# Thoughts on the "#occupy" movement(s)



## chilango (Oct 20, 2011)

I figure it might be worth having a seperate thread to discuss general thoughts on the movement(s) as a whole. Looking at the idea as a strategy, its content, etc etc. without clogging up threads on specific local actions.

I have a few thoughts which I'll post up in a bit.


----------



## A Dashing Blade (Oct 20, 2011)

Went over to Paternoster Square last night.
Imo their first priority should be to produce some concrete, well thought out, specific proposals.


----------



## chilango (Oct 20, 2011)

To start with I don't like the use of the hashtag in front of 'em all. Maybe I'm just being a grumpy old man, but it smacks of hipster bandwagoning and sure pre-disposes the movements to the participation of a certain crowd that think that getting something "trending on twitter" is in itself a worthy objective.

On a more serious note, when I first heard of "occupy wall street" I imagined that it was going to be an attempt to occupy, and thus sabotage, the actual workings of the stock exchange etc, Something along the lines of the road protesters office occupations of the mid-90s or the stroming of the LIFFE building in '99.

But, it seems to be an attempt to recreate the mass public gatherings in publics spaces such as Tahrir Square and in various ex-eastern bloc countries. Which imo is doomed to fail given the numbers we are seeing.

These numbers from a few dozen to a few thousand are much better suited to the occupation as direct action tactic mentioned above than the recreation of Tahrir Square!

But, a thought nags at me, what if I'm wrong, what if momentum builds and crowds swell and they hold these spaces for weeks on end. What then? I cannot help but remember the Oaxaca commune of a few years back when an entire city was occupied and popular assemblies held. Only to be swiftly crushed.

I just can't see where this strategy can go.

Target "the City" (again) by all means, hit em hard and and then occupy places whose use can be transformed.

Take, hold and self-manage libraries that are being closed for example. Less "cool", less likely to "trend" or get on Mashable but an infinitely more effective gesture of people power, surely?

Hell, I even like the idea of getting my books stamped by a librarian in a V mask.


----------



## xes (Oct 20, 2011)

I think that for a "movement" it's started well. 82 cities involved (or something like that, that was they said on the beeb) that's a good start. If it grows, then awesome. Not sure what I think about the policies/beliefs which seem to be coming out, as it has been pointed out it's probably going to put alot of people off of it if there's a load of conspiracy related stuff entwined with it. They definatly need to lay it all out a little clearer, so they can stop getting missrepresented. But on the whole, I am all for it, and would be happy to get involved if it wasn't for my leg being in plaster. If it's still "on" when I'm back, then slap me in a V mask and call me Shirly.


----------



## Random (Oct 20, 2011)

chilango said:


> On a more serious note, when I first heard of "occupy wall street" I imagined that it was going to be an attempt to occupy, and thus sabotage, the actual workings of the stock exchange etc, Something along the lines of the road protesters office occupations of the mid-90s or the stroming of the LIFFE building in '99.
> 
> But, it seems to be an attempt to recreate the mass public gatherings in publics spaces such as Tahrir Square and in various ex-eastern bloc countries. Which imo is doomed to fail given the numbers we are seeing.
> 
> These numbers from a few dozen to a few thousand are much better suited to the occupation as direct action tactic mentioned above than the recreation of Tahrir Square!.



I think that one thing that these protest show is that we've yet to build up again to the level of militancy that we had around 1999. The crowds in the USA right nowjust want to make their voices heard and take up some space. Hopefully that's a start.


chilango said:


> But, a thought nags at me, what if I'm wrong, what if momentum builds and crowds swell and they hold these spaces for weeks on end. What then? I cannot help but remember the Oaxaca commune of a few years back when an entire city was occupied and popular assemblies held. Only to be swiftly crushed.


  Come off it, if an entire city in western europe of north america was held and then re-occupied the consequences would be enormous and not comparable to what ahppens in Mexico.


----------



## BigTom (Oct 20, 2011)

Good things: although the 99% is the wrong figure to choose, it does encompass the idea that the vast majority of people are not served by the system. Would prefer it if the rhetoric was more marxist/socialist talking about class etc. but the reality is that this 99% idea serves a similar purpose in generating what I as a marxist would call class conciousness.
Rejection of the current forms of governance seems to be a common idea. Open and direct democracy - have any occupations set up an executive committee? I haven't heard about it.
Internationalism - very good thing about this, it has linked up the worldwide austerity struggles nicely into a single movement.

bad things: conspiracy theorists.. hopefully not going to dominate especially the anti-semitic zionist banking stuff..
Just occupying a public square will achieve fuck all - they need to start leaving the square and doing things like supporting industrial disputes (which they have in London) and actually occupying and disrupting financial institutions.
In London, from what I can see, this kind of thing does seem to be developing, 50 people went to the sparks protest, and uk uncut are going to occupy Dave Hartnett's office in HMRC on Monday (well obviously, they are not going to make it into the building, but this is their stated aim - if you read the callout it's clear that this is a bit tongue in cheek).. this is going to start from occupylsx .. hopefully this kind of thing will grow as the movement does - it's only been there since saturday after and and we should give it time to find its feet.

Once it gets colder / snowy, I do wonder if any of the occupations will survive - that is a reason why people need to move off the square, and make sure that something which is not just about camping out somewhere comes out of this.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Oct 20, 2011)

it is, like its predecessors, a very effective way of getting attention. But, like any publicity protest, its impact is determined by the extent to which they are voicing views that are relatively generalized already. The Spanish camp started as around 100 hippies, it caught on, mobilised a shitload of people (15th October demo there were hundreds of thousands in Barcelona and Madrid, as well as thousands in loads of other cities), because essentially a large proportion of their countrymen genuinely were fucking sick of what the two ruling parties were doing to the country...


----------



## treelover (Oct 20, 2011)

'http://occupylsx.org/?p=233'

number of people criticising the endorsement of Dale Farm


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 20, 2011)

liberals whiners and fremen on the land mainly tree


----------



## chilango (Oct 20, 2011)

Random said:


> I think that one thing that these protest show is that we've yet to build up again to the level of militancy that we had around 1999. The crowds in the USA right nowjust want to make their voices heard and take up some space. Hopefully that's a start.
> Come off it, if an entire city in western europe of north america was held and then re-occupied the consequences would be enormous and not comparable to what ahppens in Mexico.


 
I wasn't thinking of a direct comparison, just the idea of occupations of public spaces brought memories of Oaxaca back to me. Around the same time if you remember, the centre of Mexico City was also occupied, in a less insurectionary manner, by tens of thousands of people in tented camps. That also ended, but with more of a whimper.

Just thinking out loud is all....


----------



## TruXta (Oct 20, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> liberals whiners and fremen on the land mainly tree



Fremen of the land.... now that's something I could get behind.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 20, 2011)

they would at least have good drugs


----------



## TruXta (Oct 20, 2011)

The spice must flow!


----------



## 8ball (Oct 20, 2011)

My general thought at the moment is that this is a doomed movement.  Already people like Obama, various celebs and some corporations have been endorsing it, which makes me think it will be co-opted out of existence in no time.


----------



## Kizmet (Oct 20, 2011)

I don't think it will be as easy as that. The beauty of it having no specific political stance or aim is that anyone can endorse it or use it, but it can't really be co-opted.

That's the point of free public space.

I'm fully behind the movement because it strikes right at a issue that I believe is fundamental to progress. More fundamental than capital even.

And that is public space.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Oct 20, 2011)

My thoughts are that if I were an evil capitalist/politician/whoever I would be only too delighted to see these people out on the street where a) the plod can keep an eye on them, b) they have no resources beyond pigeon shit and homemade 12v stereos with which to thwart my evil schemes and c) they're freezing their tits off. 

It's nice to see some vaguely confrontational stuff starting to happen but I'd be happier if people were occupying buildings or useful land and getting stuff done that playing a symbolic waiting game for the benefit of TV cameras.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Oct 20, 2011)

dp


----------



## 8ball (Oct 20, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> I don't think it will be as easy as that. *The beauty of it having no specific political stance or aim is that anyone can endorse it or use it*, but it can't really be co-opted.



If it's that incoherent I don't think it even _needs_ to be co-opted (in terms of the current system protecting its interests), but without any content, with nothing more than 'youth-rebellion-lite brand values', the markets will smell profit soon enough and it will be another way of selling sweat-shop made khaki trousers before Easter.


----------



## Kizmet (Oct 20, 2011)

That's the battle, don't you see?


----------



## 8ball (Oct 20, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> That's the battle, don't you see?



Honestly, no.


----------



## Kidda (Oct 20, 2011)

Random said:


> I think that one thing that these protest show is that we've yet to build up again to the level of militancy that we had around 1999. The crowds in the USA right nowjust want to make their voices heard and take up some space. Hopefully that's a start.
> Come off it, if an entire city in western europe of north america was held and then re-occupied the consequences would be enormous and not comparable to what ahppens in Mexico.



They should have done it in the Summer when it was warmer


----------



## Kizmet (Oct 20, 2011)

Try not to think in terms of issues... but more in terms of logistics.

The attack on free public space is ongoing. The basic effect is to limit what can be achieved within that space. So the battle is to keep that space, protect it and enlarge it against the forces that would limit it. Whatever space that might be.

At st pauls or even on your own street.


----------



## Kizmet (Oct 20, 2011)

They realise that the pen is mightier than the sword so they limit the paper.


----------



## 8ball (Oct 20, 2011)

Then you've given it some kind of specific aim. Which is laudable at least insofar as having _no_ aim, having nothing but associations and fuzzy feelings of 'something's not right and I'm mad as hell' behind something, makes a movement easier to co-opt and distort rather than harder.

From what I see, though, this movement is not overwhelmingly about the seizing of public space from corporate or Government control, but just occupying it, sitting there until some _raison d'etre_ occurs to someone.  We are yet to see whether financial regulation, GM crops, or chemtrails will dominate any manifesto that results.

In the meantime the vultures are already circling.


----------



## Kizmet (Oct 20, 2011)

Everyone's got different reasons, though. The point of public space is for people to connect with each other so that at least some of those reasons can gain support.


----------



## Kizmet (Oct 20, 2011)

It doesn't really matter what the 'manifesto' is.

All that matters, at least to me, is that it manifests there... in a free public space... and not some shadowy boardroom.


----------



## 8ball (Oct 20, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> It doesn't really matter what the 'manifesto' is.
> 
> All that matters, at least to me, is that it manifests there... in a free public space... and not some shadowy boardroom.



In which case I'd say there is no 'movement' in any sense whatsoever. It is simply an outdoor squat and talking shop. Which is all well and good with me, but I thought something more was supposed to be going on. The media is certainly presenting it in such a way, and I've also heard that some at the site have been feeling relatively ignored by the media. If things are as you say I would think the media machine has blown it out of all proportion, and they tend to have an agenda when they devote this much time and energy to non-advertising copy.

Oh, what an old cynic I've become...


----------



## Kizmet (Oct 20, 2011)

There's no movement in the traditional sense, I guess.

But that's no bad thing. It is just about space. Without the community centres and public halls where would movements convene? And as they grow... where then?

And maybe fighting the cynicism is your battle...  before you fight for time and space.


----------



## Kizmet (Oct 20, 2011)

What more is there to be 'going on'?


----------



## 8ball (Oct 20, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> What more is there to be 'going on'?



Well, the most common word the media uses for the OWS lot is 'protesters'.

What you're talking about isn't really a protest, and as an example, in this article, which uses terms 'protesters' as well as movement, only one of six 'protesters' interviewed talked in the same kind of language as you.

Something is being misrepresented somewhere...


----------



## chilango (Oct 20, 2011)

Kizmet. If the main point of these movements was the use/creation of public space why choose Wall Street?


----------



## Kizmet (Oct 20, 2011)

Is that a surprise? If they say it's about the left the right will oppose and vice versa. For every individual it's about whatever bothers them. They are protesting.

But the occupation is just about that.. an occupation.


----------



## GEN.Eccentric (Oct 20, 2011)

Lo Siento. said:


> it is, like its predecessors, a very effective way of getting attention. But, like any publicity protest, its impact is determined by the extent to which they are voicing views that are relatively generalized already. The Spanish camp started as around 100 hippies, it caught on, mobilised a shitload of people (15th October demo there were hundreds of thousands in Barcelona and Madrid, as well as thousands in loads of other cities), because essentially a large proportion of their countrymen genuinely were fucking sick of what the two ruling parties were doing to the country...



I hope to see the occupations in the UK and elsewhere fuel large scale protests that are already planned and create smaller ones that are not, a lot of people in the UK especially under 25s are sick of the crap they are fed from school onwards and want to change the way things are run. Having an occupation/talking shop ensures that doesnt end up as a destructive and counter productive force, its a place to learn from old lefties anarchos environmentalists even conspiracy theorists. The kids of today really seem to generally think all that is crap, if you have to read a book to know something then it is boring old bollocks, it should be on a blog or a facebook page and I think that goes a long way towards explaining the CT chatter, much more attention grabbing than Marxist rhetoric for example.


----------



## Blagsta (Oct 20, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> It doesn't really matter what the 'manifesto' is.
> 
> All that matters, at least to me, is that it manifests there... in a free public space... and not some shadowy boardroom.



So if it is used to promote fascist ideas, you're OK with that?


