seen from Greece
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Greece
seen from Finland
seen from Libya
seen from Australia
seen from Sweden
seen from Sweden
seen from United States
seen from Maldives
seen from Malaysia
seen from China
seen from Sweden
seen from United States
seen from Brazil
seen from United States
seen from Brunei
seen from Sweden
seen from Hong Kong SAR China
Chicago Streets (8 of 26): The General Assembly
By Cliff Potts, CSO, and Editor-in-Chief of WPS NewsBaybay City, Leyte, Philippines — April 16, 2031 — 21:05 PHST The Circle If LaSalle and Jackson was where Occupy Chicago stood, the General Assembly was how it spoke. There was no stage. No podium. No microphone most of the time. Just a circle. People gathered, facing inward, trying to make something work that didn’t rely on a single…
General Assembly
Location: Liberty Park
Facilitator: Courtney
Topic: The General Assembly--what is it, and how can we make it better?
--We're talking about the GA, lately there have been a couple of proposals up to change its structure, and they haven't gone through for whatever reasons. A lot of people think that what we have isn't working, and a few of us talked about this as a think tank discussion topic for that reason.
--There was a proposal two weeks ago to change to a discussion group every Saturday, and to make Thursdays an action GA. I felt like those two proposals were weirdly inflexible, although I do agree that what we have right now isn't working that well.
--I think the process the GA is using right now isn't actually consensus--it's a form of consensus, but not really achieving what consensus is supposed to achieve. What the GA does is 20 minutes of "sort of" discussion; consensus is coming up with a proposal as a group. It's not supposed to be a form of voting based on whether or not you agree or disagree.
--CT Butler has been in town, we need to spread the word, especially for people who don't understand that this isn't just voting.
--Can you elaborate on that?
--It is the process of arriving at a decision where all aspects of a person, feelings, who you are, your history can play a role in the process. It’s not supposed to be just “do I agree with this or not”.
--I think the issue is partly ownership--when people present things to the GA, they feel like their input is voted on.
--I actually think the GA process we have right now is really efficient. We don't have time to hear everything that everyone says.
--I think efficiency is the problem. Why do we need to come to so many decisions as a group, in theory there should be very few things we agree on. The idea isn’t to turn out proposals.
--Working groups are the result of all of that. Vision and Goals come into the meeting and their ideas get shot down, and they’ve put all this time into it. Maybe the answer is more autonomy to the working groups?
--I completely agree with that, especially decisions that don’t affect the whole group.
--A lot of people feel like the whole process would work better if money weren’t involved.
--I don’t think that’s the main issue
--60 people are not that many considering how many there are at OWS. Why don’t more people show up?
--I think attendance is low at Gas because people are involved in other working groups, and because they have jobs. They don’t have time to do that and come to every GA.
--In Queens, we had some of these issues, so we dissolved the facilitation team. That seemed to work, but it was a smaller group, and there was a lot of mistrust of facilitation.
--What about the GA as a governing body—I don’t think it should be that, I think it should be “decision making”, and a space to build a bigger community. How can we govern anything?
--The GA works as a small group, spokes should be the governing body. It’s hard to have a real GA, in a small group the discussion can be more in depth. Imagine a GA of 5,000 people, and everyone wants to talk for 5 minutes
--We’re trying to change what we see as wrong, maybe the most important thing is making the right decision for the whole group. It’s a diverse group.
--it gets harder to facilitate the larger the group gets
--I lived in an anarchist commune of 900 people. We rarely had big meetings. Groups work autonomously, and in that there has to be a lot of trust. You have to trust that other people know what they’re doing, and a lot of times you don’t even know what they’re doing. But if you find out about something, and you really don’t like it, you have to get involved with that group.
--Spokes was supposed to be the operational body for working groups. It was a shit show at first, but it has gotten a lot better.
--I think the question is why are you here? Why are we here as individuals, and what do we think the GA should be for?
--I’m here because I see this as an opportunity to really change things. I think the structures we have, however flawed, are the best way to address the things we’re trying to address. Radical inequality vs. radical equality. I think it’s also again the question of whether or not we’re prefiguring something, if this could anticipate a better structure in place of the ones we have, or if it’s more important that we build a movement. I wonder if there’s a question of internal vs. external tensions.
--I don’t go to GA that often, but if the majority decides to oppress the shit out of you, you need a structure to respond to it.
