From:   Andy Anderson <>
Sent time:   Saturday, October 22, 2011 7:49:10 PM
Subject:   Re: [september17discuss] Re: For a long view...

I am sorry for coming off like that. This discussion was the last workgroup I was on. I tried to get input from the group staying 24/7, but then things went to hell everywhere, so I didn't even start to act. Now we are collapsed and the few remaining are out in the cold, and we are powerless to do anything for them as a group. We can help as individuals. Its a sore subject and not your fault. I know I am over reacting, but you have many more people outside than we, for better or worse. Last night, our campers were facing freezing temps and still voted to stay. We cannot have warmth or shelters because we are on the lawn of our state capitol. I am just trying to voice the feelings I got from our group. I think they think at least jail is warm. If your campers feel the same way, as you were saying, it will cause a big mess for everyone.

On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 9:34 PM, Lycophidion <> wrote:
Calm down. This is a totally different plane of discussion. First, I'm
not making any decision, just posing a scenario and offering a
suggestion. Second, and to repeat myself, it hurts no-one to draw up a
contingency plan. Such a plan should take into account the needs of
camp members. And third, I explicitly directed my suggestion for a
contingency plan to OWSers. Any plan would have to get a green light
from the GA, so those same folks who have made the park their home
would have voice and vote. But, I'll tell you, if numbers dwindle and
the encampment finds itself isolated, those folks may be evicted willy-
nilly and find themselves on the street with no-where to go. Far
better to actually have a contingency plan, no?

On Oct 22, 9:14 pm, Andy Anderson <> wrote:
> Movement or not, you cannot abandon those that have adopted the park as
> their pemanent homes without addressing the issue. Talking of symbols is OK
> here, but to make it work, you have to deal with what you've created. I'm
> not even suggesting that you house them. I am suggesting you get a working
> group out there, canvassing and assessing their needs so you can get your
> proposal past the GA. They had a home before OWS, they can go elsewhere, but
> you can't just ignore them like they aren't real people.
> Andy Anderson
> On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 8:28 PM, Lycophidion <> wrote:
> > You are thinking too small, Rob. Again, I repeat, the movement is
> > independent of and transcends the Zuccotti Park encampment. The
> > MOVEMENT -- mostly non-camping trade unions -- mobilized 20,000 people
> > on October 5. The MOVEMENT successfully defended the encampment a week
> > ago, and then mobilized against the banks. The MOVEMENT has staged
> > occupations  in, what? --150 U.S. cities? The MOVEMENT has arguably
> > led autoworkers at Ford to reject a giveback contract, railroad
> > workers to threaten a strike forcing Obama to impose the NRLA and put
> > the fear of God into Sotheby's, possibly leading to a prompt
> > settlement for the locked-out Teamsters. In the coming weeks, there
> > will be further massive rallies by labor and other sectors that see
> > themselves as a part of the OWS movement. This movement, I believe,
> > will continue regardless of whether we remain in Zuccotti or not.
> > It's absolutely false that "If it's "on our own terms" then it means
> > "we give up because we can't handle the cold." A big part of the art
> > of revolutionary politics is to choose the time and place, the
> > terrain, the conditions, for struggle that are most favorable to your
> > side.
> > It is true that Zuccotti remains a symbol. But, this can work against
> > us, just as well as for us. Following a series of victories, such as
> > Sotheby's, and big marches, an orderly withdrawal will preserve the
> > symbolism of the encampment. And, again, it can be resumed at our
> > convenience. Police repression of a small, demoralized, exhausted and
> > isolated group of campers may well destroy the symbolism of the
> > encampment and demoralize us and our allies.
> > And what you are essentially suggesting is that folks become martyrs.
> > But, first, a useless act of martyrdom is far worse than a dignified
> > withdrawal, and second, we don't need martyrs. We need healthy
> > activists with high morale.
> > Finally, all I suggested was drawing up a contingency plan, which
> > hurts no one.
> > On Oct 22, 5:00 pm, rob hollander <> wrote:
> > > If it's "on our own terms" then it means "we give up because we can't
> > handle
> > > the cold." Most of the public will be sympathetic, but critics will
> > target
> > > occupiers derisively as a bunch of warm-weather partiers.
> > > But if the mayor evicts the occupation, the *he*'s the target. A movement
> > > needs attention to grow and a target (witness Tony 'Baloney'). You don't
> > > want to be sidelined, especially through this election.
> > > --
> > > Rob Hollander
> > > Lower East Side Residents for Responsible Developmenthttp://
> >
> >  > 622 E 11, #10
> > > NYC, 10009
> > > 212-228-6152