spirits.” They must undo their conditioning, remove barriers, and create “real, natural, free” social situations that enable them to be “status free” and experience their common humanity.

Thurman said, “Take the initiative in seeking ways by which you can have the experience of a common sharing of mutual worth and value…. We are here dealing with a discipline, a method, …an over-all technique.” He called for those in need to cry out, “The [human being] in me appeals to the [human being] in you.”

Whenever a need is “laid bare,” Thurman wrote, “those who stand in the presence of it can be confronted with the experience of universality that makes all class and race distinctions [irrelevant].” He insisted that this “personality confirmation” is essential for “lasting health” in a democracy.

With this approach, King and Thurman were truly radical because they wanted us to transform the roots of violence and oppression that are within each of us. This commitment is reflected in our Pledge.

We aim toward transformation throughout society. The central ingredient in all of these efforts is to foster compassion, personal development, supportive communities, creativity, joy, mutual respect, and harmony with Nature.

Self-empowerment is not incompatible with real community. With a proper balance, strong individuals help grow strong communities, and strong communities help grow strong individuals.

We reject the notion that domination and submission are essential. Rather, we affirm the power of teamwork, co-creation, peer support, partnership, participatory democracy, and collective wisdom.

In short, we want greater democracy throughout society.

In terms of political action, during the early civil rights movement, King and his companions would first present a proposed step toward justice to the powers-that-be, sincerely try to reach an agreement with them concerning that proposal, and resort to public demonstrations only when those efforts failed.

And when they did resort to “tactical nonviolence” in order to mobilize coercive political power, they still did so with a profound commitment to “philosophical nonviolence,” which includes the pursuit of reconciliation and a willingness to negotiate. We favor this approach.

We also want to ground ourselves in deep, clear agreement about our long-term goals. With a commitment to evolutionary revolution, we will be less likely to be satisfied with any one reform. Rather, we’ll be keenly aware that revolution is a never-ending process.

Toward that end, we seek to define winnable short-term goals that appeal to both those who already seek systemic change and the majority of the American people who will likely support fundamental transformation if that long-term goal is articulated concretely, rather than with empty ideological rhetoric.

This approach differs from efforts that aim to educate the public merely by disrupting business as usual without seeking negotiated agreements. Such efforts set an angry, blind tone that can foster escalation.

Unfocused anger is understandable. The revolt against injustice is initially motivated by a desire for justice. But if we allow ourselves to get caught up in the anger of our rebellion, we can soon reproduce injustice with means that are inconsistent with our original ends, while justifying the inconsistency with claims that it is necessary. When we do so, we alienate large sectors of the general public, whose active participation is essential.

But if we stay grounded in love, are clear about our values, assure that our means are consistent with our ends, and constantly work on our own personal development (with mutual support), we can move toward fundamental, comprehensive social transformation and create a greatly improved world that is qualitatively new.

A Glimmer of Occupy Unity May Not Be Enough

An overflow crowd at the First Unitarian Church of Oakland participated last Thursday night in a polite two-and-one-half hour conversation about violence vs. nonviolence in the Occupy movement. The eight-person panel representing the two sides of that debate largely talked past one another. The “diversity of tactics” panelists, for example, never really explained how they see their methods leading to constructive change rather than massive repression. And the advocates of nonviolence never really replied to the challenge to explain how their methods might lead to structural change in our political-economic system.

But a few comments suggested the possibility of more respectful coexistence. At the event, which was billed as “How Will the Walls Come Tumbling Down? Diversity of Tactics vs. Nonviolent Strategies for the Occupy Movement,” sponsored by the Occupy Events Committee, and initiated by David Hartsough and Peaceworkers, one panelist who accepts violence said that it would be “totally fine” if nonviolent advocates organized demonstrations and told her and her cohorts, “You are not allowed to come.” Another said, “If what comes out of this is an agreement that everyone will be ‘in the know,’ I think that would be awesome.”

Those comments were in response to complaints that peaceful demonstrators get caught up in police riots when other demonstrators escalate the situation.

Further discussion might tie those threads together into a covenant that would enable each side to stop spending so much time arguing with each other. Instead, they could concentrate on sharpening their own thinking and organizing those who aren’t currently active.

This agreement might, for example, lead the advocates of a “diversity of tactics” to call for a demonstration on one Saturday and nonviolent advocates to do so on another Saturday.

Whether the more violence-prone elements would ever abide by such an agreement is uncertain. It may be that they prefer to hide in large crowds composed of nonviolent demonstrators. But this kind of arrangement has happened before and perhaps it can be tried again.

If this approach is adopted, those who are willing to resort to violence might develop a clear consensus among themselves about what kind of violent action they believe will help their cause. Such clarity might result in less violence.

And with greater attention devoted to developing deep, clear agreement about our own long-term goals, perhaps we who practice nonviolence can help build a broad-based movement that can transform our global social system. With a vision of “evolutionary revolution,” as Gandhi put it, and a viable strategy to get there, perhaps we can attract some of those advocates of a “diversity of tactics” who see the need for systemic change and lash out in counter-productive violence due to desperation.

I therefore suggest that the Occupy Be the Change Caucus convene a series of public forums and workshops focused on “’The System.’ What is It and How Should We Transform It?” and invite the general public to help us compose our answers to those questions on our website by using wiki collaborative software, like the online wikipedia encyclopedia.

Not everyone would ever sign on to any such plan, of course. As some of the panelists pointed out, most nonviolent movements have been accompanied by parallel efforts that have embraced violence. That scenario will likely repeat itself in the future, aided by violence-prone police officers and other provocateurs.

But if we advocates of nonviolence do our homework and articulate a viable strategy for how to fundamentally restructure our society, perhaps many of those who are willing to resort to violence will see an alternative and help establish in the public mind that the Occupy movement is both nonviolent and dedicated to the profound transformation of our society.

Otherwise, the agreement hinted at during the December 15 forum could lead to the kind of scenario witnessed during Stop the Draft Week in Oakland in 1967. Prior to those actions, an agreement was reached that Joan Baez and her fellow advocates of nonviolence would have one day for their demonstration and the advocates of forceful disruption (including me) would do our thing the next day.

As it turned, the first demonstration was smaller and received little media attention. Our effort the next day to block the buses taking draftees to the induction center attracted more demonstrators and turned violent (I never even threw a rock myself but I was in the streets alongside those who did). The media, of course, gave the violence extensive coverage and our movement became defined as violent.

Two years later I was in the streets when demonstrators moved from a rally at Sproul Hall to take down the fence that had been erected around People’s Park in the middle of the night. I saw demonstrators running in the opposite direction with the back of their shirts ripped off and blood flowing from having been hit with shotgun pellets. I learned that James Rector, an innocent bystander watching from a rooftop, was killed by a shotgun blast. For weeks, I participated in nightly “general assemblies” where we demonstrators decided democratically what to do the next day. I joined daily violence-filled marches throughout Berkeley with “Street Fighting Man” blaring from windows. We had 90% of the residents of Berkeley in support of People’s Park.

On Memorial Day, supporters from other cities joined us for a massive march with National Guard sharpshooters perched perilously on rooftops. But no shots were fired and we tore up asphalt and planted grass in the streets. That night, we celebrated with primitive passion at People’s Park Annex to the rhythms of drums and people jumping through the flames of bonfires, sometimes bouncing off each other mid-air.

It was an ecstatic moment. As Andrew Kopkind later wrote in Rolling Stone, “For those who did not experience the intense communitarian closeness of struggles like Cuba or People’s Park or Paris in May, Woodstock gave them a glimpse of what life could be like after the Revolution.”

But it proved to be a fantasy. We had the people of Berkeley with us but Richard Nixon had the “silent majority.” So he was elected President in 1968 and suppressed activism with relentless repression. Yes, some of us were “radicalized.” But far people more were frightened into passivity.

Governor Ronald Reagan, who after People’s Park had declared, “let the blood flow,” was soon elevated to the White House.

And a jury decided that the sheriffs who had fired at the angry crowd that was approaching them were justified in their resort to violence.