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 20, 2011)

GEN.Eccentric said:


> I hope to see the occupations in the UK and elsewhere fuel large scale protests that are already planned and create smaller ones that are not, a lot of people in the UK especially under 25s are sick of the crap they are fed from school onwards and want to change the way things are run. Having an occupation/talking shop ensures that doesnt end up as a destructive and counter productive force, its a place to learn from old lefties anarchos environmentalists even conspiracy theorists. The kids of today really seem to generally think all that is crap, if you have to read a book to know something then it is boring old bollocks, it should be on a blog or a facebook page and I think that goes a long way towards explaining the CT chatter, much more attention grabbing than Marxist rhetoric for example.



It might be more attractive but it still needs to be challenged no?


----------



## Luther Blissett (Oct 20, 2011)

TruXta said:


> The spice must flow!


It may be that the spice flows in your own space, but maybe it's not appropriate for shared space.
Why? Because alot of people will find it alienating, the police will then have to bust everyone, and it'll scare people away. 


http://www.parentsforoccupywallst.com/

http://occupywallst.org/


----------



## TruXta (Oct 20, 2011)

Luther Blissett said:


> AFAIK, the presence of drugs & alchol have seriously compromised the OccupyMCR already, so no, maybe the spice can flow in your own space, but not appropriate for shared space.
> Why? Because alot of people will find it alienating, the police will then have to bust everyone, and it'll scare people away.
> http://i.imgur.com/XpCpU.png[/img]
> http://occupywallst.org/



I see you still don't get it.


----------



## Luther Blissett (Oct 20, 2011)

TruXta said:


> I see you still don't get it.


Care enough to explain?


----------



## TruXta (Oct 20, 2011)

Luther Blissett said:


> Care enough to explain?



That particular comment was a joke/pun. Do you know the Dune books?


----------



## ohmyliver (Oct 20, 2011)

I think it's already having a useful effect of challenging the usual right wing rhetoric about the poor/unemployed being so because they deserve to be....

its potential is also causing articles like this to be written in places like The Spectator.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/essays/all/7326043/the-free-market-in-danger.thtml
"*Young people say capitalism has failed them. They’re right.*
*We must change the system to save it"*


----------



## GEN.Eccentric (Oct 20, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> It might be more attractive but it still needs to be challenged no?



Definitely when it is offensive or potentialy racist, otherwise I would say debated in a non-hostile way, most CT doesnt stand up to even minor scrutiny. People get very focussed on it though, you and many others here are and you don't believe any of it. So the reasons for that are important, I think anyway.


----------



## 8ball (Oct 20, 2011)

GEN.Eccentric said:


> Definitely when it is offensive or potentialy racist, otherwise I would say debated in a non-hostile way, most CT doesnt stand up to even minor scrutiny. People get very focussed on it though, you and many others here are and you don't believe any of it. So the reasons for that are important, I think anyway.



How are you going to draw the line at what is 'offensive'?  What about New Yorkers who were in town the day of 9/11 - isn't it legitimate that they feel offended by these 'Truther' wingnuts?


----------



## cantsin (Oct 20, 2011)

treelover said:


> 'http://occupylsx.org/?p=233'
> 
> number of people criticising the endorsement of Dale Farm



yeah, almost exclusively this kind of 'people' you time wasting rat :

_" 98 of the ftse100 to pay no tax then? _
_You are an absolute moron if you think that is the case. Their overall tax rate is still between 20 and 30%! They provide MOST of the jobs in this country. Go to Cuba if you don’t like it you stupid Emo hippy."_


----------



## redsquirrel (Oct 21, 2011)

Personally I'm not convinced that it is a movement. While  some of the initial inspiration from OWS there seems to be quite strong local differences - compare Rome (violence), London (non-violent and some signs of people working with the wider anti-cuts movement) and Sydney (most people dropping after 24 hrs and now it being defined as a 'symbolic protest') for instance.


----------



## Luther Blissett (Oct 21, 2011)

And right now in Melbourne, Occupy is allegedly being broken up, violently, by the police, horses, punches to the face 

I'm told a mass sit-in has just commenced. They're supposed to vacate by 9am tomorrow morning from City Square.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/mo...s-mixed-reaction/story-fn7x8me2-1226172675005


----------



## sunnysidedown (Oct 21, 2011)

Luther Blissett said:


> And right now in Melbourne, Occupy is allegedly being broken up, violently, by the police, horses, punches to the face
> 
> I'm told a mass sit-in has just commenced. They're supposed to vacate by 9am tomorrow morning from City Square.
> http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/mo...s-mixed-reaction/story-fn7x8me2-1226172675005



Better link here: http://www.smh.com.au/victoria/poli...sters-defy-eviction-order-20111021-1mb07.html


----------



## Blagsta (Oct 21, 2011)

redsquirrel said:


> Personally I'm not convinced that it is a movement. While some of the initial inspiration from OWS there seems to be quite strong local differences - compare Rome (violence), London (non-violent and some signs of people working with the wider anti-cuts movement) and Sydney (most people dropping after 24 hrs and now it being defined as a 'symbolic protest') for instance.



And compare with Birmingham - dominated by 9/11 "truthers" and anti-semitism.


----------



## rover07 (Oct 21, 2011)

You'd have to be a nutter to camp out all night in Birmingham town centre.


----------



## Kizmet (Oct 21, 2011)

chilango said:


> Kizmet. If the main point of these movements was the use/creation of public space why choose Wall Street?



Because the original agenda specified that location. However, I think the point has changed. Certainly most of the folk I spoke to tonight seemed to be into the use of public space as a forum.


----------



## Kizmet (Oct 21, 2011)

Blagsta said:


> So if it is used to promote fascist ideas, you're OK with that?



As long as it can also be used to attack them.


----------



## Blagsta (Oct 21, 2011)

Attack who?


----------



## sunnysidedown (Oct 21, 2011)

Melbourne being cleared:


----------



## chilango (Oct 21, 2011)

Bit disingenuous to label that "police brutality" frankly.


----------



## Luther Blissett (Oct 21, 2011)

Apparently the reason they cleared OccupyMelbourne is because the Queen is visiting


----------



## Dr Dolittle (Oct 21, 2011)

I think the main purpose of the Occupation movement should be to bring people together to talk to each other. Yes, the content of what's being discussed at the moment is unfocussed, but that's alright as long as it leads somewhere. It's being called 'horizonal' politics, where everyone has the right to have their say, as opposed to 'vertical' politics, as practised by most Marxist groups where a small group of activists set themselves up as self-appointed leaders. But what we really need is a balance between the two. If it's all horizontal nothing gets done - it becomes just a talking shop. And if it's all vertical it's not democratic - you have to either agree or not be involved at all, and that just fragments the movement, which is why Marxists groups are always breaking up. I speak through experience: I am a former member of a Marxist group.

A lot of people - here and in the media generally - have been saying: OK, so you occupy a public space and discuss ideas - then what? I think the answer is, to use a Marxist term, to concentrate on raising people's political awareness, as the Occupation movement has done already. Hopefully an informal leadership - made up of those with leadership qualities - will come out of this and will lead to some more concrete ideas being formed - what to replace the present economic and political system with. It won't lead to an earthly paradise but if it leads to a better society than we have at present, the whole thing will have been worth it.

Two more things. The movement has been compared to Tahrir Square but this shouldn't be taken too literally. Tahrir Square was just the initial inspiration. The situation in Europe and North America isn't like Egypt or Libya.

Finally, we have to accept that these occupations aren't going to last forever. At some time in the future we are going to be evicted - in Bristol last night we were informed that the Council have asked us to leave although they have yet to issue an eviction notice. So we need to start planning what we're going to do after that - how the political movement will progress after that.


----------



## past caring (Oct 21, 2011)

Dr Dolittle said:


> I think the main purpose of the Occupation movement should be to bring people together to talk to each other. Yes, the content of what's being discussed at the moment is unfocussed, but that's alright as long as it leads somewhere. It's being called 'horizonal' politics, where everyone has the right to have their say, as opposed to 'vertical' politics, as practised by most Marxist groups where a small group of activists set themselves up as self-appointed leaders. But what we really need is a balance between the two. If it's all horizontal nothing gets done - it becomes just a talking shop. And if it's all vertical it's not democratic - you have to either agree or not be involved at all, and that just fragments the movement, which is why Marxists groups are always breaking up. I speak through experience: I am a former member of a Marxist group.
> 
> A lot of people - here and in the media generally - have been saying: OK, so you occupy a public space and discuss ideas - then what? *I think the answer is, to use a Marxist term, to concentrate on raising people's political awareness*, as the Occupation movement has done already. _*Hopefully an informal leadership - made up of those with leadership qualities - will come out of this*_ and will lead to some more concrete ideas being formed - what to replace the present economic and political system with. It won't lead to an earthly paradise but if it leads to a better society than we have at present, the whole thing will have been worth it.
> 
> ...



You sound like a convinced Leninist - which perhaps is what explains the poor grasp of either Marxism or democracy.


----------



## Dr Dolittle (Oct 21, 2011)

I am certainly not a Leninist. If you think I have a poor grasp of Marxism or democracy, I'd appreciate it if you say why you think this. But before you or anyone else says anything, I am not a Marxist in the traditional sense - I just support certain aspects of Marxism.


----------



## Red Storm (Oct 21, 2011)

Better video from Melbourne: http://video.dailytelegraph.com.au/2157468584/Occupy-Melbourne-protest-chaos?area=videoindex2


There time will come.


----------



## 8ball (Oct 21, 2011)

Looks to me more like 'trying to carry off poeple while they're struggling' than 'brutality' as such.

Hard to see if there are any sneaky digs once the cops have people covered, I suppose, but they're not openly beating or pepper-spraying people...


----------



## chilango (Oct 21, 2011)

Red Storm said:


> Better video from Melbourne: http://video.dailytelegraph.com.au/2157468584/Occupy-Melbourne-protest-chaos?area=videoindex2
> 
> There time will come.



Still not exactly brutal is it?

Bunch of passive protesters being dragged a short distance by relatively calm cops.

Don't quite know what people are expecting if that's labelled as "brutality". All seems very civilised - on both sides - in those videos.


----------



## past caring (Oct 21, 2011)

Dr Dolittle said:


> I am certainly not a Leninist. If you think I have a poor grasp of Marxism or democracy, I'd appreciate it if you say why you think this. But before you or anyone else says anything, I am not a Marxist in the traditional sense - I just support certain aspects of Marxism.



Not really the thread for it - but the bits I highlighted would, I'd have thought, pointed to the answers;

How is an "informal" leadership democratic? How is it to be held to account? What are the roles of leader and led? Why is a leadership necessary? How does this square with democracy? Putting those questions, aside, what are these "leadership qualities" - how do we acquire them? Are we born with them? Do they get learnt? How do those who do not have these qualities get to participate?

As for the democracy bit? Square the notion with not agreeing with something leading inevitably to non-participation/taking your ball home.


----------



## GEN.Eccentric (Oct 21, 2011)

8ball said:


> How are you going to draw the line at what is 'offensive'? What about New Yorkers who were in town the day of 9/11 - isn't it legitimate that they feel offended by these 'Truther' wingnuts?



Im not! Nobody should decide what is legitimate for someone else to be offended by.


----------



## 8ball (Oct 21, 2011)

GEN.Eccentric said:


> Im not! Nobody should decide what is legitimate for someone else to be offended by.



This seems to render your prior post saying things should be non-hostilely debated 'unless offensive' a little meaningless, doesn't it?


----------



## GEN.Eccentric (Oct 21, 2011)

8ball said:


> This seems to render your prior post saying things should be non-hostilely debated 'unless offensive' a little meaningless, doesn't it?


Ok if I found you offensive I would say so and if someoen else found you offensive and didn't feel they could say so and I knew that I would say so, I would tell you in no uncertain terms your views were not up for discussion here and not with me and would tell you why until you fucked off. I dont see how that translates into your pedantic refusal to recognise its fairly obvious what is offensive without people needing to legitimise what they think.


----------



## 8ball (Oct 21, 2011)

So the Truthers _are_ offensive and shouldn't be engaged with?


----------



## GEN.Eccentric (Oct 21, 2011)

Your the one who brought 9/11 up, tbh I dont give a fuck Im not from the USA, maybe I would want to ask them why they are so interested in that and not the illegal and vastly profitable wars it has been used to justify. All that Alex Jones shit is so fucking predictable zionist conspiracy etc. I can see that being offensive and I dont have any time for it myself. I wouldnt be immediately dismissive of everyone who has been taken in by it though, people do change their minds, theres a big difference between Alex Jones fan club and someone who questions what the MSM tells them is patriotic to think.


----------



## Dr Dolittle (Oct 21, 2011)

past caring said:


> Not really the thread for it - but the bits I highlighted would, I'd have thought, pointed to the answers;
> 
> How is an "informal" leadership democratic? How is it to be held to account? What are the roles of leader and led? Why is a leadership necessary? How does this square with democracy? Putting those questions, aside, what are these "leadership qualities" - how do we acquire them? Are we born with them? Do they get learnt? How do those who do not have these qualities get to participate?
> 
> As for the democracy bit? Square the notion with not agreeing with something leading inevitably to non-participation/taking your ball home.


Lots of questions there. I'll try and answer them, and I think it is relevant to this thread because the Occupation is partly about trying to create a valid democracy.

By an 'informal' leadership I mean one where the leaders are not people holding any official position, but who self-evidently have natural leadership or at least organising qualities. Do you have a problem about leadership? That's what it sounds like to me. Are you saying leadership is undemocratic? If so, I can only call that stupid. To get things done when there are more than a small handful of people involved you have to have a leadership of some kind. To think otherwise is completely utopian.

As for where people get their leadership qualities from, I don't know why you think that's important. Some people have leadership qualities because they have that sort of personality. I don't see that it matters whether you are born with those qualities or you learn them.