--that’s a good point—because when we’re anticipating something else in the future, we have to address what’s happening in the moment.
--I’m here because this is the space to think about an alternative. This is the first space like this where I didn’t’ feel alienated, people really listen to you here. and people are talking to each other.
--It is empowering. For all its problems people do listen to each other. I don’t feel that in my daily life. It’s been really good for me.
--It’s always about money, money is a responsibility for us, whether we like it or not. It’s like we’re afraid of it. We can think of better ways of dealing with money.
--There is the issue of transparency in proposals as well. Like when people present a proposal to the group for money, and they won’t even tell you what it’s for, like D17. They asked for $7,000 for something everyone knew wouldn’t work.
--Autonomy versus consensus, a question of inclusion versus exclusion.
--Autonomy doesn’t mean “I can do whatever I want.”
--OWS is like a family, whether we like it or not.
--Revolution is like a thief in the night . All these groups are formed, they are inchoate, and the seeds are planted without people necessarily knowing about it.
MRG and outside funding of OWS
Facilitator: Anton, Marie Location: 60 Wall Topic: MRG and outside funding of OWS A- We're talking about this Movement Resource Group and the idea of outside funding for OWS. If someone could give us some background information that would be great. L--The MRG, formerly OMG, is an "affinity group," two people who want to support OWS and have raised $300,000 for ows projects. There was a meeting recently at West Park Presbyterian Church, and people are really genuinely upset about this. They basically went against the consult of everyone who they spoke with at Occupy and decided to administer the funds undemocratically, through a board. They are already opening an office and are giving stipends to people they consider "core activists." I think it's an absolute disaster for the movement, and something I would consider leaving over. They were asked to fund something like an infrastructure project, or give money to the kitchen, or buy a space for us, but they ignored that and set up this panel and application process for funds. CQ- Do they have any concept of how Occupy works? (consensus process, horizontal, direct democracy) L--I think they are just screwing up--people think one of them actually does "get it," and he has backed away, but the other one is going through a midlife crisis and is basically just throwing money at it. POI--the company Ben & Jerry's was taken over by Unilever, Ben & Jerry are not owners anymore CQ--So what is the status of OWS funds right now? POI--We have about $130,000, and most of that is set aside for the bail fund. The GA decided to freeze the general fund until we came up with a budget, but we are running out of money so fast that it may not even be necessary. There was the idea that there would be some kind of financial assembly. C--it's weird, money can be destabilizing. We have this sort of delicate fabric of organization, the GA and Spokes, and someone comes from the outside with a firehose of money. It's like in third world countries, I imagine, when NGOs come in, and they don't really help. L--I just think it's the most destructive thing that could have happened at this point and time. They chose the most controversial people to deal with. B--Well, what would a good situation be? L--We should do without money as much as we can. It costs nothing to go out and talk to people, and that's the only thing that will grow this movement. A--If everyone agrees this is a bad idea, how do we address it? C--I think just refuse to engage with them, if they won't deal with the GA, which is our decision making body, then tell them to go away. M--We all know lots of rich people who support this movement, maybe we need a way to ask them to help when we need it. L--I don't understand why they can't just give time like the rest of us. They don't want to do that though. They want to maintain their control over it. S--They have refused to go through the general fund because they perceive it as being mismanaged by the GA C--I actually disagree with that. I think all things considered, the Accounting WG has been very transparent. It's so easy to spread rumors. Remember when someone said that $300,000 had gone missing? That never actually happened. I think I have more faith in the GA than other people. Never expected to have any money. L--I think we need to minimize the role that money plays in the movement. We should be creative. Occupy Town Square came about in response to the chaos post-eviction, when things were at their worst. We did that by emailing people. We don't need money, we already have resources. F--The reality of the situation is that we're a fledgling movement. We have strength in numbers. Hopefully we can keep it positive. We've built this horizontal thing, how do we raise ourselves up horizontally? J-I think just take the money and run. I don't care if there's money, this is all inevitable. I saw it in the sixties. I--Nonprofits are always bound to the institutions that fund them. They don't give money without strings attached. A--I think the problem is, money like that is addictive. F--More money, more problems. E--It is a threat to the unity of the movement. It is "corporate