So at the December 15 forum, I was struck by the insight offered by Josh Shepherd, who learned about the power of the military from having served and assured the audience that the military has available more than enough might to crush any violent rebellion. Having been in Baghdad protesting the Iraq war with the Iraq Peace Team during the “shock and awe” invasion, I experienced firsthand what he was talking about.

After People’s Park, Tom Hayden and Frank Bardacke, a hero and mentor of mine, wrote an essay for the Berkeley Barb envisioning how a massive uprising that included substantial violence could withstand repression by the military. I liked their essay.

I heard echoes of that thinking at the December 15 forum, with assertions that asymmetric warfare, or guerrilla war, in the United States could lead to victory as it did in Viet Nam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Apart from that questionable historical analysis, as Shepherd also stated the American people regardless don’t have the will, the fortitude, the means, or the desire to violently oppose the Establishment.

The romance of violence is even less realistic now than it was in the Sixties, when the whole world was awash in armed struggle against colonialism. The vision of a successful movement in the United States that is characterized by a substantial degree of violence is a utopian fantasy.

That impulse is understandable. As Albert Camus brilliantly delineated in The Rebel, the revolt against injustice is initially motivated by a desire for justice. But if the rebel allows himself to get caught up in the anger of his rebellion, he soon reproduces injustice with means that are inconsistent with his original ends, while justifying the inconsistency with claims that it is necessary due to a desperate situation.

The Occupy movement has primarily been nonviolent. But the Bay Area remains a hotbed for violence-prone anarchists who could redefine the Occupy movement. Ironically, if they do, they will do so by collaborating with the corporate media, which will be more than willing to establish that narrative in the public mind.

I would prefer that those who want to use violence start their own movement. But minority factions, including self-appointed vanguards that want to “radicalize” others by provoking confrontations and help bring down the system by fomenting chaos, will always be with us.

So those of us who are committed to nonviolence need to reinforce and maintain the image of the Occupy movement as one that is overwhelmingly nonviolent. Toward that end, we need to do the hard work of articulating a strategy that would appeal to both those who seek systemic change and the majority of the American people, who, I believe, would support fundamental transformation if a realistic vision were articulated concretely, rather than with empty ideological rhetoric.

Any such plan should include a commitment to identifying short-term winnable demands, or proposed steps forward, as Kazu Haga alluded to with his references to the need for skillful negotiation. This approach differs from efforts to educate the public by disrupting business as usual without tying such disruption to concrete proposals that would improve our situation – efforts that set an angry, blind tone that can foster escalation.

In these ways, we can see to it that, unlike during Stop the Draft Week, our peaceful demonstrations are larger and more compelling. If we do, smaller actions by those who consider themselves more “radical” can help those of us whom they consider too “moderate,” for their actions can bring attention to issues and prompt legislators to enact reforms.

Then, perhaps we can steadily achieve beneficial reforms that eventually lead to systemic reform and a qualitatively new society, as a chrysalis suddenly turns into a butterfly or water into steam.

We can’t know what social transformation will look like in advance. But if we are clear about our values, work to assure that our means are consistent with our ends, and constantly work on our own personal development (with mutual support) as Phil Lawson discussed, we can move in that direction.

I hope the Occupy Be the Change Caucus can contribute to that effort with a series of forums and workshops and a wiki website.

Democratic Management: A Proposal for the Caucus

As with any grassroots organization, a solid structural foundation will help the Occupy Be the Change Caucus grow by avoiding “the tyranny of structurelessness” and minimizing power disputes.

The structure for the Caucus proposed here is based on democratic management principles rooted in participatory democracy. As such, it employs direct democracy when feasible and representative democracy when necessary.

These concepts may be relevant to other organizations as well.

Many thanks to Penn Garvin, formerly with the San Francisco Women’s Health Collective, who many years ago referred me to Boards That Make a Difference by John Carver. The thoughts presented here are greatly influenced by that book.

Structural issues can be boring and bureaucratic, but if we want to increase our numbers significantly in the future, I believe establishing a viable structure that members understand and embrace is important.

We’ve already made one important decision by establishing that we’ll try to make decisions with 100% consensus, but if necessary will use an 80% super-majority. It has been my experience that when close to 50% objects to a proposed decision, they usually have good reason and proceeding over their objections can result in sizeable defections. But if only a small minority objects, the majority is more likely to be on solid ground and the risks are less. So using a substantial super-majority as a last resort seems a good balance.

By precedent, we’ve also established another important principle: Important decisions should be circulated in writing at least 72 hours before the meeting. Doing so allows time for members to reflect on and discuss those proposals beforehand. This procedure renders less likely scenarios such as an eloquent, charismatic speaker spontaneously presenting an impassioned proposal and the group consenting, only to regret it later.

With the approach recommended here, the voting membership would be the governing body and would be in a horizontal partnership with “staff,” whether paid or unpaid.

It is my belief that voting members should be those who contribute to the work of the Caucus regularly. This requirement could be defined specifically, as in a certain number of hours. We could use the honor system. Or members could check off a box when they sign in.

And new members could be asked to observe at their first meeting, with the understanding that they would be entitled to participate fully thereafter.

Regardless, on principle, I believe participatory democracy means that those who participate have a voice and participation should involve more than merely coming to Membership Meetings. We could also establish a category of Supporting Members who sign the Pledge but aren’t regularly active and Endorsing Members who could be organizations that endorse the Pledge.

Another key principle is that the Membership should be empowered to guide the organization by:
· adopting written policies (including goals and Team job descriptions) to guide Caucus;
· delegating authority to implement those policies to specific individuals and/or Teams;
· monitoring and evaluating the work of those individuals and/or Teams, and;
· adopting new policies to re-direct the work of the Caucus when needed.

If and when members do not approve of the actions others are taking, they could propose that the Membership adopt new policies or re-delegate authority in order to guide the Caucus in a different direction. In this way, the Membership could hold accountable those to whom they delegate authority.

Putting matters in writing helps to clarify shared understandings, clear up misunderstandings, and correct mistakes. So posting a well-organized set of the guiding policies on the Web and having a copy available at Membership Meetings would be important.

Thus, the full membership would not micro-manage and Membership Meetings would not get bogged down with details. Those to whom authority is delegated would be empowered to implement their job description and other relevant Caucus policies in the name of the Caucus at their own discretion.

Teams would be obligated to publicly report their actions in writing at least three days prior to Membership Meetings and verbally at Membership Meetings, and when feasible, their plans for action. Using a listserv can enhance this transparency. In this way, our work would be open to the general public and our Members could better keep themselves informed so they could intervene if and when they have reservations about Team actions.

Each Team would have a Coordinator and a Co-coordinator (assistant coordinator) who would assume the responsibilities of the Coordinator in the event of the Coordinator’s absence or disability.

The Administrative Team would be responsible for:
1) facilitating the internal flow of information so as to minimize duplication of effort, and;
2) advancing our mission by taking needed actions that have not been delegated to another Team (or in an urgent situation, taking action if and when the primary Team becomes inactive).

It seems to me that it would be best for the Membership to select an Agenda Team to develop the proposed agenda for Membership Meetings. Preparing proposed agendas is an important task that involves weighing priorities and planning ahead so that some less pressing items can be considered later. Someone needs to do it. Having an Agenda Team perform this chore would contribute to a separation of responsibilities that would help reduce the concentration of power in the hands of the Administrative Team and/or its Coordinator.

Thus, the Membership, the Agenda Team, and the other Teams would all be in co-equal relationship to one another.

Each Team could nominate to the Membership a Coordinator and Co-coordinator for their Team, which would usually be ratified by the Membership. However, if those nominees were not acceptable, the Membership could ask the Team to nominate someone else. Again, this would constitute a balance of powers.

Each Team should work together democratically to the maximum extent feasible. However, especially with an organization composed of volunteers who have other obligations, allowance needs to be made for individual autonomy so that actions can be taken without always getting explicit consent from the Team. Not everyone needs to be involved in every decision.

As between the Membership and any one Team, it seems that there needs to be a balance of responsibility between the Team and individual members.

