One other thing - I've heard a lot of chatter about the young people in OWS and the establishment left thinking this is the golden ticket to revive lacking younger demo support I think a note about that should be in the statement. No group should think they can just keep counting on the support of labor or youth etc by co-opting the movement
Sent from my iPhone
like to propose a resolution and statement TONIGHT. It is short. It is simple. It defines us. The text would read: "The occupation acknowledges that the problems we face cannot be solved by either the Democratic or the Republican parties. Both parties are controlled and corrupted by Wall Street." Please help get this passed and released if you think it's a good idea. Solidarity, Jon On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 4:04 PM, Micah White wrote: > Further, let me point out that these orgs (MoveOn especially) are working > on a local level to co-opt as well as on a national level. Locally, they > are approaching occupy movements and trying to channel them into the > "Rebuild the dream" movement. It would be very helpful if the NY #OWS would > advise the other occupations to be careful. > > Otherwise we're going to wake up and 50% of the occupy movement is marching > to MoveOn's drum beat. > > Micah > > > On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 1:00 PM, Bailey McCann wrote: > >> Don't forget these orgs also just need money to function which is why it's >> beneficial for them to co-opt not only is it about electing corporate >> sponsored pols but padding the budgets of these orgs. Have to be mindful of >> how "support" plays out on all levels. >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> On Oct 14, 2011, at 3:54 PM, Micah White wrote: >> >> I agree with David. These people want to "ride the wave" of this >> movement and channel it into democratic party politics. #OWS started as a >> movement to end the monied corruption of democracy. Being aligned with the >> democrats will not only be hypocritical but it will ultimately be the kiss >> of death. >> >> We are a revolutionary movement not an electioneering campaign. Do not be >> naive: they have a whole strategy lined out as to how to turn #OWS into a >> reelection bid for corporate-funded politicians. >> >> >> Micah >> >> >> On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 12:49 PM, David DeGraw < >> David@ampedstatus.com> wrote: >> >>> ** >>> i hear you guys, move on has been helpful, we need to be open to other >>> orgs, i get all that, but dangerous to ignore Dem / hierarchical co-option, >>> imo >>> >>> >>> On 10/14/2011 3:32 PM, Jon Good wrote: >>> >>> Is there anybody who has a link to any high-ups in MoveOn who can firmly >>> (but nicely!) remind them that the entire occupation's survival depends on >>> them not bringing partisan politics into this. Moreover, remind them >>> that because they are so privileged their access to media, it's their >>> obligation to pass the mic over to others who are not. >>> >>> As for the fact that they ignored us in the past, it was the past. >>> This is now. Things are different. It's shitty that the big guns weren't >>> joining until we looked like we actually can succeed in changing things, but >>> it's awesome that people can change their minds. Our movement has been >>> wronged infinitely more by the finance industry, the federal government, and >>> the NYPD than by MoveOn not supporting us in the past. Don't let it get to >>> us. >>> >>> Solidarity, >>> >>> Jon >>> >>> On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 3:16 PM, Charles Lenchner < >>> firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: >>> >>>> 1. One of the reasons Chris Bowers' post on DailyKos was so helpful is >>>> that OWS and OccupyTogether had done a poor job of making it easy to find >>>> and join occupations around the country. That post, which has been >>>> liked/shared/tweeted more than 40k times and has appeared on countless other >>>> media, was a tremendous service at a time when OWS didn't have it's own >>>> 'official' web presence. While I've heard that NYCGA.net is such a >>>> thing, I've also heard that the official site lies in the future, and that >>>> 'there is no can there be an official site' because of how OWS is organized. >>>> >>>> 2. Such an approach to the website is mirrored by the general attitude >>>> towards binding decisions and hierarchy. No one has the authority to say >>>> 'this is official, this is inside, that is outside.' Only GA decisions can >>>> do that, and if the past is a guide, the GA is openly resisting efforts to >>>> be explicitly for or against any other entity, candidate or political >>>> effort. >>>> 3. On those ground, as long as these people are identified as MoveOn, >>>> then the MSM is just doing what it should do: locate credible, reputable >>>> spokespeople who can give insight on current events. It's likely that these >>>> MoveOn people are known personally to the producers, and with the recent >>>> support (with bodies!) given by MoveOn to the OWS, MoveOn is defacto in the >>>> same position as any other group whose members are involved in OWS. Which is >>>> to say: present, accounted for, and not entitled to represent