From:   Charles Lenchner <>
Sent time:   Monday, October 10, 2011 12:31:29 PM
Subject:   Re: [september17discuss] Democratic Party's Attempted Co-Option of OWS

It was wrong of me to tease you in public that way. Sometimes comradely humor just doesn't work on email. My apologies! I appreciate your good work on these issues.


On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 2:05 PM, David DeGraw <> wrote:
did you read the full statement?  see these sections:

"We will not be co-opted by hierarchical organizations. No matter how wonderful their cause may be... We emphatically reject the attempted leadership of any political party, organization or individual. If there are elected officials or organizations who endorse our movement, we welcome them. However, they must do so knowing this: Your voice will be just as loud as any other voice. We are led by no one. You cannot co-opt We The People." full proposal here.

in complete agreement with your comments, "Workers World Party, International Socialist Organization, Ron Paul's Love-o-lution, and let's not forget the dastardly 'Committee for a Worker's Revolution.'"  in our opinion, to ignore co-option attempts by either of the two dominant political parties is dangerous.  If you disagree, that's fine.  Just putting forth ideas.

re: 98% meme, do you mean Andrew from the YesMen?  I love their/his work - much respect to him!

re: 99% meme: saying that we co-opted the 98% is a cheap shot and completely not true.  see this:

this is all petty BS though, all credit goes to the people who put their bodies on the line every day at Liberty Park. 

On 10/10/2011 1:32 PM, Charles Lenchner wrote:
1. the notion that the Democratic Party campaigns in a coordinated fashion is kind of silly. 
2. if you want to officially distance yourself from any and all movements that have adherents on Zuccotti Park, you'll get in trouble for missing one or the other. In addition to not being coopted by the two party oligarchy, let's also pledge not to be coopted by the Workers World Party, International Socialist Organization, Ron Paul's Love-o-lution, and let's not forget the dastardly 'Committee for a Worker's Revolution.' I for one, will not stand to be coopted by any of these forces, and their omission from this statement opens the door to further coopting.
3. I thought Andrew Boyd invented the 98% meme in 2010, only to watch it be COOPTED by the 99%.But such is political life.
4. Surely the best way to advance the meme that OWS is the Dem tea party is to feed it with attention. In fact, the Job Party and the Coffee Party and the Green Tea Party are the Dem Tea Parties. Not OWS.

Written with love and good humor!


On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 1:06 PM, <> wrote:
I like it.  I think you should try to get it passed at the GA so it can be official.

On 10/10/11, David DeGraw<> wrote:
i'm sure most of us will agree with the statements the DCCC is makingon behalf of the OWS 99% movement in this online campaign, and it'snice to have support, BUT, imo Democratic Party campaigns like this arevery dangerous to our long term growth: 

See this:

The corporate media is already building a solid narrative labelling usas the Democrat's Tea Party.  While some people may not mind thatlabel, this is a divide and conquer propaganda strategy that we mustavoid.  Some people say that our movement is so diverse that we don'thave to worry about co-option, and there is solid evidence that thismay be true - certainly hope it is.  However, as someone who hasintensively studied propaganda and psychological operations, and hasalso invented the 99% meme, i am incredibly sensitive to divide andconquer propa issues. I worked with over 20 people in coming up withthis statement proposal, please consider it:

Welcometo the #OWS 99% Movement “We Will NOT Be Co-Opted” Working Group