This issue is the one area about which I’m most unclear. Though I’ve discussed it with the Administrative Team, and we seemed to reach agreement, I’m still uneasy about it and welcome comments.

Concerning non-controversial matters, individual Team members could feel free to take action at their own discretion to implement Team policies. With possible actions that were potentially controversial, however, they could be expected to try to first seek approval from their Team. With those of us who tend to be impatient and try to do too much too quickly, this discipline can be hard to cultivate.

However, if the Team fails to respond within a specified time frame, like 72 hours, individual Team members could be authorized to take the planned action at their own discretion. This approach would help prevent inaction if and when others on the Team fail to respond, as can happen with a small group of busy, part-time volunteers. This same policy could apply to both Coordinators and individual Team members.

Full and open communication might be the sufficient solution. In this regard, using listservs could help immensely. Whenever possible, individuals would report their intent to take action before doing so, asking for explicit consent when appropriate. Then, absent any expressed reservations or opposition, they would feel free to proceed in the name of the Caucus. And afterwards, those members would report back on their action.

Thus, those who volunteer for a Team would be responsible to review emails from fellow Team members and speak up if they have problems. Otherwise, those who reported their intent could feel free to proceed.

A fundamentally different approach would be to require a quorum—that is, require that a certain percentage of the Team explicitly approve actions in advance. But again, with time-stressed volunteers, this may not be realistic. And it would be hard to draw the line between actions that can be taken autonomously and those that must be approved.

This dilemma is a delicate matter and one about which the Caucus will hopefully develop increased understanding over time. Again, I welcome comments and other proposals. These are merely my own best thoughts at the moment.

The bottom line is that with sufficient commitment to our mission, sustained effort, good will, flexibility, and trust in another, we should be able to agree on how we shall work together productively.

Occupy Be the Change Caucus Launches

Rooted in deep, holistic nonviolence, twenty-six energetic Occupy Movement participants convened at the Friends Meeting House in San Francisco on November 28 to launch the Occupy Be the Change Caucus.

The gathering began with a vegetarian meal during which the participants introduced themselves and shared why they had come. The sentiments expressed were also reflected in proxy statements sent in by some supporters who were unable to attend. Stephanie Duncan, for example, wrote:

What has inspired me most about the Occupy movement in particular is that it is not simply a principle or a demand but a practice: a practice in democracy, in justice, in respect, in community. To me, to support Occupy means to bring these practices into my life: to occupy my job, my family, and my relationships with compassion, purpose, and sense of responsibility toward others…. For these reasons, I support the mission and pledge of the Occupy Be the Change Caucus.

And Sage Keaten wrote:

I joined the Occupy Movement with newborn hope and passion… My heart thrills to new heights with the possibility of making a positive difference for the earth, future generations of humans, and All My Relations. I must pursue the vision of a new paradigm of "Us" rather than "We vs. Them." To intend and work for a shift of thought and heart -- this is what my heart calls me to.

Prior to the meeting, Jerry Bolick shared his initial response to the Occupy Be the Change Pledge. He said:

The deeply divisive nature of most political "discourse" and activity in our country has kept me at arms length most of my adult life, wading in only here and there…. How we engage as human beings seems to me to be of the most paramount importance, and I've been wanting for some time to expand, widen the scope of my efforts in that regard, beyond my comfort zones, looking for a signal of some kind, from someone.... So when I was…given the most recent [Caucus] flier, it was like, "I've been waiting for this."

These statements reflect one of the key principles in the Pledge: “I seek justice and reconciliation so that we are all winners.” This statement was inspired by Dr. Martin Luther King’s 1963 nonviolence pledge, which affirmed, “We seek justice and reconciliation—not victory.” And King’s attitude in turn was greatly influenced by the work of the great theologian, Howard Thurman, especially his book, Jesus and the Disinherited.

Thurman wrote, “The religion of Jesus says to the disinherited: ‘Love your enemy…. It may be hazardous, but you must do it.'”

Thurman declared that both privileged and underprivileged persons must liberate themselves from their assigned role in society, because “love is possible only between two freed spirits.” They must undo their conditioning, remove barriers, and create “real, natural, free” social situations that enable them to be “status free” and experience their common humanity.

Thurman said, “Take the initiative in seeking ways by which you can have the experience of a common sharing of mutual worth and value…. We are here dealing with a discipline, a method, …an over-all technique.” He called for those in need to cry out, “The [human being] in me appeals to the [human being] in you.”

Whenever a need is “laid bare,” Thurman wrote, “those who stand in the presence of it can be confronted with the experience of universality that makes all class and race distinctions [irrelevant].” He insisted that this “personality confirmation” is essential for “lasting health” in a democracy.

With this approach, King and his companions would first present a proposed step toward justice to the powers-that-be, sincerely try to reach an agreement with them concerning that proposal, and resort to public demonstrations only when those efforts failed. And when they did resort to “tactical nonviolence” in order to mobilize coercive political power, they still did so with a profound commitment to “philosophical nonviolence,” which includes the pursuit of reconciliation. When we sang, “We shall overcome,” our intent was to overcome injustice, not to defeat “enemies.”

I now believe I was wrong in 1964 when, angry and frustrated, I concluded that King was too liberal. In fact, he was truly radical because he wanted us to transform the roots of violence and oppression that are within each of us. He was grounded in love, not hate and he realized that movements need to build momentum by achieving concrete reforms that improve living conditions. So I want to help grow compassionate communities grounded in the wisdom that King embraced.

In line with Thurman’s thinking, I’m interested in creating social situations that enable wealthy individuals and low- and moderate-income individuals to deeply encounter one another, witness their needs laid bare, and consider how they can work together to define and advance fair, practical solutions to pressing problems.

The possibility for actions grounded in the thinking of Thurman and King is one reason I’m excited about prospects for the Occupy Be the Change Caucus.

Another reason for my excitement is the strength of the participants in the Nov. 28 meeting and the collective wisdom that emerged. When we were considering our mission statement, for example, Vylma Ortiz wisely pointed out that it did not explicitly affirm the need for personal as well as political transformation.

And when we immediately began to try to rewrite the mission statement and got bogged down, Steve Leeds astutely suggested that a few members step out of our circle to wordsmith the language. So a few volunteered and quickly completed the task to the satisfaction of everyone.

The much improved mission statement now reads:

Our primary mission is to help transform ourselves and our society into truly nonviolent and compassionate individuals within a community dedicated to the common good of all humanity. We actively support and participate in the Occupy Movement.

This commitment to personal transformation is perhaps the main reason I’m energized about the Caucus. For some time now, I’ve been trying to find and connect with people who share my interest in openly, explicitly, intentionally, consciously aiming to “integrate the personal and the political” by growing caring communities whose members commit to supporting one another in that effort.

So when I heard many people at Occupy San Francisco talk about the need to “be the change,” I was encouraged that I might find fellow activists who share my interest in “compassionate politics.” Then when I circulated an early draft of the Be the Change Pledge and received an overwhelmingly positive response, I was encouraged to invite others to help rewrite that draft and convene the Caucus.

The contributions that a good number of individuals have made since the November 28 meeting is also encouraging, as are the expressions of support that have been voiced by new signatories to the Pledge.

The need for political action to counter the corporate corruption of our politics and reverse the upward redistribution of income to the top 1% is compelling. Now, partly because the injustice has become so much worse, Occupy Wall Street with its ingenious tent-city tactic has sparked increased interest in those issues.

But it will not be easy to channel outrage at injustice into effective political action that sustains itself over time without degenerating into hateful, divisive, arrogant, elitist, “holier-than-thou” dogmatism.

Success will require fostering humility, active listening, and trust in the collective wisdom that can emerge if deliberations are well structured in a way that truly fosters democratic decision-making and efficient action.

Hopefully the Occupy Be the Change Caucus can contribute to that effort.

Occupy Be the Change Caucus Aims to Launch

Contents:
-Occupy Be the Change Caucus Aims to Launch
-Reader’s Reponses

Occupy Be the Change Caucus Aims to Launch

On Monday, November 28 at 12 Noon the Occupy Be the Change Caucus will convene its first widely publicized meeting at the Friends Meeting House at 65 Ninth Street in San Francisco. If you can join us to help launch what could be a unique step forward, please RSVP to . And please spread the word to people who might be interested.