I'm not sure where you're coming from on this, but you're ideas about democracy sound daft to me.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Oct 21, 2011)

The occupations are chiefly anti bank in character. The 99% is a reference to economic status but heavily implies opinion as well. Of course, no one viewpoint is held by 99%. The nature of the occupations is therefore diverse. I have been keener on advancing standard anti capitalist stuff and sticking to agreed positions. But in the end, if you are in a public space you have very little right to tell people not to go on about other things, especially banking related things. I have spent years trying to find common ground between "truthers" and the "broad left" and to little avail. I am naturally far more of the latter camp, but I also think there is a lot of conspiracy afoot. I do not think challenging banking is, or needs to be seen as, anti semitic. Anti semites are just damaging their own anti bank cause. A lot of UK Uncut I know are quite "truthy" inclined and aren't remotely anti semitic.

Anyway, both camps who now find themselves on the street together are too often imbued with not a little arrogance and lacking in willingness to comprimise in debate.  They prefer denouncements to common ground. I get it from both sides all the time. Aside from the shouty pissheads of the kind  who did for the Manchester occ, this is probably one of the biggest threats to unity.


----------



## Blagsta (Oct 21, 2011)

There is very little common ground between "truthers" and the broad left. This is due to "truthers" generally being right wing arseholes.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Oct 21, 2011)

Blagsta said:


> There is very little common ground between "truthers" and the broad left. This is due to "truthers" generally being right wing arseholes.



Some are, many more are a political vacuum really, they only know what they are against. The left could do a lot worse than try and recruit a few. Many actually are left leaning, strongly anti-racist anti homophobic etc. UK Uncut is not without quite a few truthers and is basically centre left politically.


----------



## Blagsta (Oct 21, 2011)

My experience of dealing with "truthers" over the last few days tells me otherwise. The really active ones know they are being anti-semitic.


----------



## redsquirrel (Oct 22, 2011)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> I have spent years trying to find common ground between "truthers" and the "broad left" and to little avail.


Excellent, I'm extremely glad that most people aren't falling for your attempts to connect the two together.

Hopefully most people can see through your pathetic defence of these anti-semitic twats.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 22, 2011)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> strongly anti-racist anti homophobic etc.



So are some EDL members.


----------



## Luther Blissett (Oct 22, 2011)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Some are, many more are a political vacuum really, they only know what they are against. The left could do a lot worse than try and recruit a few. Many actually are left leaning, strongly anti-racist anti homophobic etc. UK Uncut is not without quite a few truthers and is basically centre left politically.


They're in a political vacuum because they're impractically paranoid - they don't trust or lost trust in the mainstream news and government, so they go to alternative sites. I've met chemtrail believers from the hippy liberal left and the anti-immigrant xenophobic right. Many are left leaning, but many aren't. Many are anti-racist, but many aren't.

I'm not open to being recruited for anything that doesn't support the Occupy movement - locally globally.
I am going to re-read Horizontalidad again though http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizontalidad


> Horizontalidad requires the use of direct democracy and implies non-hierarchy and anti-authoritarian creation rather than reaction. It is a break with vertical ways of organizing and relating, but a break that is also an opening. When explaining how an asamblea or unemployed workers movement functions, in the months and even years after the rebellion it was common to have people set the palms of their hands to face down and then to move them back and forth to indicate a flat plane, as well, in order to indicate how it does not function, joining the tips of their fingers together to form a kind of triangle or pyramid. Horizontalidad in many ways is these hand gestures with the knowledge that they genuinely represent a new and powerful set of social relations.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Oct 22, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> So are some EDL members.


Are they fuck. That's cover FW and well you know it. LGBT Division has less activists than you could count on a hand.  Their FB page has had nothing new since August. About as un racist as the EDL get is the "some of my best friends..."canard. As someone so virulently anti EDL why are you now using their lies to try and back up a separate point? Perhaps because that point isn't as strong as you assume.

redsquirrel:

Leftists blanket insisting that "truthers" are anti semites is in the same category of analysis as truthers supposing that leftists are dupes for you-know-who (not the jews btw, the general THEM). I've known quite a few truthers of varying degrees of activism. If one of them blurted anything smacking of anti semitism I would rip them to shit. I think I saw it happen once on Facebook. Others here have linked to stuff that is revolting on Icke's site, but on the whole it is lazy thinking.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 22, 2011)

no, not really. and there are sikh, hindu etc activists in the edl.


----------



## redsquirrel (Oct 22, 2011)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> LI've known quite a few truthers of varying degrees of activism. If one of them blurted anything smacking of anti semitism I would rip them to shit.


Cobblers, you've repeatedly defended people using the Protocols.

Though I will admit not all conspiracy loons are anti-semtic, that said the scene as a whole is full to the brim with this crap.


----------



## dylans (Oct 22, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> no, not really. and there are sikh, hindu etc activists in the edl.



Given that Islam and the Muslim community are their targets, it is not surprising that they are attractive to some Sikhs and Hindus given the long history of anti Muslim communalism amongst these groups. Though you are certainly right that the EDL do not target the traditional scapegoats of the far right and it makes for some bizarre images and strange bedfellows like them waving the Israeli flag or claiming to support LG rights.

It is lazy however of some to simply dismiss their language of championing LG rights and Israel etc as simply lies. I'm sure it is for some and I wonder how their few Sikh and Hindu followers feel when their comrades launch into random racist abuse at any Asian person they see but Its reasonable to assume that their attacks on the "illiberalism" and homophobia within Islam makes them attractive to some Gay people and to some who fall for the paranoid discourse that liberal values are somehow under "threat from "Islam." That of course is the whole point of their approach and it would be naive to think it doesn't sometimes have some success or that it doesn't represent a genuinely novel ideological approach for a far right movement


----------



## Dr Dolittle (Oct 22, 2011)

Who exactly are these 'truthers?'


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Oct 23, 2011)

redsquirrel said:


> Cobblers, you've repeatedly defended people using the Protocols.
> 
> Though I will admit not all conspiracy loons are anti-semtic, that said the scene as a whole is full to the brim with this crap.



I haven't defended people using the Protocols as it happens. But making stuff up isn't the exclusive preserve of one bunch.


----------



## 8ball (Oct 23, 2011)

redsquirrel said:


> Though I will admit not all conspiracy loons are anti-semtic, that said the scene as a whole is full to the brim with this crap.



Would you say the conspiraloons should be marginalised by the occupy 'movements' - because it's all been very inclusive so far.


----------



## Blagsta (Oct 23, 2011)

Yes I think they should be excluded. They make it look like everyone involved is a crackpot.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 23, 2011)

dylans said:


> Given that Islam and the Muslim community are their targets, it is not surprising that they are attractive to some Sikhs and Hindus given the long history of anti Muslim communalism amongst these groups. Though you are certainly right that the EDL do not target the traditional scapegoats of the far right and it makes for some bizarre images and strange bedfellows like them waving the Israeli flag or claiming to support LG rights.
> 
> It is lazy however of some to simply dismiss their language of championing LG rights and Israel etc as simply lies. I'm sure it is for some and I wonder how their few Sikh and Hindu followers feel when their comrades launch into random racist abuse at any Asian person they see but Its reasonable to assume that their attacks on the "illiberalism" and homophobia within Islam makes them attractive to some Gay people and to some who fall for the paranoid discourse that liberal values are somehow under "threat from "Islam." That of course is the whole point of their approach and it would be naive to think it doesn't sometimes have some success or that it doesn't represent a genuinely novel ideological approach for a far right movement



Yep. It's using the language of anti-fascism and anti-racism to promote the ideas of the hard right (which tbh, isn't a new thing - the original far-right movements of the early 20th century also did it to some extent). And I don't think in many cases they are just lying, either. It would be a lot easier to assume that they're all lying and they're just neo-nazis and that, but it isn't true at all. Anyway I'm sure most people here know this


----------



## 8ball (Oct 23, 2011)

Blagsta said:


> Yes I think they should be excluded. They make it look like everyone involved is a crackpot.



That's my feeling on the matter too.  Whenever I mention defining specific aims and making clear what movements are _not_ about I find there isn't much enthusiasm for the idea.

I support many of the aims expressed by OWS, but not some of them (because there is no 'mouthpiece' as such it seems its only possible to as specific individuals what they think it is all about).  I think as well as making it infinitey 'smearable' it's also a bit alienating to a lot of people who really would like to be fully on side.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 23, 2011)

I do think though that a lot of the people who might believe this stuff are very young. I'd be a bit wary about excluding everyone who was into loon stuff. In my area the local anti-cuts organisation has had quite a lot of success in talking to young EDL supporters on stalls and stuff. Many people just don't realise what it is or what they've joined. The cadres and "leading figures" in the 9/11 truth stuff, well, fuck them, and fuck the people like those pricks on the facebook page. But I think that the "problem" is a lot bigger than just a few pricks and it's a wider attitude. I've had a few conversations on facebook on another group, one where it mostly seems to be young teenagers posting, and it's full of this sort of stuff too. I've got no problem with chucking out the main twats but what do we do about people who are just getting involved and don't know the score?

I'm wondering what the use would be in that situation in producing a leaflet or something about myths and facts about conspiracy theories, chemtrails and the like, but how to do it in a way that made it absolutely clear that you weren't being an apologist for the banks or something (which I know none of us are, but someone skim reading it may not)? Would it be worthwhile trying to produce such a thing?


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 23, 2011)

redsquirrel said:


> Cobblers, you've repeatedly defended people using the Protocols.
> 
> Though I will admit not all conspiracy loons are anti-semtic, that said the scene as a whole is full to the brim with this crap.


I've heard the theory that the protocols are true, but they weren't written by jews, they were written by their real authors "as if" it was the jews, in order to smear them and in the meantime carry on with taking over the world in exactly the same style as the protocols describe. it is possible to believe this theory and not be an anti-semite, but it's pretty bonkers and requires large levels of mental gymnastics (leaving aside the fact that "taking over the world" like the protocols say is basically impossible)


----------



## treelover (Oct 23, 2011)

loads more of this stuff on the OLSX FB site...


----------



## 8ball (Oct 23, 2011)

treelover said:


> loads more of this stuff on the OLSX FB site...



Loads more of which stuff specifically?


----------



## chilango (Oct 24, 2011)

To be honest the whole "truther" issue is by the by. I've yet to meet anybody IRL who has a positive thing to say about the occupations in London. Few people I know have even mentioned it, and the few that have are easily dismissive of what understandably enough appears to a very small, very fringe largely pointless and ineffective protest. The same people however are still talking about the Summer riots and industrial action.

There's a lesson there.


----------



## Dr Dolittle (Oct 24, 2011)

Oh, pessimism, pessimism! Rome wasn't built in a day - give it time, the whole thing's less than a month old. Tesco began as a market stall in the East End. If he'd taken your attitude, would Tesco now be Britain's biggest supermarket? No, of course not - it would never have existed. And there are hundreds of these camps all over the world, including now a second London one (and they're planning more). What more do you want?


----------



## Dr Dolittle (Oct 24, 2011)

Is anyone on this forum actively involved in the Occupy movement - whether or not you are actually camping there? I go down to the Bristol camp a few times each week, it's only a half hour walk. The camp is very well organised, and attracts a lot of attention from local people. I've yet to encounter any hostility - the worst thing we get is a few rowdy drunks, and the occasional beggar.

And whether you're involved or not, do you know of any really good source of information that tells us what's going on in the movement worldwide? There's a few Facebook pages, but they're not very informative - it's mostly just general chat, and the usual inane comments. Good information is crucial if this campaign is to succeed. So far the best sources I've found have been this forum and the mainstream media.


----------



## BigTom (Oct 24, 2011)

yeah, I'm actively involved in Birmingham.. but spending much of my time batting away conspiraloons and trying to bang some sense into freeman of the land types.. there are a fair few decent people there though..

No idea about getting info worldwide, I think you'll have to be looking at each of them.. though you might find something like @occupyengland for other places as well, I don't know.

http://www.themultitude.org/
Looks to be a good place for Wall Street and will probably find info about other USA occupations - there is a section for them in the forum but it doesn't look very busy.


----------



## chilango (Oct 25, 2011)

Dr Dolittle said:


> Oh, pessimism, pessimism! Rome wasn't built in a day - give it time, the whole thing's less than a month old. Tesco began as a market stall in the East End. If he'd taken your attitude, would Tesco now be Britain's biggest supermarket? No, of course not - it would never have existed. And there are hundreds of these camps all over the world, including now a second London one (and they're planning more). What more do you want?



Don't shoot the messenger! Just relaying my experiences.

I'd be delighted if these occupations were the start of something. Sure, I'm very skeptical that they will be, but it would be lovely to be wrong.


----------



## redsquirrel (Oct 26, 2011)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> I haven't defended people using the Protocols as it happens. But making stuff up isn't the exclusive preserve of one bunch.


You've repeatably defended Icke.



			
				8ball said:
			
		

> Would you say the conspiraloons should be marginalised by the occupy 'movements' - because it's all been very inclusive so far.


Sorry for the slow reply, I've not had internets access for the last few days. My feelings are the same as yours and Blagsta's, they should be excluded. At best these people are so daft that I wouldn't trust them to organise a piss up and at worst they're full on anti-semites. And if we show that we won't tolerate such crap we might stop a few people falling into the scene.


----------



## free spirit (Oct 26, 2011)

problem with excluding 'conspiraloons' is where any line should be drawn.

