From:   Lucas Vazquez <>
Sent time:   Saturday, October 22, 2011 12:44:42 PM
Subject:   Re: Re: [september17discuss] To Adbusters and others - The People Won't be Co-opted (even by "allies")

I think having dual power is really important. Making goals will show some direction and potential of our movement, while at the same time we can establish alternate institutions that are showing and proving to the world that we are creating our alternate world and society, by providing free healthcare to all, by providing free education through the establishment of a "people's unviersity," etc. If we are to make demands or goals we always need to keep in mind that if we don't seek to change the power structure in this country, we will continue to be oppressed.

On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 1:34 PM, <> wrote:
There is also the possibility of having goals, principles, or other ways of saying what we believe in or want to happen, without having 'demands.'  As far as the demands working group (or at least the controversial one--I think there are others)  I think that they have been treated a little unfairly in that they have been accused of things that they deny doing (like releasing demands to the NYTimes) and have been told that tey are illigitimate for even existing since the GA has decided there will never be demands (a consensus I have seen no evidence for) and even had their forum taken off the website.  I will say that they have problems with facilitation and the definitely need help with the process, but I would ask everyone to be patient and reasonable, not all of the GA's were always smoothly run. 
On 10/22/11, wrote:
Doug its even worse then this, because the people who wanted demands (i
know this because i was once in the group) want to railroad over the
people who are there Occupyings wishes. Which would be the worse
possible thing that could happen. I thought they should all work
together to find common ground so i tried to reach out to people down
in the park so that they could know there was this tiny group who
wanted demands and maybe then the demands people would change what they
where saying. Instead every one didn’t get along and i got an article
came out about demands with a picture of me (yesh) i don't even give a
high wholly fuck about demands only the democratic process but mabye
moving forward something will be came to. i donno I'm gonna go to talk
to the filiations committee i think there needs to be a way to just
change the subject and quick because this is an annoying distraction.
We should think about more important things then “demandsâ€

-----Original Message-----
From: Doug Singsen <>
To: september17 <>
Sent: Sat, Oct 22, 2011 7:36 am
Subject: Re: [september17discuss] To Adbusters and others - The People
Won't be Co-opted (even by "allies")

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