Only signatories to the Occupy Be the Change Pledge will be able to participate fully. Others are welcome to observe.

On my part, the primary motivation behind this effort has been to help establish a model that might attract many members of the general public who support the Occupy Movement but find it hard to get involved with highly unstructured communities like Occupy San Francisco (OSF) that have not clearly and firmly rejected property damage and have failed to affirm deep nonviolence.

I was encouraged to initiate this project by the many comments I heard at Occupy SF about the need for all of us to work on our personal development. Many of these assertions included the phrase “be the change.” Then when I circulated an early draft of the Pledge and received only strong, positive feedback, I was even more encouraged.

With Caucus members continuing to be active in the various Occupations with which they are affiliated, the Caucus could adhere to the basic principles employed by the movement, including being horizontal, directly democratic, bottom-up, and self-organizing, and allowing the formation of autonomous units such as the Occupy Be the Change Caucus. Those valuable principles seem to reflect the wonderful shift in consciousness among young people documented in Millennial Momentum: How a New Generation Is Remaking America by Morley Winograd.

Inspired by Martin Luther King’s 1963 comprehensive nonviolence pledge, which was also rooted in holistic, or deep, nonviolence, this approach blends the three strains of nonviolence described in the wikipedia entry on nonviolence:

·“Philosophical—not to defeat the enemy, but to win them over.” With this approach, Mahatma Gandhi and King advocated ongoing personal development in order to become more nonviolent inwardly.
·“Pragmatic [also called strategic or tactical nonviolence]-- to create a social dynamic or political movement that can effect social change without necessarily winning over those who wish to maintain the status quo.” This tactical approach emphasizes outward action to mobilize coercive political power and de-emphasizes or neglects inner work.
·“Living-- caring in one's heart for everyone, even those with whom one strongly disagrees.” Practitioners of Nonviolent Communication and Active Listening, for example, are guided by this method.

By combining these three approaches, the Caucus could develop a distinctive, holistic model that could be useful to the entire Occupy movement. If we engage in activities that prove to be of real value to our members and the larger community, occupations and/or similar caucuses everywhere could adopt and/or adapt this model to strengthen their work by integrating the personal and the political—that is, organizing and growing communities whose members are clearly committed to integrating personal growth, mutual support, and progressive political action.

If we are to “walk, talk and act in love,” as the Pledge states, we need to support one another in our efforts to be better human beings. At least with a small group of trusted colleagues, we need to acknowledge our mistakes and resolve to avoid them in the future. No one I know is fully enlightened. Especially if we develop simple structures that help us focus, our peers can help us become stronger and more effective.

Recently, I decided I was wrong in 1964 when, angry and frustrated, I concluded that King was too liberal. Now I believe he was more radical than I realized. In addition to political change, he also wanted to transform the roots of violence and oppression that are internalized within each of us.

He sought win-win solutions and reconciliation. And he realized that a sustainable movement needs to build momentum by achieving concrete reforms that improve living conditions. So, without being dependent on charismatic leadership, I want to return to the wisdom of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Thus far, the most common reservation about the Pledge that has been expressed is a concern that we might attract more people with a narrower pledge that did not affirm personal growth and/or avoided a rejection of property damage.

For example, one correspondent wrote:

I support your efforts to form this caucus but it's not a pledge I could sign. I strive to do a lot of the things you say there, but I'm not always open, respectful and kind--sometimes I'm a real bitch! I think sometimes property damage can be appropriate--think of the plowshares actions. Mostly, I want to connect and organize with people around the things we decide for each action and not try to legislate our inner lives. I think there might be a way to write a pledge that is not quite so draconian and might bring in more people.

I replied:

I appreciate your words of support and your reasons for not signing. Since the Pledge states "to the best of my ability" I do not believe it is draconian, unusually severe, or cruel. Rather, it merely affirms some basic ideals to which the signatories aspire.
I believe we will be more effective if we integrate the personal and the political holistically. A community clearly rooted in shared values can foster greater personal growth. Intentionally nurturing personal development and mutual support could result in stronger communities. Since each individual will presumably determine the focus of her or his growth, I don't see it as a matter of legislating our inner lives.

At the same time, a body rooted in philosophical nonviolence could initiate action campaigns based on tactical nonviolence, as you suggest, which could bring in more people. It's not either/or, but both/and.

She replied, “Definitely both and!”

Another correspondent commented:

Dear founders of the OBtC Caucus,

Thank you for this excellent, heartening effort. There's much to love in your announcement and pledge.

I respectfully suggest a modification of one part of the pledge. I believe we'll get more good people on board, and be able to broaden agreement on the most important points, if instead of:
I do not accept "a diversity of tactics" when those tactics are violent or damage property;
it could be:
I do not condone any violence, nor tactics that involve physical attacks on property that turn the public against our movement.

This revision would not preclude political/educational graffiti using sidewalk chalk (which otherwise could be construed as property damage.) This revision would not necessarily preclude removing a padlock to occupy a bank-owned foreclosed long-term vacant house IF doing so would not turn the public against our movement. (To avoid turning the public against the movement, good neighbor relations would be needed, improving the property rather than allowing it to become a dangerous eyesore, etc.) This wording would still preclude bashing in the Whole Foods windows. This edit could be interpreted to include not condoning police brutality.

Some experienced peacemakers would like to attend were it not for that phrase as originally written….

Thanks for reading. Heartfelt gratitude to those who crafted and disseminated that and who are making this important Caucus happen. The idea of the multitudes agreeing to the pledge lifts my spirits. The last 3 points, in particular, show such wisdom and vision.

I replied:

Thanks much for your thoughtful comments. I am particularly encouraged by your appreciation of the last three points, for I believe that they affirm the need for a deep, holistic approach to our work.

Concerning your proposed revision, I'll pass on your suggestion one way or the other, perhaps in a written report distributed beforehand to those who RSVP. I assume that this issue will be discussed during the "Reflections on the Pledge" item on the agenda. Also, I'm copying this exchange to the Administrative Team that is organizing the 11/28 event.

In the meantime, I offer some thoughts of my own.

…If the Caucus does launch, I assume that the Caucus could decide to revise the Pledge and ask the original signatories to sign again.

Concerning gaining access to a vacant building, perhaps some of those who've been involved in such actions in the past can provide some insight. My own thought is that first of all, every effort could be made to get in without any form of damage (any locksmiths out there?). But if that were not possible, one window could be broken and immediately repaired or a padlock could be broken and immediately replaced. Especially if the occupiers proceeded to make home improvements, those actions might not constitute "damage."

But even if they would still be a form of damage, it seems to me that the phrase "to the best of my ability" in the opening to the Pledge allows for exceptions. If the occupiers made a sincere effort to enter without doing anything that could be construed as damage, I think they would not violate the Pledge. Rare, minimal, last resort actions like removing a padlock would seem to be acceptable.

BTW, that allowance applies to the whole pledge. None of us are perfect. The Pledge does not legislate absolutes.

Concerning using chalk on sidewalks, I would not consider that damage, which is "physical harm caused to something in such a way as to impair its value, usefulness, or normal function."

It seems to me that your proposed revision -- "I do not condone any violence, nor tactics that involve physical attacks on property that turn the public against our movement." -- does not resolve the ambiguity. What actions might alienate "the public" would be hard to determine. And perhaps we should focus on our own sense of what is right, rather than relying too much on such calculations. It seems that a less subjective principle would be better.

So it still seems to me that the Pledge adequately addresses the issue, but I'm open to ideas about how to clarify the matter without opening up a can of worms.

…Also, concerning garnering broad support, I believe that a group such as the Caucus rooted in "philosophical nonviolence" could initiate and lead actions that would be based on "tactical nonviolence." Such actions could welcome individuals who refuse to sign the Pledge due to reservations about one or other elements of the Pledge.

With this approach, individuals who share a strong commitment to deep nonviolence could connect with another to support one another in their efforts to become more deeply compassionate.

