The establishment on the West Coast port shutdown of Dec 12th, the second such shutdown:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/14/us/occupy-oakland-angers-labor-leaders.html
The most inflammatory stuff was saved for the international press:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/dec/10/occupy-shutdown-west-coast-ports
Labor Notes' take:
http://labornotes.org/2011/12/west-coast-port-shutdown-sparks-heated-debate-between-unions-occupy
more opinions after the jump
Friday, December 16, 2011
Friday, December 9, 2011
Re: Occupy Goes Underground
In response to: http://inthesetimes.com/uprising/entry/12386/occupy_goes_underground
Thanks for this article - I think you lay out recent developments in a reasonable way. With one exception: your central premise is incorrect.
Not having a central assembly point has not "allowed" the flexibility and mobility which you, correctly, praise. This kind of autonomy was always a key part of the movement.
I'm not sure where you got the idea that actions were supposed to be "approved" by the GA. Maybe some parts of the movement put out that idea, but in NYC when the working group that I'm part of (the Jobless Working Group) approached the GA early on to approve one of our actions, we were told in no uncertain terms that it was unnecessary. I was informed several weeks ago during a GA (by the facilitator) that the GA "no longer approves any actions."
So it is not correct to say that a shift towards autonomy has been allowed by the weakening of central institutions. The tension between consensus and autonomy - both core values of the Occupation - while it has modified, has not definitively changed as a result of the eviction.
What has shifted is the ability to inform and involve a diverse cross-section of the movement about upcoming plans with relatively little notice. This, in my mind, can only be seen as a loss. This does not, of course, mean that we should despair. To follow your metaphor of "going underground," soundly founded parties never *choose* to go underground unless they are forced to, but they do figure out how to operate underground as effectively as possible.
Thank you again for your quality reporting.
In solidarity,
Sam
http://followingsylvis.blogspot.com
Thanks for this article - I think you lay out recent developments in a reasonable way. With one exception: your central premise is incorrect.
Not having a central assembly point has not "allowed" the flexibility and mobility which you, correctly, praise. This kind of autonomy was always a key part of the movement.
I'm not sure where you got the idea that actions were supposed to be "approved" by the GA. Maybe some parts of the movement put out that idea, but in NYC when the working group that I'm part of (the Jobless Working Group) approached the GA early on to approve one of our actions, we were told in no uncertain terms that it was unnecessary. I was informed several weeks ago during a GA (by the facilitator) that the GA "no longer approves any actions."
So it is not correct to say that a shift towards autonomy has been allowed by the weakening of central institutions. The tension between consensus and autonomy - both core values of the Occupation - while it has modified, has not definitively changed as a result of the eviction.
What has shifted is the ability to inform and involve a diverse cross-section of the movement about upcoming plans with relatively little notice. This, in my mind, can only be seen as a loss. This does not, of course, mean that we should despair. To follow your metaphor of "going underground," soundly founded parties never *choose* to go underground unless they are forced to, but they do figure out how to operate underground as effectively as possible.
Thank you again for your quality reporting.
In solidarity,
Sam
http://followingsylvis.blogspot.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
