From:   Jon Good <therealjongood@gmail.com>
Sent time:   Monday, September 26, 2011 2:34:03 PM
To:   september17@googlegroups.com
Subject:   SPAM-MED: Re: [september17discuss] Re: Demands Discussion
 

As far as I can tell, this is the document written on Sunday.  Thanks to Isham and Michael for writing this out for me when I stopped by the GA.

VISION STATEMENT

1. End the concentration and control of wealth by Wall St, big corporations, and the wealthy

2. Create and fight for a participatory democracy, and a participatory economy

3. Build a world free from patriarchy, racism, xenophobia, and environmental degradation

4.End all wars and imperialist interventions to ensure international solidarity and opportunity for all.


On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 12:08 PM, Will <william.russell.v@gmail.com> wrote:
Looks like you all are doing good work on this.  Unfortunately I'm not
able, due to lack of time, to participate much in this discussion so I
just wanted to commend all your efforts regarding this issue and add
my voice to the chorus saying that it's essential that we release a
set of coherent demands as promptly as possible.

Will

On Sep 26, 10:35 am, Amin Husain <amin.hus...@gmail.com> wrote:
> All,
>
> I am sure I know many of you (e.g. Cesar, Isham, etc.) from Liberty Square.
>  I am on the facilitation working group and others.  I agree with all of you
> on the urgency of demands and/or vision/goals.  I think that process can run
> parallel with Principles of Solidarity.  I also think the Communique
> statement looks great as it has been revised (reserving judgment on the
> specific items mentioned, for the moment).  I note that there is a consensus
> that the issue of demands/vision/goals in the context (or not) of the
> communique is on the agenda and should be so this evening at 7pm.  If so,
> from the email exchanges, I think that is going to be a very difficult GA
> because of the competing approaches and understandings.  I am concerned we
> will not get far enough.  If I may respectfully suggest, in the interest of
> moving the discussion and its resolution along, that those who have proposed
> specific formulations here or at the GA to familiarize themselves with the
> competing proposal and try to be ready to make friendly amendment and get on
> board one or the other competing proposals, and have suggestions as point of
> compromise.  This may help a great deal.  Recognize that the GA, from
> experience, gets paralyzed if there are competing proposals to the body.  We
> are likely to end up going in circles, and that may cause great damage to
> the cause, because people that are sitting in new on the GA will not like
> what they see.  This is just a suggestion.  We are doing great, and we can
> figure this out.  I will say this.  Let us not panic or get frustrated about
> not having demands; let's work hard on formulating them as soon as possible.
>
> Amin

< PREV INDEX SEARCH NEXT >