And in terms of connecting with the general public, I suspect the Pledge as it currently stands would elicit more support than any alternative that clearly affirms some kind of property damage. Perhaps we should leave possible rare, minimal exceptions alone for now and let the "to the best of my ability" cover that issue—for reaching out to and involving the general public is a top priority, it seems to me.

This correspondent replied, “Thanks, Wade!”

So it seems to me that the Caucus could combine the three strands of nonviolence. We could follow the examples of Gandhi and King and root ourselves in philosophical nonviolence by asking its members to sign our Pledge, which was inspired by King’s 1963 pledge. Then, if we decide to do so, we could organize specific campaigns based on pragmatic nonviolence whose participants would only be asked to make a tactical commitment to nonviolence for each particular action. Those campaigns could thus be a “big tent” and we could invite those who enter to make a deeper commitment by signing our Pledge, if they were so inclined.

Such campaigns could begin with efforts to win over the “target” of the campaign with appeals to conscience and/or “enlightened self-interest.” Then if those efforts are unsuccessful, the campaign could broaden to mobilize adherents to strategic nonviolence to help build the political power to coerce the target, while always avoiding demonization, continuing to appeal to their conscience, and seeking reconciliation.

On further reflection, it strikes me as ironic that adopting a narrower commitment to nonviolence in order to draw in more people might actually have the opposite effect. Accepting violent language, for example, can drive away people who are turned off by shrill, combative rhetoric. And explicitly stating that we might accept “property damage” can attract a small band of activists but repel the general public.

Regardless, perhaps we shouldn’t be so calculating and simply seek to connect and work with others who share our ideals, even if our local Occupy declines to affirm a pledge of the sort being presented here.

Even after extensive discussion, a good number of people may still believe that the Pledge should be narrower and, to my mind, more superficial. But so far the concerns about the Pledge that have been expressed do not lead me to conclude that we are off course.

And overall the response has been encouraging. For example, when Jerry Bolick signed the pledge, he wrote:

I sign the pledge and appreciate the opportunity to participate. The deeply divisive nature of most political "discourse" and activity in our country has kept me at arms length most of my adult life, wading in only here and there, but with no lasting sense of having accomplished much of anything and, over the years, little or no trust at all in the political system, its players or in political solutions.

How we engage as human beings seems to me to be of the most paramount importance, and I've been wanting for some time to expand, widen the scope of my efforts in that regard, beyond my comfort zones, looking for a signal of some kind, from someone (odd in our her-informational world today)...so when I was approached by Wade, given the most recent flier, it was like, "I've been waiting for this."

Based in part on my conversations with my taxi passengers, I believe Jerry is far from alone.

And the following comments from signatories who can’t come Nov. 28 are also heartening.

Stephanie Duncan:

While it seems there is never-ending reason for activism toward a just society, what has inspired me most about the Occupy movement in particular is that it is not simply a principle or a demand but a practice: a practice in democracy, in justice, in respect, in community. To me, to support Occupy means to bring these practices into my life: to occupy my job, my family, and my relationships with compassion, purpose, and sense of responsibility toward others. It also means to participate in this practice with other "Occupants," supporting them and sharing with them, addressing our problems and celebrating our hard work together. For these reasons, I support the mission and pledge of the Occupy Be the Change Caucus.

Deacon Jan Cazden:

I am out of state until mid December so will need to decline and observe the evolution from afar for now. Prayers for all who are ministering with their presence! And for those who are being the change we hope to see!

Sage Keaten:

I joined the Occupy Movement with newborn hope and passion -- commensurate with 15 years of personal despair and learned helplessness. My heart thrills to new heights with the possibility of making a positive difference for the earth, future generations of humans, and All My Relations. I must pursue the vision of a new paradigm of "Us" rather than "We vs. Them." To intend and work for a shift of thought and heart -- this is what my heart calls me to. A new Age is our potential. I look forward to working with and within this group, very much!

But it is far from certain that this project will launch successfully on November 28. A number of individuals who would like to attend that meeting can’t because they have to work. The meeting takes place on the first Monday after Thanksgiving weekend, so many people will still be out of town or getting re-settled. Notice of the meeting was circulated only one week in advance. Many people who are immersed in the Occupy movement are already over committed. It’s not easy to get a new group of strong-minded individuals aligned on the same page and grounded in a viable structure that is both democratic and efficient. And perhaps the Pledge signatories who meet on November 28 will conclude that the Pledge needs to be rewritten, which could postpone the launch.

As of right now, 84 individuals have signed the Pledge and 15 have said they plan to participate in the November 28 meeting. A small group of ten or so dedicated individuals united behind a good idea can achieve a great deal. So I’m more concerned about the quality of our work than our numbers.

Nevertheless, the more the better, so if you’re interested in this project, I encourage you to make every effort to join us and help us get this project off the ground. And if you’re unable to attend, please tell others you know who may be interested.

The Occupy Movement is an exciting, unpredictable experiment. Hopefully all of us are learning through it all. I certainly know that I’ve made some mistakes with my efforts, which I regret, and hope I’ve learned from those mistakes.

If we gain greater clarity about the risks we face and learn how to handle those risks, we have a good chance to build a movement that can truly transform our global society into a truly nonviolent and compassionate community dedicated to the common good of all humanity.

You are invited to join us.

--Wade Lee Hudson

+++++++++++++++++

Reader’s Reponses

Re: [wadesweekly] Occupy SF Begins to Coalesce (11/20/11)

I appreciate receiving these updates from you. It helps put some intellectual constructs around what is an admittedly (and perhaps for the best) somewhat amorphous phenomenon.

I wanted to let you know that a similar evolution seems to be taking place in the Occupy Boston camp, and I have seen a situation that was showing signs of becoming a "hard-edged" and dangerous or at least "un-welcoming" environment, begin to turn around. Over the past 2 weeks, following a community census which included a request that occupiers state their reasons for participating, campers with questionable motives have left, greater leadership and visibility for women has developed, and some individuals have been evicted. Whether this was all prompted by a community recognition of the need to take action, or by the recent request by the Trustees of the Rose Kennedy Greenway Conservancy to the Mayor asking him to evict the camp, matters little, if the result is a strengthened, self-sustaining community.
--J. Michael Gilbreath

My reply: Michael, I really appreciate the feedback. I’m glad my writings have been useful. I passed on your report to a strategy discussion yesterday. Lots of folks here see the need to make some basic changes, especially with new encampments.

++

Very interesting observations. I appreciate your support for a strong community culture vs rank anarchy. Here in Dallas the city and Occupy Dallas worked out a 9 point plan which would have allowed OD to stay until December 14. One of the key points was to not use the City Hall restrooms. This and some other points were violated. And last Saturday morning, the camp was raided and dismantled. Thanks to some anarchists could not agree with anyone.
--Jim Burke

My reply: I’m sorry to hear. Best of luck.

++

Consider this: http://www.alternet.org/story/153165/ows%3A_to_change_the_country%2C_we_just_might_have_to_change_ourselves_?page=entire
--Gavino Villiano

My reply: Good piece. Thanks. Key points I noted: 1) Occupying public squares is a strong tactic. 2) Having no demands has drawn a broad spectrum. 3) Authentic, unprofessional image.

++

Thank you for this. It Is more meaningful after having spent time with you in conversation, as well as having spent some time at the OWS SF camp. I went back again this morning, early, when many were still in their tents. I did have a chance to speak to a few people.

I'm not familiar with your term "social anarchism" and would love it if you could clarify.
--Ruth Lang

My reply: Following is from the wikipedia:

Where individualist forms of anarchism emphasize the individual and his/her will over any kinds of external determinants such as groups, society, traditions, and ideological systems,[6][7] social anarchism sees "individual freedom as conceptually connected with social equality and emphasize community and mutual aid."[8]

Social anarchism rejects private property, seeing it as a source of social inequality.[9] Social anarchism is used to specifically describe tendencies within anarchism that have an emphasis on the communitarian and cooperative aspects of anarchist theory and practice. Social anarchism includes (but is not limited to) anarcho-collectivism, anarcho-communism, some forms of libertarian socialism, anarcho-syndicalism and social ecology.