The neoliberalist globalisation policies of the last 30 years didn't come about by accident, they were formulated, spread and enforced by multiple formal or informal networks and organisations of the global elite.

To some this statement could be construed as conspiraloon stuff, but any anti-neoliberalist movement that doesn't recognise and understand at least the gist of what they're up against is doomed to abject failure IMO.

People making out that the twin towers were brought down by explosives etc though would have the potential to completely disrupt any movement and rapidly turn it into a laughing stock.


----------



## krink (Oct 26, 2011)

On the subject of the tinfoil-hat brigades, I was reading on the occupy lsx blog that some christian group or other had started supporting occupy movement and that made me think; if you ban one set of fairy tale believers, you'd surely have to ban them all?


----------



## 8ball (Oct 26, 2011)

krink said:


> On the subject of the tinfoil-hat brigades, I was reading on the occupy lsx blog that some christian group or other had started supporting occupy movement and that made me think; if you ban one set of fairy tale believers, you'd surely have to ban them all?



So long as the Christians are happy to admit that their fairytales are completely unsupported by actual evidence I'd allow them in.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Oct 27, 2011)

redsquirrel said:


> You've repeatably defended Icke.



And so the goal posts shift. You accused me of defending people using the protocols. I don't. Icke says some interesting stuff, although it is generally standard new age. If Icke says something worthwhile I will defend it. If he says something far out, I will say "that's far out" If he says something offensive I will attack it, though people usually attack him by proxy because people come out with lunacy on his site, which is somewhat different. In truth I don't much follow what he says at all. But what I am exhibiting is the ability to take each statement on it's merits rather than have a blanket response to things. This is why I am constantly flamed by self appointed "truthers" who call me an "eco fascist" "useful idiot" etc.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Oct 27, 2011)

I don't know why the St Pauls lot are worried about money. Matthew 6 v26 covers it ("consider the birds of the air...")


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 27, 2011)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> And so the goal posts shift. You accused me of defending people using the protocols. I don't. Icke says some interesting stuff, although it is generally standard new age. If Icke says something worthwhile I will defend it. If he says something far out, I will say "that's far out" If he says something offensive I will attack it, though people usually attack him by proxy because people come out with lunacy on his site, which is somewhat different. In truth I don't much follow what he says at all. But what I am exhibiting is the ability to take each statement on it's merits rather than have a blanket response to things. This is why I am constantly flamed by self appointed "truthers" who call me an "eco fascist" "useful idiot" etc.


What you actually do is refused to see that the loon bits undermine the entirety of what Icke and his racist pals say. You make a deliberate _choice_ to only see part of the picture. You're actually, in this instance, refusing to connect the dots - whereas the usual MO for conspiraloons to is to see dots everywhere.


----------



## Zabo (Oct 27, 2011)

The City 'occupation' A total fuck up. Summed up perfectly by Roger McGough

The Leader

I wanna be the leader
I wanna be the leader
Can I be the leader?
Can I? I can?
Promise? Promise?
Yippee I'm the leader
I'm the leader

OK what shall we do?


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Oct 27, 2011)

And now for a short break to consider the antics of Greece's very own "Riot Granny"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFBFLTduFtE


----------



## redsquirrel (Oct 27, 2011)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> And so the goal posts shift. You accused me of defending people using the protocols. I don't. Icke says some interesting stuff, although it is generally standard new age.


No goalposts have shifted. I accused you using off defending people who have used/quoted the POEZ, _such as Icke_,


> In _The Robots' Rebellion_ (1994), Icke introduced the idea that the Global Elite's plan for world domination was laid out in_The Protocols of the Elders of Zion_, a hoax published in Russia in 1903, which supposedly presented a plan by the Jewish people to take over the world.


(from here).
And you've repeatably argued against him being an anti-semite on a number of threads.

At first I just thought this was ignorance on your part but now as BA says I don't think it can be anything but a deliberate refusal to overlook this crap. Something that puts you into the same camp as the twats coming out with this shit in the first place.

ETA
Another example (post 107) of your willingness to overlook the nature of the Protocols



			
				taffboy gwyrdd said:
			
		

> and I don't know how much truth might have been mixed with the "Elders" lies in saying so.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 28, 2011)

Some very interesting thoughts here:

I am not the 99%



> Interestingly enough, the idea according to which the reasons of the bigger numbers are indisputably more ethically grounded than those of the minority seem to have extended well beyond the boundaries of today’s political Western majority. Indeed, it was with a shiver that I witnessed the sudden popularity of the most famous slogan coming out of the Occupy Wall Street movement. ‘We are the 99%’ they said, leaving implicit in this short sentence that the demands of the 99%, by definition, have an ethical legitimacy that those of the 1% do not have. If the 99% wants it, the 1% has to accept it. Numbers spoke.



[...]



> One could also question the internal consistency of this supposed 99%. Are factory workers, night-time cleaners, prostitutes, lawyers, dentists, teachers, soldiers, generals, prisoners and prison guards all part of the same 99%? Ernesto Laclau would answer that this issue does not really matter, as the 99% is indeed an empty signifier that functions as a pole of aggregation for different groups and demands, towards the creation of a populist movement. As long as it works for the achievement of emancipatory aims and the improvement of social justice, Laclau would claim, populism is a useful political tool.


----------



## treelover (Oct 28, 2011)

http://www.frontlineclub.com/events/2011/11/first-wednesday-15.html

*First Wednesday: #Occupy - What do they want?*

*book*

*




*
*Date:*November 2, 2011 7:00 PM

'What began in the financial district of New York City in mid September under the name Occupy Wall Street has become a movement that is spreading across the globe. But what do they want and how do they intend to achieve their goals? Are their aims realistic? Can they have any impact?
Join us at the Frontline Club to debate the aims and objectives of the Occupy movement and to discuss whether it can bring about any change.
The tent cities springing up across the US, the UK, Australia and elsewhere have been compared to the scenes we saw earlier this year in Tahrir Square but is there a common bond?'

sounds interesting


----------



## Dr Dolittle (Oct 28, 2011)

I talked to one of the Occupy Bristol activists about this yesterday. She explained that they don't want to arrogantly claim that they have all the answers, they want to listen to the people of Bristol and find out what they want. That's why the group appear to have no specific aims.

I understand and appreciate this, but is it going to lead anywhere? I suspect not: all that can be concluded from this is that different people want different things, and we know that already. They don't seem to have any plan for what to do after everyone who is interested has told them what they want. It is rather like saying that if monkeys worked a keyboard for long enough, they would eventually produce the complete works of Shakespeare.

The occupation has been compared with Tahrir Square, but there's an important difference. Those occupiers knew exactly what they wanted: they wanted President Mubarak to go, and for his dictatorship to be replaced by a democracy. The Occupation movement are deliberately making no demands at all, and for this reason, although I continue to support them, I find there is a limit to how much I can support them. As the occupation has spread around the world to hundreds of cities, I feel this is a wasted opportunity. I think what people are waiting for is the emergence of a political leadership, and they are refusing to provide one.


----------



## Kizmet (Oct 28, 2011)

Good thing too!


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 28, 2011)

Dr Dolittle said:


> I talked to one of the Occupy Bristol activists about this yesterday. She explained that they don't want to arrogantly claim that they have all the answers, they want to listen to the people of Bristol and find out what they want. That's why the group appear to have no specific aims.
> 
> I understand and appreciate this, but is it going to lead anywhere? I suspect not: all that can be concluded from this is that different people want different things, and we know that already. They don't seem to have any plan for what to do after everyone who is interested has told them what they want. It is rather like saying that if monkeys worked a keyboard for long enough, they would eventually produce the complete works of Shakespeare.
> 
> The occupation has been compared with Tahrir Square, but there's an important difference. Those occupiers knew exactly what they wanted: they wanted President Mubarak to go, and for his dictatorship to be replaced by a democracy. The Occupation movement are deliberately making no demands at all, and for this reason, although I continue to support them, I find there is a limit to how much I can support them. As the occupation has spread around the world to hundreds of cities, I feel this is a wasted opportunity. I think what people are waiting for is the emergence of a political leadership, and they are refusing to provide one.


The bristol lot are now just hanging around for the fight over the Remembrance Sunday IMO. Some Opportunity to tie together the local authorities, main parties and local bigwigs - not a huge a deal really.


----------



## Random (Oct 28, 2011)

Dr Dolittle said:


> The Occupation movement are deliberately making no demands at all, and for this reason, although I continue to support them, I find there is a limit to how much I can support them. As the occupation has spread around the world to hundreds of cities, I feel this is a wasted opportunity. I think what people are waiting for is the emergence of a political leadership, and they are refusing to provide one.


No, I think it's a good thing. Any demands that they came up with would be crap, let's face it. I sort of agree with Zizek when he says



> All we say now can be taken from us – everything except our silence. This silence, this rejection of dialogue, of all forms of clinching, is our "terror", ominous and threatening as it should be.


 And I think we just need to go with this terror, rather than squirming uncomfortably and hoping it'll resolve into clear demands, or a political leadership.

edit: speaking as something less than a spectator myself here


----------



## Dr Dolittle (Oct 28, 2011)

Random said:


> No, I think it's a good thing. Any demands that they came up with would be crap, let's face it. I sort of agree with Zizek when he says
> 
> And I think we just need to go with this terror, rather than squirming uncomfortably and hoping it'll resolve into clear demands, or a political leadership.
> 
> edit: speaking as something less than a spectator myself here


I don't understand. What is this "terror" you talk about, and what do you expect it to achieve?


----------



## Dr Dolittle (Oct 28, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> The bristol lot are now just hanging around for the fight over the Remembrance Sunday IMO. Some Opportunity to tie together the local authorities, main parties and local bigwigs - not a huge a deal really.


What makes you think that? This "fight" over Remembrance Sunday seems to be a rumour started by outsiders. The occupiers have insisted they have no intention of disrupting the Remembrance Day parade, and why should they want to? It has no relevance to why they are there, and since they want the people of Bristol to support them, it would hardly be in their interest to do so.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 28, 2011)

Here's where lack of coherence and refusal of responsibility can lead - need to read the whole thing:



> By the Tuesday, I was sufficiently concerned at some of the things that I was hearing about the camp that on one of my regular visits, I drew aside an activist that I knew to express my misgivings, where he confirmed that there was a level of dodgy politics within the camp, but that their overwhelming issue was with vunerable and aggressive people turning up. I grew even more concerned at this but he assured me that while he would take what I had raised on board it was all in hand and a “safer spaces” policy had been implimented that evening.
> 
> I first heard the news on Wednesday lunchtime. Reporting was sparce however it was apparent that a rape had occurred within the camp. Later it transpired that she had arrived at the camp and despite the Occupy Glasgow’s efforts to obtain her accomodation, she was not offered anything suitable, despite being six months pregnant. This is absolutely shocking and a disgusting reflection on Glasgow City Council. Occupy Glasgow should be commended for the efforts that they put into attempting to obtain her suitable accomodation in the face of an uncaring beaurocracy, yet must also be held responsible for what happened next. They eventually offered her and her partner a tent for the night – the most prominent tent in the entire camp, right at the front and in full view of the square. From that moment on, fully knowing her vulnerability, her pregnancy and lack of accomodation, they had full responsibility for her safety as with any other member of the camp. Her partner left shortly afterwards then, according to press reports a group of men turned up and started drinking with some of the occupiers, then entered the tent. Occupiers overheard her crying and the men emerged from the tent offering them “shots”. Where upon they called the police.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 28, 2011)

Dr Dolittle said:


> What makes you think that? This "fight" over Remembrance Sunday seems to be a rumour started by outsiders. The occupiers have insisted they have no intention of disrupting the Remembrance Day parade, and why should they want to? It has no relevance to why they are there, and since they want the people of Bristol to support them, it would hardly be in their interest to do so.


By 'fight' i mean attempt to evict them before that date, which the church have now pretty much asked the council to do on their behalf via behind the scenes nods and winks. It's not a rumour - local councilors have been lining up to demand it as has the local lib-dem MP. You appear to have misread my post as saying the occupiers want to start fights,when i was,in fact,saying he fight to stop eviction appears to be one of the few things holding it together right now,and that it does offer some (limited) opps for highlighting how the local power structures operate.


----------



## Random (Oct 28, 2011)

Dr Dolittle said:


> I don't understand. What is this "terror" you talk about, and what do you expect it to achieve?


Zizek is being typically hyperbollic here, calling it terror. He means that a refusal to frame demands makes the power systems uncomfortable. Something that's not been articulated can't be assimilated. What I want it to achieve is a negative thing: to avoid recuperation by liberal politicians who are "sympathetic" but want more coherance.


----------



## Dr Dolittle (Oct 28, 2011)

OK, Butchers, thanks for clarifying that. Yes, there seems to be a lot of confusion in the media about the connection between the camp and Remembrance Day. But from the point of view of the campaigners, there is no connection at all.

College Green is owned by the Cathedral and leased to the Council. For the benefit of those of you outside Bristol, the Green has the Cathedral on one side and the Council House (town hall) on the other. I expect both want the occupiers to leave because they find the camp an embarrassment: to tolerate its presence might be interpreted by others as supporting the occupiers.

You've read my criticism that they lack specific aims, echoing what lots of other people have said, but the fact that they (and all the other camps, especially the London ones) are there is important because it keeps people talking. Conventional demos are forgotten within a few days, and online campaigns become mere talking shops that go unnoticed by people not looking for them apart from a few who discover them by chance. I assume that's why College Green was chosen, because of its prominent location, with a main road along one side and well-used footpaths along the other sides, not because of what buildings are adjacent to it.


