Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Sign In Apply for Membership

Categories

Please refrain from copy and pasting messages over and over and over, or you will be removed from the forum. We all have input to make so let's keep this at a discussion and not a text block of commercials. Here are some helpful guidelines for good discussion and debate recommended by one of our members:

  • * Stay on topic
  • * Be clear
  • * Build upon your points and address those of other people
  • * Refrain from making assumptions about others' unstated views
  • * If you disagree with somebody, do so politely
  • * Clarify your terms and seek to understand others' (but avoid semantic derails)
Note: The opinions expressed by the moderators and members of this discussion board do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Occupy Together or Occupy Wall St. In the spirit of free information, open discussion, and the freedom of expression, members are able to speak about issues relating and directly pertaining to the Occupy movement. You will be banned for hate speech or intentional misinformation and please refrain from any violent rhetoric; this is a peaceful movement. Thank you.
Pre-Occupied: The origins and future of Occupy Wall Street.
  • slave November 2011 +1 -1
    Thanks for posting. A very interesting article. It is very important to know our history. Not just in this case (OWS) but in general. There is much insight that we can gain when we see entities originate based on favorable conditions, evolve, and change interacting with other factors.

    One issue that for me stands out, the article presented well, and is very important to tackle early on is the necessary challenges that application of "direct democracy" current tactics (i.e., as defined and practiced to date) pose especially as it may be a limiting factor in the movement's growth:

    "Consensus—the agreed-upon method of decision-making—wasn’t easy among hundreds of self-identified ninety-nine-per-centers, whose politics ranged from “Daily Show” liberalism to insurrectionary anarchism. Because of the ground rules determined by the people sitting on the cobblestones in August, no decision could be made without giving everyone in attendance the chance to cross his or her arms and bring the meeting to a halt. According to the G.A.’s rules, a nine-tenths vote could override a block, but only after each block had explained his or her objections and the facilitators had responded. The least reasonable people often got the most time to speak.
    'The G.A. is beautiful, but it’s not an effective decision-making body,' Holmes told me in mid-October. She wanted things to be slightly more hierarchical, with a Spokes Council that would have limited day-to-day authority over the camp."

    "At times, horizontalism can feel like utopian theatre. Its greatest invention is the 'people’s mike,' ... The problem, though, comes when multiple people try to summon the mike simultaneously. Then it can feel a lot like anarchy."


    I have some solutions in mind myself but would appreciate to hear others' ideas. Please offer constructive solutions (weighing the positive and negative aspects considering the ground conditions) as you look at the future phase of the movement including solutions based on research (e.g., historical evidence), and experience in the movement (various OWS centers as well as other social movements, nationally and internationally).