The term "left-anarchism" or "left-wing anarchism" refers to forms of anarchism that are seen by some on the 'left of politics'. Left-wing anarchism is thus distinguished from free-market anarchism[10] or "right-wing" anarchism (such as that of Murray Rothbard).[11] Ulrike Heider,[I] who claims to be syndicalist, in Anarchism: Left, Right and Greencategorizes anarchism into left anarchism, right anarchism (anarcho-capitalism), and green anarchism.[12]

In the United States, the term "social anarchism" is used by the circle involved in publishing the Social Anarchism journal and was promoted by Murray Bookchin. Bookchin identifies social anarchism with the "left," by which he refers to the "great tradition of human solidarity and a belief in the potentiality for humanness," internationalism andconfederalism, the democratic spirit, anti-militarism, and rational secularism.[citation needed] Social anarchism aims for "free association of people living together and cooperating in free communities."[13][unreliable source?]



++

In your writings, I applaud your efforts to define the terms, paradigms and myths that are presented in goal and argument. Your words are amazing, bold and mature. Your words are compassionate, direct, clear and forceful. You acknowledge other points of view and connect your ideas to them. Your words are broad in scope yet also address specific details. I will spend time sharing your words with others because they are powerful and a guiding light. Thank you for your efforts, Wade. I get it. You do too. Honored to receive your thoughts and words as always,
--John Cloud

My reply: I very much appreciate your kind words and am glad that my writing has proven useful to you.

++

Excellent. Thanks. I'm participating in actions when I can. November 17, I was in Cathedral City, occupying the bridge on Ramon Road at Landau. I always appreciate your news!
--JaneAnne Jeffries

My reply: Good to hear. Carry it on, sister.

+++++

Re: "Democracy, Power, Structure, Policy, Rules, and Authority" (11/6/11)

This is very good. Thanks for your very good and helpful thinking.
--David Hartsough

+++++

Re: [wadesweekly] Occupy Turning Point (10/30/11)

excellent articulation of this issue, Wade, and gives me pause for reflection in my own experience of living in/with community. I'm very inspired by your participation in Occupy SF.

--Kristen Walsh

++

yes, real democracy is a very time-consuming process and messy. I remember how worn-out I sometimes got at consensus-seeking meetings at Twin Oaks. Perhaps it is in the process of becoming. The mulling over is an important stage of the process. These young people made it happen. I am willing to trust that they are working it out as they go along with a geniune will to find the way. I agree that making exclusionary rules is not wise. Let's see what happens when those so hardened and angry by exclusion are welcomed. While you say they are practicing individualism, I see them as valuing others as members of the 99% who have been abused by the practices of extreme I got mine - you get yours I don't owe you nothin' individualism of the hard core capitalist elitist culture...who have made and enforced the rules that are killing us. Acceptance is an amazing power.

They need our support and equal participation. I don't think they need us old hands to tell them how to do it.
--Rena Lindstrom

My reply: Thanks for the feedback.

++

Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this. I think you are right on. Please let me know again what you would like me to do.
--David Hartsough

++

Excellent report, Wade. I'd like to accompany you sometime soon at the Occupy site. Well done.
--Richard Gross

++

Many people have a hard time understanding what is going on. I don't think you really understand that occupy is rejecting the centralized and regulated sociopolitical models because corrupting forces have learned how to coopt and destroy such things. Opposition political parties and lobby groups don't change the system which is what we need. The velvet revolution, the liberation of India, the Arab spring and even evil militant groups such as the IRA and Viet Cong succeeded where organized resistance and revolution failed precisely because of principles you see as deficiencies. Until you really grok how and why these things worked I don't think you will start to understand occupy.

How about we see what works instead of trying to imitate the power structures and the narrow thinking patterns that have allowed similar movements to be marginalized as special interest groups. Reduced complex problems to a few slogans. Restricted access of fresh ideas to the centers of power.

Occupy is unlikely to become an establishment party or form of government and that is a good thing. That is not what it is for. We have enough of those already. It is there as the peoples check to the abuse of our system. It is not a movement, it is a democratic culture that does not rise or fall on the authority, integrity or competence of any group of individuals. Half its population including all the natural leaders could be jailed tomorrow and the movement would only slowdown temporarily.

The civil rights movement, the fight against the Vietnam war, Women's suffrage, prohibition etc... All had the problems you are complaining about and not only succeed despite them but succeeded because of them. Amorphous is not weak, it is squishy. It is adaptable. It flows in directions that are hard to predict or control and you can not break it. Sure there will be money problems, confusion over message, special interest groups that will bog things down. Everyone has problems like that. So what, we will adapt. We are not dogmatic. That is our strength. We are not afraid of problems because we are gathering together to fix them.

If you see a specific problem, gather a group of people to try and fix it rather trying to centrally plan a solution for everyone. That is the job of governments, lobbies and corporations. That is not occup's job. We are here to talk about what others won't and fix problems that are beyond the reach of existing systems.

-- Michalchik@aol.com

++

My reply: I hear what you say and appreciate your feedback. I certainly agree that decentralization is valuable. But decentralized units themselves need to be organized internally and externally with other units. Policies, rules, enforcement, and accountability are still needed. And I have no problem with a variety of strategies and tactics. And we need to respect each other, rather than accusing one another of a failure to understand.

His reply: We have all that in spades. It is just done by consensus and voluntarism. This works very well for small groups or agglomerations of small groups. The main problem is that people don't see the structures they are used to and think that means there is no structure. They don't see the kinds of goals they are used to and they think thing are directionless. We have to do it differently because the old methods have not only failed they are part of the problem.

I am not saying that this is the way that to run a country but it is the only effective way I know to stand up to a consolidated corrupt power structure without violence. People like to pretend than civil rights, women's suffrage, the antiwar movement, etc... were all centrally controlled by charismatic leaders like MLK, Susan B Anthony or Abby Hoffman. They were not, MLK had no power beyond his ability to convince and be someone with something worth saying. There was not A Plan but as sense of right and wrong and a lot of clever opportunism and creative initiatives. The same is true of the velvet revolution, the Arab Spring and even to some extent the Indian and South African independence movements.

Take some time to really absorb how well this movement is working an why and stop trying to judge it by the standards of other institutions. Look around at the world today and history for movements that it is like and how they worked instead of trying to see how it does and does not fit into the current system. The day Occupy integrates with the system is the day it becomes useless. Think about this creatively. …

If you are concerned about the lack of organization around some important issues like anarchists degenerating into violence or agent provocateurs . Go to the SF occupy and start a committee that develops a set of solutions and brings them to the general assemble or just find a group of people within SF occupy willing to cooperate with you on solving the problem.

In OC we have formed a deescalation team that intervenes at the start of trouble and talks to potential trouble makers, a liaison with the police, prohibited drugs/alcohol and have a night watch. I would be surprised if SF hasn't done similar things because I know that New York has.

Best Wishes

My reply: Yes, we've done all that long ago. Some progress is being achieved informally. But efforts to tighten up the governance model have been blocked and the prevailing policy, as articulated by the de facto head of the Facilitation Working Group (he manages their Google Group) has declared that no GA decision is binding, does not need to be reversed by the GA, and is no longer in effect if and when it no longer has consensus support, whether modified or unanimous. So Friday a spontaneous flash mob in the name of Occupy SF evolved into an effort to block shoppers from entering stores, which caused a massive online backlash from Occupy SF supporters. I'm glad other Occupations have made more progress establishing a viable governing structure. I think the "individualist anarchists" in SF have undermined such efforts here.

++

Wade, east coast, west coast, struggle all the way.

--Marvin Surkin

++

I share a lot of these thoughts – and am thinking you might want to post this to a small Occupy audience I have been developing – small, but mostly leaders or thinkers or activists…

This place: http://sharedpurpose.net/express.cfm

I’d like to post your message in this framework, and then reply to it – with the idea being that we are expecting to act and organize on the themes that are emerging – how do we move from an emotive kind of universal response to an effective political force…. ?