----------



## LLETSA (Oct 28, 2011)

Random said:


> Zizek is being typically hyperbollic here, calling it terror. He means that a refusal to frame demands makes the power systems uncomfortable. Something that's not been articulated can't be assimilated. What I want it to achieve is a negative thing: to avoid recuperation by liberal politicians who are "sympathetic" but want more coherance.


 
Something that hasn't been articulated can't be implemented either, so everything stays the same.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 28, 2011)

Random said:


> Zizek is being typically hyperbollic here, calling it terror. He means that a refusal to frame demands makes the power systems uncomfortable. Something that's not been articulated can't be assimilated. What I want it to achieve is a negative thing: to avoid recuperation by liberal politicians who are "sympathetic" but want more coherance.


Well, this is what's happening in Bristol today - some of the occupiers are going to meet the lib-dem council leader on the basis that they have much in common. The lib-dem council leader currently cutting services and sacking workers left right and centre. The politicians know exactly how to deal with this no demands nonsense-you recuperate the more naive liberal part - call it dialogue,call it working together - cause internal conflicts then move hard. No  demands is actually feeding that recuperation as these people feel free to just go and do this dialogue with the enemy - _in a personal capacity._

No _honest_ demands would be a better approach.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 28, 2011)

Dr Dolittle said:


> OK, Butchers, thanks for clarifying that. Yes, there seems to be a lot of confusion in the media about the connection between the camp and Remembrance Day. But from the point of view of the campaigners, there is no connection at all.
> 
> College Green is owned by the Cathedral and leased to the Council. For the benefit of those of you outside Bristol, the Green has the Cathedral on one side and the Council House (town hall) on the other. I expect both want the occupiers to leave because they find the camp an embarrassment: to tolerate its presence might be interpreted by others as supporting the occupiers.
> 
> You've read my criticism that they lack specific aims, echoing what lots of other people have said, but the fact that they (and all the other camps, especially the London ones) are there is important because it keeps people talking. Conventional demos are forgotten within a few days, and online campaigns become mere talking shops that go unnoticed by people not looking for them apart from a few who discover them by chance. I assume that's why College Green was chosen, because of its prominent location, with a main road along one side and well-used footpaths along the other sides, not because of what buildings are adjacent to it.



It's not all about the campaigners though- the local parties are doing their best to take advantage in whatever ways they see fit right now- forsome of them it is in looking tough and politically hard, and part of that is this Remembrance day rubbish.

As far as i know College Green was chosen because there's been centuries of protests there - it's got massive symbolic value locally. I'm not attacking the occupiers here btw - i'm just pointing out where think things are heading.


----------



## Fruitloop (Oct 28, 2011)

I wonder how many people who were involved in the london riots are involved in the occupy protest?


----------



## Random (Oct 28, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Well, this is what's happening in Bristol today - some of the occupiers are going to meet the lib-dem council leader on the basis that they have much in common.


 Depressing stuff. But a process that produces demands everyone could agree on would also produce demands that these liberal Occupyers like. Nothing is better than taht.


----------



## Dr Dolittle (Oct 28, 2011)

Random said:


> Zizek is being typically hyperbollic here, calling it terror. He means that a refusal to frame demands makes the power systems uncomfortable. Something that's not been articulated can't be assimilated. What I want it to achieve is a negative thing: to avoid recuperation by liberal politicians who are "sympathetic" but want more coherance.


This way of thinking is completely foreign to me, and I'm trying to work out if there is method in your (and Zizak's) madness before I rubbish it like most other people would, since I'm certainly not without some eccentric ideas of my own.

My impression is that this is the mental equivalent of non-violent direct action. If police action is defended against non-violently, this makes it difficult for the police to justify using violence themselves. Similarly, if no specific demands are made, the enemy have no target to aim at. Am I getting warm?


----------



## TruXta (Oct 28, 2011)

Something like that yes. In the absence of articulated demands the movement can presumably not be co-opted by "outside interests".


----------



## Random (Oct 28, 2011)

No, not really. You can read the full article here http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/oct/26/occupy-protesters-bill-clinton or just skip to the last six paragraphs.


----------



## TruXta (Oct 28, 2011)

Clearly I'm full of shit. And I'd even read that piece a while back...


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 28, 2011)

Random said:


> Depressing stuff. But a process that produces demands everyone could agree on would also produce demands that these liberal Occupyers like. Nothing is better than taht.


What's a demand though? Is stopping the sale of mobile libraries a demand - or is it a small victory? That's the two things that are being opposed to each other by a lot of people involved in this. I think the no demands things actually doesn't come out of the claimed desire not to introduce faultlines within the people involved but out of their lack of power and wider social isolation. If they had power they'd be winning (or at least attempting to win) the small victories i've mentioned before (stopping home repossessions and auctions,stopping utility cut-offs and so on). These things are demands though aren't they? The nebulous thinking of many extends to what demands actually are as well...


----------



## chilango (Oct 28, 2011)

That Zizek quote is _cool_.

I might use it for a painting.

*But* it works on the premise that dialogue is being seriously offered. I don't think it is.

Buthcers is imo on the money with small victories thing.

There is afaik no _#occupy_ thing in my city. But the other night several hundred people (relatively spontaneously) marched round the neighbourhood against evictions. Banners now hang in the area calling for every eviction to be fought and signed by a "housing and territory" neighborhood committee. Interesting stuff.


----------



## Blagsta (Oct 28, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> What's a demand though? Is stopping the sale of mobile libraries a demand - or is it a small victory? That's the two things that are being opposed to each other by a lot of people involved in this. I think the no demands things actually doesn't come out of the claimed desire not to introduce faultlines within the people involved but out of their lack of power and wider social isolation. *If they had power they'd be winning (or at least attempting to win) the small victories i've mentioned before (stopping home repossessions and auctions,stopping utility cut-offs and so on).* These things are demands though aren't they? The nebulous thinking of many extends to what demands actually are as well...



Yeah, definitely.  The most depressing thing about the Occupy Birmingham camp is their lack of connection to anything concrete.  I've been down there and argued for support of the N30 public sector strikes, support of anti-cuts campaign, defending the NHS etc.  Some people agree, yet the Occupy camp as an entity can do nothing more than be there in Victoria Square and make vague statements about the banks.  The only attempt at actually doing anything (beyond posting You Tube vids on Facebook), is to try and defend against a possible eviction by appealing to the fucking Magna Carter!

Total fucking disconnection.  It's _so_ frustrating.


----------



## Blagsta (Oct 28, 2011)

chilango said:


> There is afaik no _#occupy_ thing in my city. But the other night several hundred people (relatively spontaneously) marched round the neighbourhood against evictions. Banners now hang in the area calling for every eviction to be fought and signed by a "housing and territory" neighborhood committee. Interesting stuff.



Which city is that?  Sounds really positive!


----------



## chilango (Oct 28, 2011)

Blagsta said:


> Which city is that? Sounds really positive!



Milan. Strong history of squatting in my area. Long running struggle against gentrification too. But does seem a step forward, and away from the more marginal/counter-cultural tendencies of some of the squatting scene. It does seem much more grass roots and inclusive.


----------



## Dr Dolittle (Oct 28, 2011)

Weren't the Situationists a bit like that - making philosophical demands that hardly anyone could understand?


----------



## chilango (Oct 28, 2011)

Dr Dolittle said:


> Weren't the Situationists a bit like that - making philosophical demands that hardly anyone could understand?



Absolutely not. They didn't make any demands as such. And were usually relatively easy to understand.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 28, 2011)

chilango said:


> That Zizek quote is _cool_.
> 
> I might use it for a painting.
> 
> ...


Now this is absolutely key - "marched round the *neighbourhood*".


----------



## chilango (Oct 28, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Now this is absolutely key - "marched round the *neighbourhood*".



Yeah. That's what struck me too. they didn't go to any symbolic place, anywhere especially visible or seat of power or anything. Just around a couple of blocks of housing.


----------



## Dr Dolittle (Oct 28, 2011)

Random said:


> No, not really. You can read the full article here http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/oct/26/occupy-protesters-bill-clinton or just skip to the last six paragraphs.


I've read that Guardian article, but I'm still not convinced. How long do they expect this to go on, and what do they expect to get at the end of it? Where do they imagine all this is  going, or are they just saying, "Let's wait and see"?

Until I get a satisfactory answer, I don't think I can support them anymore.


----------



## Kizmet (Oct 28, 2011)

Protection from gangs, clubs and nations
Causing grief in human relations
It's a turf war, on a global scale.
I'd rather hear all sides of the tale.
See, It's not about races
Just faces, places,
where your blood comes from,
it's where your space is,
I've seen the bright get duller
I'm not going to spend my life being a number.


To paraphrase the late, great Michael Jackson.


----------



## past caring (Oct 28, 2011)

He was another sex case.


----------



## Kizmet (Oct 28, 2011)

Whereas you have no balls at all.


----------



## sptme (Oct 28, 2011)

chilango said:


> Absolutely not. They didn't make any demands as such. And were usually relatively easy to understand.


Wasn't it the situationalists who said "be reasonable, demand the impossible"?


----------



## Luther Blissett (Oct 29, 2011)

Occupy Vancouver facebook page taken over by anti-Occupy: 






			
				Occupier said:
			
		

> Please note that the Occupy Vancouver page is being run by, or is continuously hacked by, someone who is attempting to discredit the movement. They have *blocked* me *from calling attention to it*, or posting the Occupy Vancouver page, run by the media committee. Please report. http://www.facebook.com/occupyvancouver?sk=wall&filter=2 Here is the page with real dialogue, from people who are actually participating. http://www.facebook.com/OccupyVanCity Hundreds of ppl have already left the hacked page.



 Also heard tales of Toronto's facebook page initially being spammed with Conspiracy Theorist videos/material - but now absent, thankfully. This has been happening in the UK too.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 29, 2011)

Can we keep stuff like that on the updates threads and this for thoughts please?


----------



## Luther Blissett (Oct 29, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Can we keep stuff like that on the updates threads and this for thoughts please?


Which updates threads?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 29, 2011)

Oh do fuck off,you know damn well the other occupy threads are being used to post the sort of info you just did.The occupy wallstreet one is being used a sort of clearing house for north american info for example. This is what the OP asked btw:



> I figure it might be worth having a seperate thread to discuss general thoughts on the movement(s) as a whole. Looking at the idea as a strategy, its content, etc etc. without clogging up threads on specific local actions.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 29, 2011)

> Furthermore, demands have an inimitable power to further conversation and debate that ripples far beyond us. It is the fabric through which people discuss their relationship to OWS, and through which people who can’t occupy that particular space – for reasons of geography, health status, job, and so on – can take the debates to their communities.



From here.

Perfect - that's how you make the thing relevant to wider groups of people, that's how you take the thing into branch meetings, to tenants meetings,to anti-cuts meetings,to pensioners meetings,to consumer groups meetings - and that's also _how you take these things into the occupy movement._That's how you make this thing live for people not at the occupations. This is how you get beyond this thing where criticisms are met with the suggestion that you go to london rather than them going to harctliffe or blackbird leys.


----------



## nino_savatte (Oct 29, 2011)

Dr Dolittle said:


> Weren't the Situationists a bit like that - making philosophical demands that hardly anyone could understand?



They were just bad translations imo but then, critical thinking and some basic philosophy isn't taught in most schools here.


----------



## ska invita (Oct 30, 2011)

New thing from Adam Curtis - not checked out myself yet:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/2011/10/dream_on.html

"*HOW THE LEFT BECAME PESSIMISTIC ABOUT THE FUTURE - AND GOT TRAPPED INSIDE THEIR OWN HEADS*
The protest movement that began with Occupy Wall Street is very clear about what it is against - an international capitalism that is cruel, unfair and untenable. But the movement refuses to say what it is for. Much of this refusal comes from a belief that modern capitalist society is extremely skilful at co-opting dissent and that any discussion with the media is the first step in being reabsorbed into 'the system'.
It also has the added benefit of irritating mainstream journalists and commentators.

I want to tell an odd, romantic, but ultimately very sad story that shows where this fear of possession on the left comes from. It is set during last the time that British, European and American students tried to be a vanguard for revolution. It shows how that fear can easily lead to a pessimistic belief that all one's dreams for a better future are just illusions - and how that pessimism then came to paralyse the left in Britain throughout the eighties and nineties..."


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 30, 2011)

I've just been sick inside myself


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Oct 30, 2011)

righteous anger


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 30, 2011)

> I want to tell an odd, romantic, but ultimately very sad story



Yeah,but i don't care


----------



## Brainaddict (Oct 30, 2011)

ska invita said:


> New thing from Adam Curtis - not checked out myself yet:
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/2011/10/dream_on.html
> 
> "*HOW THE LEFT BECAME PESSIMISTIC ABOUT THE FUTURE - AND GOT TRAPPED INSIDE THEIR OWN HEADS*
> "


God almighty he just keeps getting worse.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Oct 30, 2011)

ska invita said:


> New thing from Adam Curtis - not checked out myself yet:
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/2011/10/dream_on.html


Jesus fucking shit.


----------



## 8ball (Oct 30, 2011)

ska invita said:


> New thing from Adam Curtis - not checked out myself yet:
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/2011/10/dream_on.html
> "



I thought I'd seen an incredibly shite article from the shark-jumping Curtis too...

... but this was just an illusion.

