can I know whether the seven demands I have posted to this list several times have been discussed yesterday? And what about the four general points you guys have put together? I may be able to attend tomorrow and it would be great to have a sense of what are the main objections that have been raised...
On 9/27/11 10:16 AM, grimwomyn wrote:
Terrific-- it would be great for some kind of online tie to the http://wearethe99percent.tumblr.com/ site on http://occupywallst.org site-- so then people can see people from their respective necks of the woods.... and it would be an upfront, immediate, online organizing tool to inspire people that the problem is not with any personal downfall of their own, but with the system in which they live, bring people over to us....
I have been telling people outside of OWS that the demand is a process and comparing it to the continental congress in which meetings were held to decide on the wording off the Declaration of Independence, we are making our space, so to speak, to have as many ideas as possible before we put out any demand on behalf of the American people.
As long as we have messaging continuing to move forward into the interwebs and other media on the many issues with which we are focused, conversation will continue, and more people will join. :)
On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 10:07 AM, Snafu <firstname.lastname@example.org>
I agree with Richard, Doug and grimwomyn, demands for reform are necessary precisely to show that at the current stage the system is not reformable. You don't need to call for a revolution, just for the introduction of sensible measures that could be implemented if the entire economy/political system were not subjected to the absolute domination of financial capital.
By the way, is it possible to get a short summary of yesterday's GA? I understand that the discussion on demands did not lead anywhere, but can we have a sense of what were the main obstacles on this list?
On 9/27/11 8:46 AM, grimwomyn wrote:
Definitely the demands for reform should be loudest right now.
On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 12:51 AM, Doug Singsen <email@example.com>
Both are true; they're mutually reinforcing. But the CP in the thirties didn't build a mass membership by calling for revolution at the expense of demanding reforms. The CP engaged in every struggle for reforms it could. So that example really just helps prove my point, that you don't build a movement for revolution by avoiding demands for reform.
On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 10:20 PM, Richard S. <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Actually, I've gotten a reverse impression from a lot of our history:
Reforms are most likely achieved when the ruling powers are scared by
talk about revolution. This certainly is a big part of why the New
Deal reforms went through - because there was concrete fear of a
revolutionary communist movement. Much of the workers' organizing
that led to pressure for reforms like the New Deal was led by the
Communist Party. (Our comrade Noam Chomsky has said as much on many
occasions - and he is not normally a champion for any CP.) In other
countries, too, some of the great leaders who are highly regarded here
would not have been able to achieve what they did had there not been
harder or more militant revolutionaries to balance them out, scaring
the ruling classes. Certainly, this was one of the keys to Gandhi's
political success, as Gandhi was easier for the ruling class to take
than the very prevalent communists of the day.
On Sep 25, 8:06 pm, Doug Singsen <dougsing...@gmail.com
> Every revolution in history has begun with demands for reform. You don't
> begin a revolution by trying to "prefigure" a future society, you do it by
> building democratic, participatory movements for change that address issues
> that directly impact peoples' lives. When the state and capital are
> unwilling or unable to meet the needs of the mass of the people, revolution
> can result.
> Doug S
> On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 12:10 PM, Lauren <celli...@gmail.com
> > Honestly it will be neither a revolution nor a riot if our only
> > demands are some reforms on the legislative agenda which the
> > legislators will get rid of again in a matter of months.