Here’s a message I posted yesterday morning to that framework – just written off the top of my head, this isn’t something I worked on, I just wrote it “live”. But it says something pretty strong, that I am prepared to work on and develop.

http://sharedpurpose.net/groups/messageprint.cfm?tq=579402&login=101053&msg=106132

--Bruce Schuman

+++++

Re: [wadesweekly] Occupy SF: Be the Change (10/23/11)

Wade,
So glad you are spending time at Occupy SF. I like your proposals.
Keep up the great work.
--David Hartsough

+++

Hola, Wade. Sounds like SF Occupy is inspiring. I must say I wish I could go to NYC for a week. We have O Asheville but so far it doesn't have strong energy in the city. We'll see. I was thinking about your proposals. I was wondering if you might do a teach-in. It's hard to get people to commit to a manifesto without a good understanding...though all seem to be on the track of justice. It could be exciting to create a teach-in around your ideas. Just a thought. I'm happy to see your enthusiasm. Beaming support your way.
--Rena Lindstrom

Occupy SF Begins to Coalesce

Strategically located at the foot of Market Street near Justin Herman Plaza where thousands of commuters and tourists pass every day, the Occupy San Francisco camp has provided a valuable base of operations. With strong backing from labor unions, most of the City’s political establishment, and the general public, Occupy SF has successfully resisted efforts at the removal of its base camp. Given the political climate in San Francisco, Occupy SF has a special opportunity to maintain itself as a symbol of the Occupy movement.

During the last week, prompted by warnings from the Mayor that he will close down the camp unless it gets better organized, the Occupy SF community has finally begun to assert its power, affirm basic common sense over utopian fantasies, and overcome the irrational hyper-individualism that has undermined communal solidarity.

As a result, the community has made significant progress toward improving the camp and making it both safer and more presentable. In particular, several nights ago the camp finally executed peacefully what was reportedly its first eviction of a persistently troublesome individual who refused to respect the basic rights of fellow campers.

And Saturday, the community accepted the City-expedited removal of tents in grassy nooks on the east side of the camp, which the City had declared unsafe places to sleep due to the accumulation of human waste.

When some of those campers moved over to the main camp, community members, both campers and non-campers, insisted that they respect the City’s request to stay off the bocce ball courts and to maintain a two-foot space between tents, which enables passage when health emergencies emerge.

And prior to the weekly 3 pm march, one of the hardest working campers used the “people’s mic” to invite the gathering marchers to return to help clean up the camp. This honest acknowledgement of problems and the need for help from non-campers was encouraging.

Those who advocate notions characteristic of individualist anarchism might say that those actions prove that we can rely on spontaneous, autonomous actions by individuals and ad hoc groups to deal with problems. But I believe such actions will be more effective with the development of a clear, strong communal culture that affirms the power of the whole Occupy SF community to deal with individuals when they persistently engage in anti-social behavior.

As Tina Rosenberg articulated so well in Join the Club: How Peer Pressure Can Transform the World, peer pressure can be constructive. If and when Occupy SF as a community affirms a clear, strong commitment to the right of the General Assembly to operate as a governing body that has the legitimate right to self-govern by adopting and enforcing rules, Occupy SF will be better able to move forward effectively. Efforts to enforce rules would then be backed up by norms adopted by the whole community.

Efforts to improve the camp will be strengthened if the community more clearly rejects individualist anarchism, which reject all kinds of external control as exercised by “groups, society, traditions, and ideological systems.”

As I discussed in “Democracy, Power, Structure, Policy, Rules, and Authority” and Occupy Turning Point, individualist anarchism claims that individuals are “sovereign” with the right to do whatever they want at all times. This utopian ideology has been reflected in common statements at Occupy SF like:

No one is in charge. If you don’t like something, do something about it and you are in charge.
We function without authority.
The General Assembly (GA) is not a governing body because it does not make rules that are enforced by relations of power.
The GA and the camp are different and the GA has no power over the camp.

The Occupy movement was not and is not based on anarchism, which holds all government to always be “undesirable, unnecessary, and harmful.”

A better grounded Occupy SF culture would enable the community to stay true to the original mission of the Occupy movement, as was expressed in the initial Adbusters call for action and “Principles of solidarity – working draft” adopted early on by the New York General Assembly and is clearly the overwhelming sentiment of the vast majority of participants in the Occupy Movement, including Occupy SF.

The impact of anarchism at Occupy SF is so strong I feel it is important for the community to examine whether anarchism, while a noble ideal in the abstract, is logical in the real world. It is my hope that, first of all, a close examination of anarchism will contribute to the continued evolution of a more logical Occupy SF culture by revealing that anarchism’s logic is false.

But given the reliance on consensus decision-making (whether the necessary threshold is 100% or 90%), a small minority of Occupy SF participants who express anarchist sentiments have been able to impede the community from accepting offers from the City to cooperate. And the influence of individualist anarchism has undermined the ability of the community to govern itself and enabled this minority to take Occupy SF in a direction that is contrary to the overall thrust of the Occupy movement.

For example, on November 16, the City gave Occupy SF a 24-hour notice to make significant improvements in the camp. That night the General Assembly discussed the City’s notice, which included a long list of needed improvements. The Occupy SF team that has been meeting with the City argued that we should consciously “try to meet their expectations as best we can” in order to protect the camp.

But one of the de facto leaders within Occupy SF took the floor many times, often repeating himself, to object to the overwhelming sentiment in favor of trying to improve the camp along the lines of the City’s notice. Twice he inflamed the situation by implicitly accusing unnamed others of being sheep-like when he declared, “We are acting like sheep.” Yet I did not observe anyone being docile, stupid, meek, or timid.

During the discussion he made statements like: “I’m not here to comply with regulations…. We don’t recognize the legitimacy of their regulations…. Every time we’ve been raided, it has galvanized the movement…. I’m fundamentally opposed to obeying or trying to comply (emphasis added).”

Fundamentally means “utterly … completely and without qualification.” For one to claim that one never complies with the wishes of another strikes me as a blatantly absurd, utopian absolute. It reminds me of another formulation I’ve heard during GA: “All cooperation is collaboration.” Absolute statements are almost always wrong.

I agree that we should discourage automatic, blind obedience. We should evaluate each rule and determine if it is legitimate. But to automatically, blindly, completely and without qualification reject the legitimacy of any and all government regulations strikes me as the mirror image of automatic, blind obedience.

Largely as a result of this one individual’s many interventions, the discussion dragged on for two hours, the GA never reached 100% consensus on how to respond to the City, and we discussed only one of the many issues raised by the City. At the very end, there was an informal agreement that individuals could take steps on their own to improve the camp, but this solution lacked the backing of the whole community.

Many of our problems could be minimized with the use of a 90% super-majority to make decisions (“modified consensus”) when the GA finds it impossible to reach 100% agreement (“full consensus”). And modified consensus was in effect on October 22 and thereafter at two GAs I attended, at least two of which I'm sure the facilitators announced that we could use modified consensus if necessary. There was no objection to this procedure at those two meetings. Presumably modified consensus was in effect for at least the next week.

Then on November 1, a controversy ensued and the result is that modified consensus was somehow thrown out the window, apparently without support from 90% or more of the participants at a GA.

The individual who initiated this controversy (the same one who disrupted the decision-making process on November 16) and prevailed with his argument has stated:

I would also like to remind everyone that we do not create binding resolutions at the GA. If the GA passes a proposal, and at a later date it no longer has adequate support to keep it in effect, it is no longer in effect. We do not "enforce" "regulations." Therefore it does not require 100% consensus or even a supermajority to "revoke" measures.

An example: If the GA appoints someone as a spokesperson or a liaison by consensus, it does NOT take full consensus to revoke that privilege at a later date. All it takes for that person to cease being a spokesperson/liaison is to lose consensus support. Consensus is a process of affirmation (emphasis added).

That logic, articulated by the manager of the Google Group that is responsible for planning meetings, is idiosyncratic. No wonder maintaining a central collection of minutes and policy decisions has not been a priority! In its entry on consensus, the wikipedia states:

In decision-making bodies that use formal consensus, the ability of individuals or small minorities to block agreement gives an enormous advantage to anyone who supports the existing state of affairs. This can mean that a specific state of affairs can continue to exist in an organization long after a majority of members would like it to change.