themselves AS >>>> the movement, but only as part of the movement. >>>> 4. If there is a quote showing that a MoveOn spokesperson claimed to >>>> represent the GA, I'd like to see it. >>>> 5. The MSM need not do anything special to help the 99% look like it >>>> belongs on the Dem side of the aisle. It is enough that we live in a two >>>> party political system. I can only sympathize with the Paulites who have >>>> shown real dedication in supporting OWS. Their presence might not last, but >>>> it must be incredibly frustrating to be seen as supporting something that is >>>> de-facto on the left, liberal side of the political divide, where you might >>>> find elected Democrats like Barbara Lee, Raul Grijalva, but not any Tea >>>> Party loving Republicans. Democracy For America, the DCCC, Progressive >>>> Democrats of America aren't joining the OWS bandwagon because of some >>>> political error; it's because this movement includes many Democrats and >>>> overlaps with many of the forces on the left side of the Democratic Party >>>> (*cough* LABOR). >>>> 6. Want the MSM to give more deference to a clear OWS voice? No problem. >>>> Create a diverse cadre of spokespeople trained to appear on television, >>>> stick to carefully thought out talking points while conforming to cable tv >>>> culture. Let them represent ONLY positions approved by the GA, and have the >>>> ability to say, explicitly, that they are speaking on behalf of OWS. This >>>> would take about two days of hard work. Ah, but who has the right to embark >>>> on such a project? Until then, expect the press to look for folks they know >>>> how to handle, be they MoveOn, Democrats, Naomi Klein, Van Jones or Michael >>>> Moore. >>>> >>>> Charles >>>> >>>> >>>> On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 2:31 PM, David DeGraw < >>>> David@ampedstatus.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> top MoveOn leaders / executives are all over national television >>>>> speaking for the movement. Saying We, We, We, We and directing people to >>>>> OccupyWallStreetEvents.com, which redirects to the DailyKos. >>>>> >>>>> again, fully appreciate the help and support of MoveOn, but the MSM is >>>>> clearly using them as the spokespeople for OWS. I just had an off-record >>>>> discussion w/ NBC executives who say that other news execs there plan to use >>>>> them to divide the movement. This is an blatant attempt to fracture the 99% >>>>> into a Democratic Party organization. The leadership of MoveON and the Daily >>>>> Kos are Democratic Party operatives. They do a lot of great work, but they >>>>> are divide and conquer pawns. For years they ignored Wall Street protests >>>>> to keep complete focus on the Republicans, in favor of Goldman's Obama and >>>>> Wall Street's Democratic leadership. >>>>> >>>>> if anyone at Move On or Daily Kos would like to have a public debate >>>>> about these comments, we invite it. >>>>> >>>>> if MoveOn leaders / executives are going to keep going on National TV >>>>> to speak for OWS, we need them to make a clear statement. >>>>> >>>>> please urgently propose that statement or a plan to call them out in an >>>>> effective way. >>>>> >>>>> know there are some people who think any attempts at co-option will be >>>>> unsuccessful, and there is some truth to that, but we can't let blatant >>>>> co-option attempts continue w/out a response. the longer we remain silent >>>>> as people get on national tv claiming to speak for and lead the movement, >>>>> the more damage will be done. >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> > --001517475eb6f239a804af47fc95 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable If you're right, Micah, then we must keep ahead of them. Who is running occupywallst.org? Who's scheduling the topics for discussion at the GA? PLEASE email me if you know the answers to these questions.
I would like to propose a resolution and statement TONIGHT. It is short. It is simple. It defines us. The text would read:
"The occupation acknowledges that the problems we face cannot be solved by either the Democratic or the Republican parties. Both parties are controlled and corrupted by Wall Street."
Please help get this passed and released if you think it's a good idea.
On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 4:04 PM, Micah White <email@example.com>
Further, let me point out that these orgs (MoveOn especially) are working on a local level to co-opt as well as on a national level. Locally, they are approaching occupy movements and trying to channel them into the "Rebuild the dream" movement. It would be very helpful if the NY #OWS would advise the other occupations to be careful.
Otherwise we're going to wake up and 50% of the occupy movement is marching to MoveOn's drum beat.
On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 1:00 PM, Bailey McCann <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Don't forget these orgs also just need money to function which is why it's beneficial for them to co-opt not only is it about electing corporate sponsored pols but padding the budgets of these orgs. Have to be mindful of how "support" plays out on all levels.
Sent from my iPhone
I agree with David. These people want to "rid