<gets coat>


----------



## equationgirl (Oct 30, 2011)

ska invita said:


> New thing from Adam Curtis - not checked out myself yet:
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/2011/10/dream_on.html
> 
> "*HOW THE LEFT BECAME PESSIMISTIC ABOUT THE FUTURE - AND GOT TRAPPED INSIDE THEIR OWN HEADS*



That blog was just madness - I'm not sure it had a point to be honest.


----------



## 8ball (Oct 30, 2011)

equationgirl said:


> That blog was just madness - I'm not sure it had a point to be honest.



It has the look of some random stream-of-consciousness scribblings that have somehow ended up on the Beeb's website by accident.


----------



## ska invita (Oct 31, 2011)

Having read it now I see its nothing to do with Occupy.
 Good clips though


----------



## Delroy Booth (Oct 31, 2011)

I never understood the appeal of Adam Curtis, he talks absolute bollocks.


----------



## Fruitloop (Oct 31, 2011)

I quite liked that one actually.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 31, 2011)

Fruitloop said:


> I quite liked that one actually.


I did too, but on a trivial level. It's gossipy shit otherwise, and gossipy shit that is almost entirely about him and his world.


----------



## Brainaddict (Oct 31, 2011)

This adam curtis (ish) film is always worth seeing again

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1bX3F7uTrg


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 2, 2011)

...


----------



## Random (Nov 2, 2011)

Reading that blog article after watching the spoof film it's hard to take it seriously. The spoofer captures Curtis' style beautifully. "But they were mistaken". "A brilliant young film critic". And after reading the blog post I've still got no idea what coherent idea Curtis is putting forward. Apart from teh idea that lefties are all terribly silly and sad, and that Marcuse had some good ideas, but that Curtis has better ones.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 2, 2011)

Here's some local thoughts


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 2, 2011)

thanks for that butchers - the comments are also interesting.


----------



## treelover (Nov 3, 2011)

''March to Parliament
*Speakers:
*Caroline Lucas MP
John Pilger
Seumas Milne – Guardian​Kate Hudson – Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND)​Josie Long – UK Uncut & award-winning comedian​
Aaron Kiely, NUS Black Students’ Campaign
Stef Newton, NUS LGBT Campaign & National Campaign Against Fees & Cuts​Weymam Bennett, Unite Against Fascism'​
Has their been a coup against OLSX?, that list is basically a STW/SWP roster with plenty of fellow travellers


----------



## teahead (Nov 5, 2011)

xfer from #occupy London





butchersapron said:


> I don't think we are at cross purposes. I think you're just waffling and trying to sound clever.
> 
> The revolt against the factory and the subsequent rise in the social wage in the developed countries in the latter half of the 60s through until the 80s that forced down the average rate of profit and led to productive capital heading for the financial/speculative sector and financialising the domestic economy (your pension, social-reproduction- i.education, health etc) and dismantling the established chains of real production (i.e moving them away) is pretty clearly the most significant series. Maybe that's just capital being capital though.


You're a testy bugger BA! And rude at the drop of a hat... as per Blagsta's query directed at me, do you talk in the way that you write?

I'd certainly quibble with your "revolt against the factory" perspective. Otherwise some of the things you've said here are interesting but hardly the last word on the subject. You're certainly succeeding in sounding clever though. Well done!

In any case the only point I mean to make is that the occupy movement fails to engage with the real drivers behind what's going wrong (not just with capital, surely; not just as a consequence of problems with capital either). To me, democracy and oppositional politics seem hopelessly outdated if you like to look at things in a time frame. From the point of view of processes and systems development, I'd say they've been superceded and co-opted. I'm not in any way suggesting that's the only narrative, only that it's one worthy of consideration. As you point out yourself, subjectivity is inevitably an issue.


----------



## treelover (Nov 5, 2011)

'Oh, and as for St Paul’s, well in 1969 the founder of the Black Panthers Huey P Newton was invited to address a conference of anti-capitalist hippies at Camden’s occupied Roundhouse. He read out a dynamic speech which attacked global corporations, world bankers and how the ordinary peoples in each nation were victims of a vast capitalist conspiracy against them. There was a huge ovation by the assembled hippies … then the Newton calmly suveyed his audience, he smiled wryly and told them he had to admit that he hadn’t written his speech himself, he glared at the hippies then told them it was a speech by Adolph Hitler, then Newton turned and walked out on the hippies in disgust … we haven’t moved on in 42 years, Julian Assange? I’d sooner worship Derren Brown, at least he shows us how easy manipulation is, long live Bradley Manning!'

just saw this on another blog, food for thought?


----------



## nino_savatte (Nov 5, 2011)

treelover said:


> ''March to Parliament
> *Speakers:*
> Caroline Lucas MP
> John Pilger
> ...



Eh? I guess you must be disappointed that Sean Matgamna wasn't invited. No?


----------



## treelover (Nov 5, 2011)

who is he?


----------



## teahead (Nov 5, 2011)

Yep treelover (@the blog entry). Bloody liberals leaping about, sitting in or whatever... achieves nothing except to distract and leave the goal mouth open. There's really no two ways about it - unless you get inside what's going wrong and start steering it yourself, you've no influence at all. The problem is the way these processes corrupt those who become involved with them.

Demonstrating being 'right on' is one thing; maintaining that position while working nose-to-nose with the beast is something else. For a start, you've got to let go of the idea of being in any way remotely secure. Of course there are always going to be those who puff on their pipes, bang on and on in a charming way etc. Which is probably a pleasant way to live, if you're comfortable with it.


----------



## articul8 (Nov 5, 2011)

> It any case the only point I mean to make is that the occupy movement fails to engage with the real drivers behind what's going wrong (not just with capital, surely; not just as a consequence of problems with capital either). To me, democracy and oppositional politics seem hopelessly outdated if you like to look at things in a time frame. From the point of view of processes and systems development, I'd say they've been superceded and co-opted. I'm not in any way suggesting that's the only narrative, only that it's one worthy of consideration. As you point out yourself, subjectivity is inevitably an issue.



What _are_ you arguing? On the one hand you say capitalism is falling apart on its own accord. Then you're saying "subjectivity is inevitably an issue", but only in a way that is "superceded and co-opted". And in any case its only one way of explaining things amonst others.


----------



## nino_savatte (Nov 5, 2011)

treelover said:


> who is he?



From the horse's mouth
http://www.workersliberty.org/workers-liberty-326-looking-backward

A less flattering portrait of Matgamna and the AWL
http://rustbeltradical.wordpress.co...amna-and-the-awl-liberal-imperialist-tossers/


----------



## treelover (Nov 5, 2011)

i'm not in AWL or any other group or even a fellow traveller...


----------



## nino_savatte (Nov 5, 2011)

So what's your beef? You appear to have got out your big paintbrush and painted all those on that list as SWP stooges. I only saw two people on the list who are or were associated with the SWP.


----------



## teahead (Nov 5, 2011)

articul8 said:


> What _are_ you arguing? On the one hand you say capitalism is falling apart on its own accord. Then you're saying "subjectivity is inevitably an issue", but only in a way that is "superceded and co-opted". And in any case its only one way of explaining things amonst others.


Sorry, this was transposed from the other thread.

I'm arguing that 'occupy' is a distraction and ineffective as a strategy.


----------



## articul8 (Nov 5, 2011)

..why...because capital has the whole thing sewn up?


----------



## kavenism (Nov 5, 2011)

teahead said:


> It's a ruse. "Democratic means" rely on the power of the individual in relation to the State. Whereas political power is now safeguarded cleverly in processes that are much more effective in undermining personal integrity. It's near impossible to take the kind of clear position that democracy requires - too much at stake in an age that makes such heavy demands towards conformity.



I have transposed also.
I think that's pretty much right, although I think you might be conflating Democratic with Juridical means. Juridical in the sense of individual rights and liberties in relation to the state, old social contract stuff. But you are right sovereignty today is a thoroughly moot concept in the face of the majority of relations of power existing outside the control of juridical forms of law. This is why I just don't get some of the protestors who frame the argument in terms of 'the banks' or whoever having perverted our sovereign rights, as if this way of doing politics in the west hadn’t died about 60 years ago.


----------



## teahead (Nov 5, 2011)

kavenism said:


> I think that's pretty much right,


Thanks for that! I was beginning to worry. Some people do seem to want to shut down debate innit. 



> I think you might be conflating Democratic with Juridical means.


Very possibly - I've never heard of the word "juridical" before. As it goes, in other fields I've recently found myself wondering at Law's inability to offer good solutions. Seems to me the crises in banking, markets, international relations, inter-generational relations, environmental policies etc etc are rather more to do with problems in governance and regulation than with the behaviour or manipulation of capital.

e2a capital seems part of a larger picture. We're surely a long way past simply equating capital with money, right?


----------



## kavenism (Nov 5, 2011)

teahead said:


> Thanks for that! I was beginning to worry. Some people do seem to want to shut down debate innit.
> 
> Very possibly - I've never heard of the word "juridical" before. As it goes, in other fields I've recently found myself wondering at Law's inability to offer good solutions. Seems to me the crises in banking, markets, international relations, inter-generational relations, environmental policies etc etc are rather more to do with problems in governance and regulation than with the behaviour or manipulation of capital.
> 
> e2a capital seems part of a larger picture. We're surely a long way past simply equating capital with money, right?



Yup, I think governance or the ways and techniques of governing people (which in our society is I think much more to do with how non-state institutions impact on people's lives) are often overlooked in favour of reducing any social phenomena to a primarily economic basis. I'm not saying that political economy doesn't have a massive influence on pretty much everything in modern life, but more and more I'm questioning the whole 'in the last instance' dogma you get for many Marxist corners. Power and sovereignty which I think are two of the major issues coming out of both Occupy and what’s going on with the Euro bailouts are far more on the surface than a general critique of capitalism, sad as that may be.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 5, 2011)

Rally at LSX showing now on the livestream:

http://www.livestream.com/occupylsx


----------



## teahead (Nov 5, 2011)

.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 6, 2011)

Just popped in to visit the 'Occupy Nottingham' camp for the second time today.
My first visit was pretty brief, though I was there for a couple of hours today, and I came away feeling a bit flat.  There were things going on (both good and bad), just nothing that I'd really classify as 'politics'.

I think the stance of avoiding doing or saying anything anyone could possibly disagree with is leading to both stagnancy of any discussion and leaving fertile ground for the conspiraloons who don't feel as bound by camp 'protocol' in this regard.


----------



## BigTom (Nov 12, 2011)

http://www.democracynow.org/2011/11/11/occupy_homes_new_coalition_links_homeowners

Occupy in USA is starting to build anti-eviction/foreclosure networks by the looks of things.  I hope this spreads, not just in the USA but also to the UK and other places, although I don't think the UK is too bad for repossessions at the moment, it'll come I'm sure.


----------



## London Eye (Nov 13, 2011)

Ok, so I've been going along to the St Paul's occupation, taken part in general assemblies, attended some working groups. As much as the hand signals annoy me and as wary as I am about "alternative" investigations into banking practices, the City of London and democracy turning into unsubstantiated conspiracy theory, there do seem to be some interesting speakers and activists. But after a month or so, the rifts among the campers are becoming more evident, the hand signals have turned from annoying to infuriating and there seems to be a working group being created for every point raised. I don't see right now how this can connect with the 99% or even the 50%. There is an issue of class that is not even discussed at the camp. It seems young, white middle-class activists predominate.

I don't want to read over these 50-odd pages, but I would like a distillation of the main points, the good points and the criticisms. Do people believe that the conspiracy stuff undermines the whole camp? What about those who concentrate on the financial system, fractional reserve, debt-based banking? All conspiracy? What about Positive Money UK, who presented their ideas in parliament along with Tory MP, Steve Baker and Michael Meacher MP? Does the involvement of Michael Meacher, who once asked for a proper investigation into 911, make the whole thing conspiracy territory. I lay my cards on the table, conspiracy theories do interest me, but more and more (with the help of places like Urban 75) I recognise how important it is to be as grounded as possible, It doesn't change my suspicions of how our governments and institutions lie to us, but I do want to hear grounded views about what is happening, so I can form a balanced opinion.

I'd rather not focus on conspiracy, because there are many environmental and democratic reformists at Occupy LSX there who are not into that. But what I'm asking is, is Occupy London working, is it part of a growing movement, or is this just desperation in the face of economic and political collapse? And if this is not the way, what is the way to bring justice to this world and its people and to hold bankers and politicians and multinational corporations to account?


----------



## free spirit (Nov 13, 2011)

> or is this just desperation in the face of economic and political collapse?


it's this mostly. Unless this evolves into either a revolution, or active political party that stands at elections and puts as much effort into winning those and getting representation into parliament (or at a minimum supporting such representation as already exists) as it has into the occupation then it won't achieve anything much other than another generation of burned out demoralised activists IMO.

Campaigning to pursuade the current crop of neoliberalist politicians in all 3 major parties that their entire economic vision is wrong is a hiding to nothing, though I suppose a first step to all options is presenting an alternative viewpoint to the public and getting it into the public eye. Occupy have done the latter bit well, but don't really seem to have worked out the first bit, which really needs to be addressed as a matter of urgency if this is going to achieve anything of note.

but I could be wrong.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Nov 13, 2011)

I've been along to the sheffield occupation a couple of times. They seem to have got it about right when it comes to the homeless - in fact several of the better people there are homeless themselves and they're liaising with the Archer Project (a homeless project run I think from within the Cathedral). After reading on here about some of the conspiraloonery and all round dodginess of some of the activists (Brum seems to be the worst for some reason) I'd say Sheffield is probably one of the better ones.

