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.