Sent time:   Saturday, October 22, 2011 10:30:46 AM
Subject:   Re: [september17discuss] To Adbusters and others - The People Won't be Co-opted (even by "allies")

Cesar I completly agree with you !



-----Original Message-----

From: Winter Siroco <>

To: september17 <>

Sent: Sat, Oct 22, 2011 11:26 am

Subject: Re: [september17discuss] To Adbusters and others - The People

Won't be Co-opted (even by "allies")


I suggest that you shift the word "Demands" for "Goals".  Having goals

redirects the attention to what we can do to achieve them, hope,  while

demands are little more than begging to miss-representatives, no

hope. Goals are inclusive of demands, which would become one more among

the diversity of tactics. Those with some faith left in current

miss-representatives can go ahead and present our goals as demands to

our miss-representatives. Something good may happen from this action,

complete loose of faith after the goals are generally disregarded or

postponed for latter day promises. It will also help to individually

exposure political miss-representatives that will not endorse fair

demands. This will pave the way also for any potential electoralist



GOALS redirect the attention to ourselves, that is the only power we

have, and will spark our imagination.  We should be as defined as

possible in terms of goals, general goals would be a great start.  We

can always expand our goals, as we become more capable to achieve them

and formulate them. There is not hope for our goals if we do not grow

stronger, and I do think that having goals will help to broaden

participation and to elaborate strategies to achieve them.    






On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 7:36 AM, Doug Singsen

&lt;; wrote:

The NYCGA's decision not to have demands does not represent the views

of everyone in the movement. The Occupy movement is being fueled by

people's anger at how Wall Street destroyed the economy, costing people

their jobs, their homes, and much more, and people want to fight for

those things right now. There appears to me to be a divide between the

hard core of the occupiers, who generally don't want demands and/or

reforms, and the thousands (or millions) of people who support OWS

without sleeping out, who generally do want demands and/or reforms.

Both these groups are vital to the movement. Without the occupiers,

there is no occupation, but without the outside supporters, the

occupation is just a small, isolated island. The GA basically belongs

to the occupiers - they're the only ones who can afford to attend it

regularly. So the GA has no demands because it represents their

viewpoint. But it's unfair for them to use the GA to impose their

opposition to demands on everyone who identifies with the Occupy

movement. It's also going to be impossible for them to do that, and if

they insist on attacking everyone who tries to raise demands for trying

to "co-opt" the movement or speak in its name, they are going to create

a schism.






On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 10:00 PM, Guy Steward

&lt;; wrote:

I think for any group or groups to take credit for planning this is

 ludacris. At the first meeting at bowling green we made it very clear

that we were the nycga for the people made up of the people. An that we

were completely autonomous from any other group. No matter what group

people came with we all left part of the nycga an that is who is

responsible for OWS 


Sent from my iPhone



On Oct 21, 2011, at 6:19 PM, "Lucas Vazquez"

&lt;; wrote:




+1 shaista


On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 5:51 PM, shaista husain

&lt;; wrote:

sorry adbusters, the Bloombergville folks, the CUNY students against

Budget Cuts and the El Barrio folks were some of the main groups that

have long roots in this city (and i apologize if i am not mentioning

others here) that organized this occupation through long history,

before Sept 17... you send one dumb ballerina image from canada --which

is not even representative image of our diversity--and your fantasies

are out of control now....



On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 5:46 PM, Liliana Gomez

&lt;; wrote:

What you say is true and I agree, however just because this occupation

exists, that came into being on Sept 17, does not mean that there have

not been people organizing and mobilizing around various issues and

demands prior to OWS, and those people are not obligated to either drop

their demands or not join OWS.  They or we simply cannot private or

publicly imply or state that our demands are the demands of OWS, they

are simply our own...





On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 5:27 PM, &lt;; wrote:

Hey this is David Haack for the record I'm not for demands I just

happend to be at a demands working group. I haven't written any

documents and I really think Demands would be a mistake at this point.

Please let every one know I really am not even for demands


- Dave



-----Original Message-----

From: Alexandre Machado De Sant'Anna Carvalho &lt;;

To: september17 &lt;;

Sent: Fri, Oct 21, 2011 5:24 pm

Subject: [september17discuss] To Adbusters and others - The People

Won't be Co-opted (even by "allies")


Fellow occupiers:


I am reading everywhere a move towards demands being pushed virtually

and in the larger media. What was disturbing for me was a piece

claiming a RobinHood Tax part of OWS.


Even though i appreciate the role Adbusters and others have played in

launching the meme of #occupywallst out there, i would like to remind

them that this movement does not belong to them, does not belong to the

NYCGA : this movement belongs to the people. And this means that ANY

attempt to speak for the people is pernicious - no matter if you threw

the meme out there or just joined. It is a matter of legitimacy. Each

occupation, through its collective voice, speak (in theory) for its

members. In parenthesis because we don't even have yet the capacity to

make sure this happens in the first place. We are vulnerable as a

political body and to use that vulnerability to push for your agenda is

a fatal flaw that goes against everything we are doing.   


We are still building capacity to make sure all voices are heard and

participate, and disturbs me to see some groups either infiltrating the

NYCGA or virtually producing a list of rushed demands without

any critical thinking about what this entails, saying "fuck you" to the

people who are holding ground on this cold weather. Unacceptable.  


What destroys a leaderless movement is ego, either individual or

organizational egos; so far a lot of ego's out there, either virtually

or on the ground. Trying to mass maneuver people is NOT ok. If you

insist on this, you are no better than the forces we are fighting



The people won't be mass maneuvered to push your demands before we

build a space where we can legitimately, discuss, deliberate, zero-in,

build solidarity, and then march together at specific tactical

positions to clog the machine and make power bend. We are building a

broad-based movement here. In case you haven't noticed. Demands, as

everything else in this movement, comes from the bottom-up, from the

occupations up, where voices can be heard virtually and geographically,

if you care to participate in the process.  


If other occupations have demands, good for them. But i sincerely doubt

that we are ready as of yet to have a global demand such as a

RobinHoodTax, for the mere fact we aren't even in full connection with

all other sites, and for sure are not having a global conversation on

this proposal.  

Co-option can come from the outside and from within, but the worst ones

come from "allies" - from within. Speak WITH the people, and not FOR

the people.







Alexandre M.S. Carvalho, M.D., MPH

2009 Reynolds Fellow   

mobile +1 914 563 4209

home +1 914 633 0415