social responsibility" and they want to link their names to something grassroots. The NGO model is a scary possibility. What can be done about it? L--They are on a mission to raise 1.8 million dollars. And they are already giving money to some projects. C--Who are these people? L--They literally chose the most controversial people in this movement. B--Accountability, transparency, responsibility are still important words to me. E--I agree with that, but what is at stake is determining what responsibility means. J--in the VVAW in the sixties, Jane Fonda gave us $100,000. There were no strings attached. Some guys used it to buy weed, I don't know where that money went.It didn't ruin anything. I --I think we should write a proposal to ask the MRG for money to start an ice cream company, with ice cream flavors named after famous radicals. Che Guava, Num Num Chomsky, Emma Goldman. Diversity of Snack-tics. Black-Raspberry-Bloc. It might not stop them, but it would be a good fuck you. C--We've made a few statements as an organization about who we are--principles of solidarity, we've said we are "leaderless, horizontal," and these people are totally ignoring that. Isn't a top-down takeover of an organization technically a coup? It's like in Hatred of Democracy--people in power want to disassociate from the rabble. That's power dynamics. J--I think the concept of autonomy is bullshit. If that is how they are justifying themselves. A--Can we propose to the GA not to accept? Could we actually handle this? I mean, Stalin called himself a Communist. E--It would make sense for someone to do something through the GA, just to get it out there. J--I hate the consensus process, I want to talk about ideas, not nuance of process...I mean, I get it, but I just get impatient. L--Why go to GA, then? There are so many other things to do! (can't read my writing here) E--What those guys are doing is forming a super-PAC. A--This whole thing kind of reminds me of, if you take off, and you're flying to London, and you're one degree off, you'll end up in the wrong place. That's how I feel about this. It's the wrong direction for the movement. B--Like what A just said. I've lost everything to do persecution, by refusing to take bribes. I just want to get back to working for a better life for other people. E--I think we should creatively respond to this. C--I'm most troubled by their desire to influence "messaging". They've set up a "meme factory", so depressing. The very idea of a brand. Maybe we should just say we are a violent movement, and they will go away. B--This has been a great conversation. focus on transparency, maintain our integrity, who is going to control directions. Let's make closing statements about what to do! E--It's a shady idea, but we can handle it. Needs to be responded to with creativity and care. A--I feel like they moved in through a perceived weakness in the GA, and to fulfill it's role, we need to bring back & strengthen the GA J--I still think, take the money and run. But this should be discussed by everyone. It's hippie capitalism, like that Virginia Slims ad. Smacks of that kind of crap. C--I agree with E, but let's also write some letters. A--Wow, this is the first time we've resolved to do something in a think tank. I --I feel relieved by this conversation. It's just ice cream. We can take these guys. L--There is a struggle to have faith in your own legitimacy. I'll take our processes over their bullshit any day of the week. If our processes break down, at least we've learned from it. Some people inside don't have faith in us, they need outside validation. Let's fuck them up! A--I don't want Ben & Jerry's to be in charge of our messaging--we need to keep going with substantive work in that direction, so that they're not the only ones E--It is dangerous. But Ben & Jerry's having anything to do with our messaging, is so fucked up, that anyone who knew about it would think that immediately. We need to make sure that people know what's going on. F--We're here to help people out! Let's get back to that, that's why we're here.
another (awesome) explanation of consensus hand signals!
Intellectual Roots of Wall St. Protest Lie in Academe. How The Human Mic and Consensus Process Came About.
Academics have become frequent visitors to Zuccotti Park, the 33,000-square-foot pedestrian plaza in the heart of New York City's financial district that is now the site of a nearly monthlong protest, Occupy Wall Street.
Famous scholars like Cornel West, Slavoj Zizek, and Frances Fox Piven have spoken to the crowd, with their remarks dispersed, word-for-word, from one cluster of people to the next through a "human megaphone." Many others, such as Lawrence Lessig, have lent their support from farther away, as the demonstrations have spread to cities and college campuses nationwide. Read more...
I'd never heard of the consensus process or 'stack' until my last year at school when suddenly my life was flooded with it. Sure it takes a little longer, but there is something truly transformative and empowering about the process and resulting decision. This short piece made by the lovely folks at Meerkat Media does an excellent and beautiful job at explaining the method as seen in practice at #ows. worth the watch.
(This has been floating around in various parts of my network for the past couple of days so I'm not quite sure whom to attribute it to [via ?])
