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!

Democracy, Power, Structure, Policy, Rules, and Authority

NOTE: I've distributed this at Occupy San Francisco and so far have received only positive, sometimes enthusiastic, feedback.

To be directly democratic, a community itself decides what it wants to do, with each member hav-ing an equal voice. Within the Occupy movement, the General Assembly (GA) is the body that has the authority, or legitimate power, to direct the community.

Theoretically, the GA could micromanage every decision. But pragmatism requires that the GA dele-gate specific authority to specific agents, whether individuals or working groups. When it does so, it needs to establish written policies that clearly define and limit the powers and responsibilities held by its agents. This delegation of authority is the basic structure to the community.

Then the community must assure that their decisions are implemented. If the community does not like what its agents are doing or not doing, the community can change the policies that guide its agents and/or it can appoint another agent or agents to implement its policies.

Within the framework of Occupy SF, these goals could be achieved by having the GA adopt descrip-tions that define and limit the rights and responsibility of each Working Group (WG). The GA could also appoint one or more individuals who would be responsible for convening and coordinating the work of each WG. Those Coordinators would also presumably report to the GA concerning the work of the WG.

To maximize understanding and consistency, those key decisions, or policies, need to be placed in writing, compiled into one well-organized document, quickly updated as needed, shared widely, and made available for reference if needed at GA meetings.

Individuals are not always free to do whatever they want. Any random member, for example, is not automatically entitled to take the community’s money and spend it at his or her own discretion. If an authorized agent mishandles money, the community, or its designated agent, has the right to take away that individual’s authority to handle money and transfer that authority to some other agent.

Thus, while Occupy SF members should be free to establish informal working groups, the GA needs to oversee official Working Groups, establishing and dissolving them as need be.

If and when it chooses to do so, the GA could delegate any of its authority to some other body, such as a Coordinating Committee or a Council of some sort. But the ultimate authority must rest in the hands of the GA, which is able to intervene and re-direct the work of its agents at any time by adopt-ing new policies or appointing new agents.

The General Assembly is also responsible for protecting individuals from abuse. Typically, this goal is achieved by establishing rules, like no smoking in the GA. If individuals violate the rights of oth-ers, they are not entitled to do whatever they want. The community has the right to ask violators to stop violating the rights of others. If the community is unable to resolve the situation and the viola-tors persist in serious, obvious violations, the community has the legitimate right to insist that they leave.

In this way, by establishing a balance between freedom and responsibility a democratic community is empowered while it empowers its members. With a proper balance, a compassionate community fos-ters personal development, which is a central purpose of community.

These principles may seem obvious. But in the West, widespread hyper-individualism fosters notions that each individual should always be free to do whatever he or she wants to do, which undermines the growth of democratic community.

Unfortunately, this hyper-individualism is not uncommon within Occupy SF and our community has had trouble asserting its power to assure that its rules are observed or that designated agents do what they are supposed to do.

Rumblings are surfacing, however, and hopefully the community will soon accept its responsibility to establish its authority.

The words “power,” “structure,” “policy,” “rules,” and “authority” often seem to push buttons with certain people, partly due to how they’ve been used in the dominant culture. So perhaps we can agree on alternate language. But what is most important is that we examine the substance of the issues, re-gardless of the terminology.

Sometimes objections are voiced in terms that characterize “individualist anarchism.” I don’t know whether there are individuals within Occupy SF who identify strongly with individualist anarchism and fully embrace its ideology, but one often hears that kind of rhetoric. Hopefully by addressing these arguments openly and considering the issues logically, we can agree that hyper-individualism is hopelessly idealistic.

As the wikipedia states:

Strains of anarchism have been divided into the categories of social and individualist anar-chism or similar dual classifications…. Where individualist forms of anarchism emphasize the individual and his/her will over any kinds of external determinants such as groups, soci-ety, traditions, and ideological systems, social anarchism sees "individual freedom as concep-tually connected with social equality and emphasize community and mutual aid" [and favors] self-governing communes … organized by direct democracy and related to other communes through federation.

Individualist anarchists tend to believe that individuals have the right to do whatever they want to do even if they violate the rights of others, favor chaos for the sake of chaos, reject all forms of authority even if it is democratic and accountable, refuse to empower the community to exclude seriously anti-social individuals who disrupt the community, and seek confrontation with government-sanctioned power whenever they can precipitate such confrontation.

This hyper-individualism is reflected in the following comments that I’ve heard or seen at Occupy SF:

· “No one is in charge. If you don’t like something, do something about it and you are in charge.”
· We need group agreements that are never formalized (that is, put in writing), never enforced, and never used to kick someone out of camp.
· “We should speak as free sovereign individuals, not as a representative enforcing anything.”
· The Occupy movement is “a movement inspired by the advances of communication that have allowed us to function without authority (emphasis added).”
· “I don't think that the GA is a ‘governing body’ in the way we are used to thinking/defining that concept. It doesn't govern by making rules which will be enforced by relations of power.”

At Occupy SF, one often hears references to so-called “sovereign” individuals. Such a notion does not make sense. A sovereign is an individual or a group who exercises supreme, permanent political authority over others. A sovereign is above all others. But in a democracy, individuals are equal and the community is the ultimate authority, with limits on its power. The tension between the individual and the community is reconcilable if a partnership and mutual respect are established. But if each individual is considered sovereign, the community is disempowered.

Fortunately, it seems that this thinking is not as powerful in all of the occupations around this country as it is in San Francisco.

I was invited to join a community rooted in direct democracy dedicated to challenging the corporate corruption of our government. I was not invited to join a community that is unwilling to enforce any rules and rejects all forms of government.

My hope is that democratically inclined members will assert themselves and make Occupy SF truly democratic.