I've also noticed that the General Assemblies are dominated by talk about running the camp itself - very little actual political discussion. I suspect this is to some extent by design, to avoid disgreement and keep it "inclusive", but it also means the message going out to the public is a bit incoherent - apart from fairly abstract slogans about the 99% and a general agreement that the bankers have got away with ripping us all off, there is no real political message at all. That said, the "usual suspects" of the left are notable only by their absence - apparently the SWP went in on the first day but it was made clear that they couldn't take it over and they haven't been back since. Apart from me and a couple of other members of the SP (and we've gone along in a personal capacity, we're consciously trying to avoid doing anything that could be construed as trying to "take over") I've hardly seen anyone I recognise from left wing demos etc. This is, in many ways, a good thing - most of the people getting involved haven't really been involved in anything political before - that these people are trying to find answers and trying to get involved in finding the solutions can only be a good thing IMO.

I've not seen much evidence of conspiraloonery at the Sheffield camp, the only worrying thing I've seen in that regard is a "zeitgeist movement" poster attached to one of the tents, though nobody seemed to know who had put it there - may have been a loon who went along, put up the poster, then buggered off again.

They've also had the "positive money" lot there giving a talk. Does anyone know any more about this lot? Their message is suspiciously similar to that of the Ron Paul "end the fed" mentalists. It makes some valid points about how the banking system works but it's ahistorical and devorced from the wider economy - it doesn't take into account the reasons why banking came to be done in this way, which means looking at capitalism itself. They seem to be arguing that if we were to change the way money is "created" everything would be ok - capitalism is fine, it's just these few bankers who are ruining it for the rest of us. This is all strangely reminiscent of the conspiracist narrative, but maybe I'm just over-cautious about this kind of thing, I hate conspiracy theory with a passion and maybe I'm seeing it when it's not really there? If anyone knows anything more about the "positive money" lot I'd like to hear it - I'm very suspicious of them.

They're all wearing poppies today to make it harder for people to accuse them of disrespect. Some of the more sensible ones are encouraging people to take the line that the soldiers in WW2 weren't just fighting fascism - they were fighting for a better deal for working people in the UK, for the NHS, council housing, the welfare state - and that those who seek to get rid of these things are the real traitors, the ones who are disrespecting them in the worst possible way. I personally think they're on the right lines with that one.

I do have a couple of concerns about the camp, but it would be unreasonable for me to expect them to have perfectly formed political views. The positives definitely outweigh the negatives. Though I do agree with butchersapron and others about the need to articulate demands and, where possible, engage in direct action if they want this to achieve anything concrete. If this doesn't happen the best they can hope for is to raise awareness, to use it as a talking shop. But if the message can be summed up as "the bankers are screwing the rest of us" then I'm not sure awareness needs to be raised, most people are only too aware of this fact. But maybe if they're discussing _how _and _why_ they're screwing us something might come out of it, who knows? I'm going to keep going down, helping out and discussing the issues with people and see where it goes. I'm not camping out though, it's cold enough in my flat, nevemind a tent!


----------



## Delroy Booth (Nov 13, 2011)

SpineyNorman said:


> I've also noticed that the General Assemblies are dominated by talk about running the camp itself - very little actual political discussion. I suspect this is to some extent by design, to avoid disgreement and keep it "inclusive", but it also means the message going out to the public is a bit incoherent - apart from fairly abstract slogans about the 99% and a general agreement that the bankers have got away with ripping us all off, there is no real political message at all. That said, the "usual suspects" of the left are notable only by their absence - apparently the SWP went in on the first day but it was made clear that they couldn't take it over and they haven't been back since. Apart from me and a couple of other members of the SP (and we've gone along in a personal capacity, we're consciously trying to avoid doing anything that could be construed as trying to "take over") I've hardly seen anyone I recognise from left wing demos etc. This is, in many ways, a good thing - most of the people getting involved haven't really been involved in anything political before - that these people are trying to find answers and trying to get involved in finding the solutions can only be a good thing IMO.



I noticed this, I nipped down to the occupy sheffield thing the other day and it seemed to be totally bogged down by it's own micro-politics and organization, with little or no discussion on wider politics. It's a good start, it's just like having a permanent stall in the town centre, and it's been really good at getting people talking. Everyone on the tram going past cathedral ended up talking about it, but at the same time the occupations are a means to an end, not an end in themselves.

And there are one or two on the left going down there, I spotted one SWP and one SP comrade, but no mass presense.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Nov 13, 2011)

Delroy Booth said:


> I noticed this, I nipped down to the occupy sheffield thing the other day and it seemed to be totally bogged down by it's own micro-politics and organization, with little or no discussion on wider politics. It's a good start, it's just like having a permanent stall in the town centre, and it's been really good at getting people talking. Everyone on the tram going past cathedral ended up talking about it, but at the same time the occupations are a means to an end, not an end in themselves.
> 
> And there are one or two on the left going down there, I spotted one SWP and one SP comrade, but no mass presense.



Yeah, there are a couple but I went down expecting to see the same people you meet at SACA meetings and just about everything else - that wasn't the case at all which is encouraging. I suppose a question we should be asking is why hasn't SACA managed to reach out to these people, just about all of whom would support its objectives. The most important thing about the occupation, IMO, is the fact that it's drawn in people that more obviously left wing initiatives haven't got anywhere near. Whilst I don't think it would be a good idea at all for them to affiliate with any political party (including my own) I do think that building links with, and openly supporting, SACA would be an excellent move in the right direction. In fact next time I'm over there I might just ask that the idea is raised at the assembly.

P.S. I don't care how good the arguments in its favour are, you will never get me doing the cringe inducing jazz hands style signals they use at meetings - if they want to make it open and accessible for the general public this has to go - right or wrong nobody will take them seriously while they're doing it. Plus it makes them look a bit like a cult.


----------



## Brainaddict (Nov 13, 2011)

Delroy Booth said:


> I noticed this, I nipped down to the occupy sheffield thing the other day and it seemed to be totally bogged down by it's own micro-politics and organization, with little or no discussion on wider politics.


I've mentioned this on the London thread I think. I feel there is a bureaucratisation that has happened not so much by design as because certain people are familiar with managerial environments and reproduce them without thinking about it. This is grafted onto the horizontalist ethos without much self-reflection about how those particular presentational/managerial skills came about, and who ends up dominating as a result. In the end the bogging down in micro-politics is sadly a result of struggles for power among camp members, acted out in the horizontalist-bureaucratic form, and of course this isn't really admitted to. Nor is there much questioning of the sustainability of having X number of meetings a day and the burnout that is likely to result.

Politics-wise I had a bit of a depressing visit to St Paul's today, only meeting people who didn't seem to come even close to understanding the landscape of power they live in (not that I understand it all or pretend to) but a visit to the camp is always dependent on the particular people you meet.

Having said all this, I still think its great. It is still an act of resistance in particular ways, and for this reason I support it and see it as a good thing.


----------



## northern_star (Nov 18, 2011)

I've been at occupy sheffield a lot over the last week-its very true about it getting bogged down in internal politics/housekeeping-which isn't very interesting for the general public. There has now been a move to divide the evening assembly into 6pm (internal organisational stuff) and 7pm (stuff thats more usful/relevant for people not living there).
I hope that as time goes on things will settle down, last weekend felt entirely fraught and dominated with issues around homelessness and drug use at the camp, there was a lot of upset and it was detracting considerably from the message. Its felt a bit better this week, although there just needs to be more people there regularly to engage the public in discussion.


----------



## TruXta (Nov 18, 2011)

Interesting piece by Mike Davis on the Ten Immodest Commandments the Occupy movement should abide by. Comments?

http://theragblog.blogspot.com/2011/11/mike-davis-ten-immodest-commandments.html


----------



## Brainaddict (Nov 18, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Interesting piece by Mike Davis on the Ten Immodest Commandments the Occupy movement should abide by. Comments?
> 
> http://theragblog.blogspot.com/2011/11/mike-davis-ten-immodest-commandments.html


Some useful thoughts.



> Fifth, as we learned the hard way in the 1960s, consensual democracy is not identical to participatory democracy. For affinity groups and communes, consensus decision-making may work admirably, but for any large or long-term protest, some form of representative democracy is essential to allow the broadest and most equal participation. The devil, as always, is in the details: ensuring that any delegate can be recalled, formalizing rights of political minorities, guaranteeing affirmative representation, and so on.



I share his concern that consensus methods can't and won't work in larger scale organising. I'm not sure that means leaping to representative democratic forms. I think you can create recallable delegates to larger organising platforms without pretending they are 'representative' of anyone.  Perhaps we disagree on language not substance, but I think it is important to avoid the language of representation because it can only ever be dishonest. Representation does not represent. Full stop.


----------



## audiotech (Nov 21, 2011)

OccuppyLeeds first addition of _The Occupied Yorkshire Post_. (pdf}


----------



## ska invita (Nov 23, 2011)

Interesting feature on Jon Stewarts Daily Show Global Edition about Occupy Wall St (just before it got ripped down) about the class segregation in the camp.

In short there was an 'uptown' and 'downtown' to the camp, with a hipsterish elite uptown gathered around the media tents etc. whilst downtown was everyone else. There were interviews which seemed to back this up as a reality.

It seemed to be the case that far from being horizontal in decision making it was a group around the 'uptowners' who were making all the decisions and getting them (sometimes, but not always) ratified .

What's more, decision making meetings were not always made not on camp, but often in the atrium/lobby of the Deutsche bank, where it was quiet and out of the way of the rest of the occupiers!

One of those interviewed said the split wasn't so bad at the start, but as the camp grew it 'naturally' divided. To me this is one of the biggest problems with consensus/horizontal decision making (be it in a camp, a work place, or wherever): the size of the group. Cleavages and groupings become unavoidable don't they? You need really good structures in place to keep out vanguardism.

--
sorry if this is repeating things already said elsewhere - not been keeping up to speed on the Occupy threads - but a quick glance shows OWS wasnt unique in this (will read more later)


----------



## audiotech (Nov 23, 2011)

"Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past. The tradition of all dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brains of the living."
[Karl Marx - The 18th Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte, 1852]


----------



## ska invita (Nov 23, 2011)

SpineyNorman said:


> P.S. I don't care how good the arguments in its favour are, you will never get me doing the cringe inducing jazz hands style signals they use at meetings - if they want to make it open and accessible for the general public this has to go - right or wrong nobody will take them seriously while they're doing it. Plus it makes them look a bit like a cult.


I encountered this for the first time the other day at a meeting nothing to do with Occupy - jazz hands are spreading!  What are the different ones/meanings?

I feel the same as you Spiney, but then again I only got a mobile about 3 years back...Im a bit slow on the uptake until things become unavoidable


----------



## ska invita (Nov 23, 2011)

audiotech said:


> "Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past. The tradition of all dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brains of the living."
> [Karl Marx - The 18th Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte, 1852]


was the in response to my class at camp post audiotech? (want to make sure before i comment...)


----------



## audiotech (Nov 23, 2011)

ska invita said:


> was the in response to my class at camp post audiotech? (want to make sure before i comment...)



Post #192


----------



## ska invita (Nov 23, 2011)

audiotech said:


> Post #192


Agree with your point, but the thing is social stratification of some sort will always exist in a large group, and we have a history of it going back past dead generations to our primate ancestors. We're social creatures, and for social creatures to transcend all social divisions will be a long way off, if ever. That's why it can only be really good structures that might keep out the hierarchies in large groups - always a problem to pin down - and at a glance it would seem OCcupyWS at least has let it slip on this.

A good book on practical horizontal organisational structuring, with pitfalls and possibilities, would be really useful. Does such a thing exist? (tea break over - back later)


----------



## audiotech (Nov 23, 2011)

Weren't _horizontal structures_ referred to as _flattened structures_ a few years ago? Mike Peters, _Thriving on Chaos _springs to mind, as does _The Empty Raincoat_ by Charles Handy. Management theory I looked at when on an industrial relations and trade union studies course many years ago now. Maybe useful? They did cover, as you would expect, organisational structures and were seen as radical in their approach then. The former was the most interesting of the two I recall, but I've forgotten why?


----------



## chilango (Nov 23, 2011)

"The Tyranny of Structurelessness"

and the rejoinder

"The Tyranny of Tyranny"

used to be standard reading in @ circles on this. Can't remember them well though. So can't have made much of an impression on me at any rate!


----------



## SpineyNorman (Nov 23, 2011)

ska invita said:


> I encountered this for the first time the other day at a meeting nothing to do with Occupy - jazz hands are spreading!  What are the different ones/meanings?
> 
> I feel the same as you Spiney, but then again I only got a mobile about 3 years back...Im a bit slow on the uptake until things become unavoidable



Jazz hands is the "silent clap" - it shows you agree. Proper clapping isn't allowed because it's oppressive maaaan lol. Then there's fists clenched and arms crossed over your chest, a bit like what they do to dead bodies in coffins. That one means I disagree/have a concern. Then there's sticking your fist in the air, like people do when they sing the internationale. That one means I _really_ disagree but if you do that one you have to then give your reasons as to why you disagree. And then raising your middle finger means "I'm off now, I'm not doing these embarrassing hand signal things you daft fucking hippies 'cos I'm not mental"


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 23, 2011)

> Proper clapping isn't allowed because it's oppressive maaaan lol.



wtf why?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Nov 23, 2011)

If one person says something and gets a round of applause, then someone else says something and doesn't, that second person is being oppressed. Or something. That's how it was explained to me anyway. The only sensible reason I can think of for using this instead of clapping is that someone can keep talking and everyone can still hear them - but that's not the argument they're using.