If Occupy SF agrees that one person can revoke prior decisions, it will face the opposite problem: no status quo. It will be a house built on constantly shifting sand.

I have great respect for social anarchism. Except for its total rejection of all government, I agree with most of its principles. But the form of anarchism that is widespread at Occupy SF, which strikes me as individualist anarchism, seems to me to be profoundly illogical and impractical. And its influence at Occupy SF hampers the organization’s effectiveness and drives people away.

So I hope the community will continue to mature and develop new ways to adopt and enforce regulations.

CONTENTS:
Occupy Be the Change Pledge
Reader’s Responses

Occupy Be the Change Pledge

NOTE: Yesterday the newly formed Occupy Be the Change Caucus circulated the following pledge at the Occupy SF camp. About 90% of the people we asked signed the pledge. We now have 53 signatories. Please consider signing the pledge by going to http://groups.google.com/group/obtc?hl=en to join the Occupy Be the Change Caucus Google Group or sending an email to obtcc@googlegroups.com.

As a participant in the Occupy movement, I hereby commit my whole self to nonviolence. Therefore to the best of my ability:
I am firmly committed to nonviolence as a way of life, not merely as a tactic.
I meet violence with compassion for others and myself.
I walk, talk and act in love and nonviolence.
I refrain from verbal and physical violence.
I do not accept “a diversity of tactics” when those tactics are violent or damage property.
I am open, respectful, and kind with everyone I encounter.
I invite the 1% to join us and will not insult them.
I seek justice and reconciliation so that we are all winners.
I avoid both selfishness and power trips.
I strive to be in good spiritual and bodily health as we work to build a just and democratic society.

Reader’s Responses

Re: "Democracy, Power, Structure, Policy, Rules, and Authority"

I hope all is well. I wanted to thank you for your e-mail. Your have formulated a brilliant analysis. Your concerns and observations are duly noted. In any event, I just wanted to thank you for the document. It has definitely helped me re-think the challenges that the community must face.

I look forward to seeing you in the near future. Remember that there are a lot of good people working on this issue!

-- Adam Baratz

My reply: I very much appreciate your feedback. Especially as one who has demonstrated great skill facilitating GA, your comments mean a lot to me.

+++

I appreciate the individualism you are calling into focus. In my work abroad, both in Europe and Asia, I have come to see what a culture of rebels and individualists we are in the USA. I recognize both the power and the drawbacks of that fact. As to the drawback, our national form of narcissism - “Me first” or “it’s all about me” - is pretty strong. When I first started to work in Asia, I was astounded by the concern and attunement to group wellbeing that was intrinsic there. Don’t mistake me, in those cultures I see other forms of shadow that are equally problematic. Still, in America in general, we are very underdeveloped in our sense of being part of a larger organism to which we owe our existence. Or, that awareness is often relegated to some invisible higher power divorced from our tissue, our community and our daily life here as part of an ecosystem. This imbalance leads to difficulty but the dialog about considering both the individual and collective is a worthy one and leads to growth all around.

I like to remember the individuation in a human body – differences are so important to the organism but working together is the basis of that organisms survival – and no one cell ever mistakes itself as singularly important. A liver or heart on its own has no purpose or life, but a body without those organs also has no function. I feel this as individuation and interdependence at it’s most familiar.

So this is a note to say what you are addressing is a big deal in my experience. Seems like national archetypal DNA: our country was established in the rebel archetype with emphasis on “you can’t tell me how to think/ feel/ (worship)”. Funny, it reminds me that each of my daughters (who born 16 years apart), around the time they were 5 years old, said to me in the heat of a conflict, “You don’t own me!” Yes, we could write it off as personal to my mothering, saying it was due to me being controlling or being so open that they could say assert themselves without fear. But, even relegating this anecdote that way would be an example of how the personal is given such weight in the USA. I venture that their statement has been echoed by many a child here, in words or deed, but would not be as common a developmental declaration in other cultures. Development of the “I” doesn’t have the same weight and value. And that may be problematic for those cultures in some ways.

May the I and the We both find balanced expression in this movement – and in this country - and bring a larger view and awareness as that happens.

GOOD LUCK!!!!

--Chris Price

My reply: Beautiful! And heartwarming. Your story about your daughters is classic. I like your suggestion that it's not a matter of saying that the East is better than the West. As Emerson said, for every gain there is a loss, and vice versa.

And I like your body metaphor. Also, as with the body, no one element is in control in a social system or society. We are all responsible, and the top-level are expendable.

+++

Re: [wadesweekly] Occupy Turning Point

Glad you're there and participating. What's needed is a guide to herding turtles. Or an issue or leader to shape our discontents.

-- Mike Larsen

My reply: Thanks. I like your turtle metaphor.

+++

Re: [wadesweekly] Occupy SF: Be the Change

I want to do this in Occupy Oakland! It is amazing here as well (also feeding everybody, children's area, library, meditation tent) and yes, all those ideas about "be the change" is desperately needed. WE need to be reminded. We can't forget it the internal, the personal. I always say, we need an inward, mental revolution as much as an exterior one. We really have to imagine all sorts of new futures and that is going to take a revolution in thought at both the micro and macro levels.

Yes, and I am right across the street from Occupy Oakland and can host meetings in my office!

I am so excited about the possibilities.

--Vylma Ortiz

My reply: You state the need for an integrated approach very eloquently. I agree with you completely and am heartened by your interest in pursuing these thoughts with Occupy Oakland. In terms of the Support Circle, I would recommend that each small group of 6-8 individuals self-organize with one or two people inviting peers with whom they feel mutual respect and compatibility. Thus, all members might be more or less equally well functioning. Providing support for highly troubled individuals requires another approach. You might offer to facilitate the first meetings of a group that you initiate and join as an ongoing member, and later perhaps offer to facilitate the first meetings for other groups to which you would not fully belong.

Also, I’d recommend getting a copy of True North Groups. My proposed agenda is based on their “curriculum” for the first meeting. They have similar great thought provoking proposed questions for each of the next eleven meetings, after which each of their groups goes with the flow.

Regardless, let me know how it goes!

+++++

Re: [wadesweekly] A Fascinating Discovery: True North Groups

I was just talking about you this afternoon. Here is one of the most meaningful groups I am involved with. I do hope that you will take a look at their website http://ecobodhi.org/guide/. I think you and my friend, Dennis Rivers, who is also very close to the Hartoughs, Joanna Macy and others, would have some interesting conversations....

--Sherri Maurin

My reply: Thanks much for bringing EcoBodhi to my attention. It seems that what they are doing is very close to what I’ve been seeking and proposing. I’m particularly interested in what formats and structures their support groups are using, or plan to use. I’ll contact Dennis and inquire.

However, on their site, “politics” seems much too hidden. The homepage makes no reference to political action. The Guide page states, “EcoBodhi includes a loose network spiritual friends who are practicing the above or similar meditations and who are seeking to bring the energies of beautiful aliveness out of the meditative state and into their work on such issues as nuclear weapons, chronic war, climate change, species extinction, and social/economic oppression.” But such work could include cultural work, or public education. It does not necessarily include action to impact public policy now or in the near term.

Moreover, in the section of “A bringing together of the different dimensions of our lives,” the site states, “As you scan the horizon of groups and organizations that exist today, among the many possible clusters you will find these four large clusters” and proceeds to identify four types of groups none of which are political action groups.

The site also states, “You are also welcome to use such a support group as a way of participating in a traditional peace, social justice or ecology organization as a circle of friends rather than as an isolated individual. (Sierra Club, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, Earth Island Institute, Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, 350.org, Pachamama Alliance, Rainforest Action Network, and so on).”

This formulation suggests that some members of the EcoBodhi community are involved in political action while others are not. I am looking for a community all of whose members are so engaged. Perhaps there are some EcoBodhi support groups consisting of members of such organizations that I could join. I’ll ask Dennis.

Thanks again for the reference!