----------



## BigTom (Nov 23, 2011)

It's only ever been explained to me as meaning that people can keep talking, helps the meeting to flow and removes the need for anyone to make "yeah, I agree with that" comments.
Also as a facilitator it's easier to see what kind of proportion of a meeting agree when hands are waved, than it is to hear when it's clapped I think. This would only be an issue in a big meeting, because people wouldn't hold their hands above their head to clap, whereas they are more likely to do jazz hands over their head.

anyway, I've never had it explained as being anti-oppression.. just to help the meeting to flow


----------



## SpineyNorman (Nov 23, 2011)

Maybe the person who explained it to me was just an idiot then - that certainly makes more sense.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 24, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> wtf why?



Don't believe the hype.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 24, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> wtf why?


because a lot of fluffies want to look cool and trendy by making jazz hands.


----------



## krink (Nov 24, 2011)

they do this jazz hand stuff at a lot of types of left/@ meetings now. there is also the 'throw-in' which is used to make a direct response (or queue-jump) and tbh I find it all a bit 'knitted-muesli'. I won't do it.


----------



## past caring (Nov 24, 2011)

SpineyNorman said:


> Jazz hands is the "silent clap" - it shows you agree. Proper clapping isn't allowed because it's oppressive maaaan lol. Then there's fists clenched and arms crossed over your chest, a bit like what they do to dead bodies in coffins. That one means I disagree/have a concern. Then there's sticking your fist in the air, like people do when they sing the internationale. That one means I _really_ disagree but if you do that one you have to then give your reasons as to why you disagree. And then raising your middle finger means "I'm off now, I'm not doing these embarrassing hand signal things you daft fucking hippies 'cos I'm not mental"


----------



## LLETSA (Nov 24, 2011)

krink said:


> they do this jazz hand stuff at a lot of types of left/@ meetings now.


 
Just when you think the anarcholeft has reached its lowest ebb...


----------



## chilango (Nov 24, 2011)




----------



## past caring (Nov 24, 2011)




----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 24, 2011)

just throw gang signs and miltary handslang instead


----------



## TruXta (Nov 24, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> just throw gang signs and miltary handslang instead



Or just become a militarized gang, cut out the middleman.


----------



## Fruitloop (Nov 24, 2011)

http://humour.200ok.com.au/swat_team_hand_signals.html


----------



## chilango (Nov 25, 2011)

I first encountered the hand gestures and all the "consensus decision making" stuff at an Earth First! meeting back in 1994 or so...I'd dragged a couple of friends along insisting that EF! was great and they should get involved. My friends being AFA/Red Action types sat open mouthed in disbelief as they were forced to sit on the floor, in a circle, with a bunch of hippies. Then the hands started flapping. I wasn't expecting it either, this being the first EF! meeting run in this way that I'd been to. Suffice to say, my friends never came back and wrote off EF! as a serious movement.

Embarassing, cultish and - crucially - disempowering. Such nonsense keeps nascent social movements retarded and seperates them from potential growth.

Jazz hands should be vociferally resisted, and if necessary ignored/over-ridden at open meetings.


----------



## BigTom (Nov 25, 2011)

chilango said:


> I first encountered the hand gestures and all the "consensus decision making" stuff at an Earth First! meeting back in 1994 or so...I'd dragged a couple of friends along insisting that EF! was great and they should get involved. My friends being AFA/Red Action types sat open mouthed in disbelief as they were forced to sit on the floor, in a circle, with a bunch of hippies. Then the hands started flapping. I wasn't expecting it either, this being the first EF! meeting run in this way that I'd been to. Suffice to say, my friends never came back and wrote off EF! as a serious movement.
> 
> Embarassing, cultish and - crucially - disempowering. Such nonsense keeps nascent social movements retarded and seperates them from pontial growth.
> 
> Jazz hands should be vociferally resisted, and if necessary ignored/over-ridden at open meetings.



A few years ago I would have agreed with you, but I find jazz hands useful in a meeting, especially when I'm facilitating it, I think it helps to show the mood of a meeting, and helps the meeting to flow.  There is a practical value to this which should be considered, unlike the peoples' mic which has none (except in NY where amplified noise is banned).
Whilst I can see the embarrasing/cultish issue clearly, I'm not sure about the disempowering bit.  As long as hand signals are explained at the start of a meeting so everyone is clear what is going on, why do you see it as disempowering?

I'm also curious about how you over-ride jazz hands at an open meeting - ignoring them is easy, just clap or speak in agreement with a point made.. is that what you mean by over-riding?


----------



## chilango (Nov 25, 2011)

BigTom said:


> A few years ago I would have agreed with you, but I find jazz hands useful in a meeting, especially when I'm facilitating it, I think it helps to show the mood of a meeting, and helps the meeting to flow. There is a practical value to this which should be considered, unlike the peoples' mic which has none (except in NY where amplified noise is banned).
> Whilst I can see the embarrasing/cultish issue clearly, I'm not sure about the disempowering bit. As long as hand signals are explained at the start of a meeting so everyone is clear what is going on, why do you see it as disempowering?
> 
> I'm also curious about how you over-ride jazz hands at an open meeting - ignoring them is easy, just clap or speak in agreement with a point made.. is that what you mean by over-riding?



There are meetings where "jazz hands" can be a useful tool. Hell, I've been to many endless dreary work meetings full of people speaking for the sake of speaking where a talking stick and flopping hands would be eternally perferable...so for some organisational meetings it cane be a useful tool.

But, and this is my main objection, when the primary purpose of a meeting is that of building a movement, a struggle, a situation and a process of opening up to use what is essentially an insider language (no matter how simple) is of course going to alienate those who find it utterly different from the ways of communicating in group scenarios that they have used all their lives. To feel inhibited from full participation in such meetings is disempowering for the newcomers and for many already in the group wishing to open it up.  Those more _au fait_ with the insider language will already be in a relative position of power compared to those who aren't, and more able to control (willingly or not) the direction of the meeting - which is essentially the point of jazz hands anyway is it not?

In fairness many of the same criticisms can be levelled at a typical leftie meeting filled with arcane jargon and 2nd hand trade union mechanisms.


----------



## chilango (Nov 25, 2011)

BigTom said:


> I'm also curious about how you over-ride jazz hands at an open meeting - ignoring them is easy, just clap or speak in agreement with a point made.. is that what you mean by over-riding?



Yes.


----------



## BigTom (Nov 25, 2011)

chilango said:


> There are meetings where "jazz hands" can be a useful tool. Hell, I've been to many endless dreary work meetings full of people speaking for the sake of speaking where a talking stick and flopping hands would be eternally perferable...so for some organisational meetings it cane be a useful tool.
> 
> But, and this is my main objection, when the primary purpose of a meeting is that of building a movement, a struggle, a situation and a process of opening up to use what is essentially an insider language (no matter how simple) is of course going to alienate those who find it utterly different from the ways of communicating in group scenarios that they have used all their lives. To feel inhibited from full participation in such meetings is disempowering for the newcomers and for many already in the group wishing to open it up. Those more _au fait_ with the insider language will already be in a relative position of power compared to those who aren't, and more able to control (willingly or not) the direction of the meeting - which is essentially the point of jazz hands anyway is it not?
> 
> In fairness many of the same criticisms can be levelled at a typical leftie meeting filled with arcane jargon and 2nd hand trade union mechanisms.



ok, I can see all of that, I think you are right about the insider language, but I think this is a problem in all meetings, and in the case of jazz hands (and the other hand signals) can be relatively easily overcome.  I'd agree with you about trying to avoid (or at least not seek to enforce) the use of those signals in the broader meetings you refer to, that it can be/feel exclusionary.  I don't think it's a very complicated insider language though, but it does look a bit nutty so if you're watching a video or come in partway through a meeting, after the explanation, it would be bad.


----------



## LLETSA (Nov 26, 2011)

chilango said:


> There are meetings where "jazz hands" can be a useful tool.


 
I've always found that developing the ability to 'tune people out', as they say, is the most useful tool for meetings.


----------



## audiotech (Dec 6, 2011)

Interesting talk and discussion on the political aesthetics of post-capitalism by Mark Fisher.



> Increasingly, the strategy of many of capital's agents is not to condemn anti-capitalist protest, but precisely to claim that the anti-capitalists do not present a coherent alternative. If only they did, we might be able to support them ....While this is in many ways a spurious line of attack, it does point to serious problems with 'anti-capitalism'. At least implicitly, the tendency in much anti capitalism....is anti-modernist and also anti-politics.


Fischer focusses on what he describes as 'neo-anarchist currents' that have sprung up around the occupy movements, who tend to avoid discussing in some detail matters.of the media, state, bureaucracy, authority and managerialism. In simple terms, the occupy movement can come across as a primitive, backward movement - a choice between throwing away your iPhone, or join us and live in a tent.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=lDPfcupS9xM#!


----------



## 8ball (Dec 6, 2011)

audiotech said:


> ...a choice between throwing away your iPhone, or join us and live in a tent.



So you can have an iPhone, so long as you live in a tent.


----------



## Kate Hillier (Mar 7, 2012)

Depressed as hell about the whole bloody thing and how it has been suppressed by Right Wing Scum who no doubt are reporting back to the Super Rich'Your wealth is safe'.[whilst we suffer]. 
 As an idea#occupy is the business since we are being forcibly 'occupied' when we are forced to pay Landlords Mortgage with soaring rents, Benefits cut, War Against Claimants that is totally unjust, forced to pay exorbitant prices at the Supermarket, forced to pay Energy Companies spiralling out of control prices  for Energy(what is worse if we cut back they profit take by hiking the price up again!), being forced to watch Ads that randomly interfere with our enjoyment of the net. The sheer pervasiveness of Advertising. I recall the horror of seeing Ad Banners on a Motorway on the way home.
  WE are being OCCUPIED but when we try to do something about it, we get fucking SUPPRESSED!


----------



## Tobermory53 (Mar 15, 2012)

Kate Hillier said:


> WE are being OCCUPIED but when we try to do something about it, we get fucking SUPPRESSED!


 
I think that "suppression" has got more to do with the public not enjoying public spaces being ruined with litter and turds. That's why the "occupy-istas" were cleansed from St Andrew's Square and the Meadows in Edinburgh.


----------



## Kate Hillier (Mar 15, 2012)

@tobermory53 The Public Mood not good for #occupy and Occupyistas.


----------



## Santino (Mar 15, 2012)

Kate Hillier said:


> @tobermory53 The Public Mood not good for #occupy and Occupyistas.


Your username in an anagram of 'like a Hitler'.


----------



## Kate Hillier (Mar 15, 2012)

*Oh dear can't help the name or that one of my User Names is a ace reinvention around Chairman Mao* aka The Bitch.


----------



## Kate Hillier (Mar 15, 2012)

Or any other horrible thing I can think of myself!


----------



## Kate Hillier (Mar 15, 2012)

@tobermory53 There may be other variations too besides Hitler?


----------



## Kate Hillier (Mar 15, 2012)

Occupy is about Grievances but it is also about working out how to pose a different type of Politics that is radically different from the Mainstream. 
 The only coherence in Capitalism as Fisher (of IEA?) is it's nastiness and nasty intellectaul ideas that mean wealth travels upwards from the rich from the poor.


----------



## Tobermory53 (Mar 15, 2012)

Kate Hillier said:


> Occupy is about Grievances but it is also about working out how to pose a different type of Politics that is radically different from the Mainstream.
> The only coherence in Capitalism as Fisher (of IEA?) is it's nastiness and nasty intellectaul ideas that mean wealth travels upwards from the rich from the poor.


 
And there's the poor deluded general public thinking it's about turning public spaces into rubbish tips and al fresco lavvies.

Well, well,you live and learn!


----------



## xes (Mar 15, 2012)

Tobermory53 said:


> And there's the poor deluded general public thinking it's about turning public spaces into rubbish tips and al fresco lavvies.
> 
> Well, well,you live and learn!


the public only think that, because they read the papers, and believe what shite gets printed, which is always anti protesters, and pro goverment. if they bothered to go and look for themselves, instead of reading the sun and thinking "oh no, they is are bad peoples cos i did readed it in the sun" then maybe they'd actually get a different perspective. Maybe if they weren't getting bombarded with pro goverment propaganda from every angle, then they'd be able to see through the lies and missrepresentation, fed to them via the TV and the shite which they read in tabloid rags. (you might want to try this for yourself)


----------



## Kate Hillier (Mar 15, 2012)

@tobermory53 I am trying to work it all out hence I am reading reading reading. Sorry if my point of view doesn't meet your high [academic?] standards.
 My Books and proposed Books however are all fucking bloody excellent and I doubt if anyone would do them down on these Forums.
 You however may have the answers to how and why #occupy failed and how we can all ressurect a concept that is ahead of its time.


----------



## Kate Hillier (Mar 15, 2012)

I am on a Learning Curve and am totally unashamed to be doing so.


----------



## Kate Hillier (Mar 15, 2012)

UP the Revolution and bring those barstards down and redistribute income in an equitable fashion.


----------



## Kate Hillier (Mar 15, 2012)

I agree the Public's Consent is being manufactured and propaganda is being fed to the public. No wonder.


----------



## Tobermory53 (Mar 15, 2012)

xes said:


> the public only think that, because they read the papers, and believe what shite gets printed,


 
Actually they saw and smelt the shite lying around..............


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 16, 2012)

This thread is almost as odd as my local occupy camp.

And this tobemory cunt is suspiciously reminiscent of cobbles, who was banned for racism (and rightly so given the comments that provoked the ban).


----------

