The Meeting, A Critique January 8th, 2012 Today, Saturday Jan. 7th, I went to the General Assembly meeting of the Occupy LA General Strike Committee. It was attended by some 75 or more persons from various left groups around LA. Freedom Socialist Party, Radical Women, IWW, Workers Solidarity, Antiracist Action, autonomous Anarchists, people who just became active in the Occupy movement, union organizers, migrant rights activists, students, and the occasional average worker who was interested in what all the hubbub was about.
There was much discussion about subjects of general interest, like what is a general strike? That took up most of the time, there was a rather chaotic discussion of the 6 points of the demands that Michael Novik suggested and when people began to recommend changes, the subject was again closed by the leaders. When the subject came to rolling strike actions, people had lots of actions they suggested for commitment but then a few of the leaders decided to cut the conversation and limit it to actions initiated by Occupy, of which there was only one, from Portland for Feb. 29th some kind of anti-corporate action. The problem with consensus often is that the loudest, most persistent and controlling egos get heard. The process constantly breaks down and most agreement is by default, people get tired of arguing. There is no real democratic process and what ends up happening is basically what the leadership wants. The prime example, Michael of Anti-Racist Action wanted as his main point to get an ok for a January 22 meeting with other groups to form a larger coalition. It was the last point on the agenda, by then many people had left, others were tired of talking, it had been almost 3 hours, and so when it was brought up there was no debate, just a less than enthusiastic waving of hands and then the meeting moved on. There was no discussion, most of the talking had been about the meaning of a general strike, something that is almost of no consequence to the running of the general strike committee. The way to run a consensus meeting and get your way is to: One, out last everyone else. Two, let people blow hard on abstract theory and issues that don't affect the issues at hand. Three, bury the things you really want at the end and present them as innocuously as possible. Four, come with an agenda already prepared and agreed to by key players. It is not too hard to game, especially when most people have only so much stamina when it comes to sitting around in a meeting. People want to socialize and party, doing meetings is for serious types and even the most serious bureaucratic mentality can only take so much tedium before needing relief. There are no recorded votes, no elected officers, nobody to point the finger at. It is a beautiful process of insinuating ideas without having to be responsible for the consequences since it is all agreed upon by the group, a group that is often as chaotic as a hippie commune in the 1970's. I have been to a few. Otherwise it was a good meeting, we more or less agreed to the six points, doing something on Feb 29th and having a General Strike May 1st. The details of May First actions were shunted off to an action committee, one that doesn't exist at this point. Someone made the point that not much is accomplished at the general meetings, well duh, what do you expect when you have a process that is designed for lots of talk and very little action. This is not anarchist politics in practice, this is a Quaker Meeting transferred to the political sphere by Quaker peace activists in the late seventies anti-nuke movement. There is some relationship to the non-violence of the sixties civil rights movement, but the more radical movements of armed struggle and street fighting of the late sixties and early seventies have been forgotten. From time to time anarchists, ultra leftists, and rank and file workers wildcat actions have been rowdier than what the pacifists would have, but basically since the USA has turned to the right in the late seventies, the left has turned the other cheek in hopes that there would always be another cheek to turn. I tend to think that an eye for an eye is more appropriate in dealing with power, we just have to learn how to flex our collective muscles. As our groups grow larger we will have to learn tactics and processes that are more appropriate for large groups, or we will flounder under the weight of unwieldy process. As thing stand I am in general agreement with the results of today's meeting, but I am not likely to be returning to such a messy affair in the near future. The work is done, as the one comrade said, in the subcommittees, and even then, only when they are small enough for everyone to participate, perhaps a dozen or so, is a good working size, much more and you are again beginning to get beyond the practical limits of consensus as a working model. I have to go back to school so I don't know how much time I will be able to dedicate to this endeavor, I do hope that the general strike takes off, it really depends on how well the Occupy people have judged the mood of the American people and not on some sense of adventurism. One person there was insisting that we treat this general strike as if our lives counted on it. That fervor is what is needed in a sports team, and perhaps the foot soldiers of the revolution, but in a revolution planning committee what is needed is cold calculation as to the timing of events, having a feel for the pulse of the people and a willingness to take chances when they make sense. I am not sure any of this has been done here. There is a hippie dippy half ass kind of quality, like it is play. Play indeed, sometimes we do need to be at play in the fields of the lord, (the book, not the movie). There were those there, mostly from unions, that emphasized that there were jobs and careers at stake, people are not going to go out on a general strike unless they are pretty damn mad. That is where having the temperature of the people in mind is important. You can't be frivolous about something like this, yet you have to have a certain sense of playfulness to conceive of the general strike at all. So there has to be some form of balance. Personally I think the demands are too much weighted to traditional leftist demands. They are too generic and need grounding in issues that are in the mind of the public, or supporting specific labor actions. The deportation of migrants is something that affects the Hispanic community daily, it is their Jim Crow legislation, just as the War on Drugs is for inner city youth. I think we need to learn something from our constitutionalist friends on the right and add some demands for things like getting money out of power, public funding of elections, limited election campaigns with free access to media, lower thresholds for political parties to gain access to the funding, say 3% of electorate, proportional elections, and so on. Concrete measures that make sense to voters. But that is me, an old disabled guy worried about legislation affecting Medicare and Social Security. Below is the proposals as of the night before the meeting, a sixth proposal about Feminism and Gender rights was added. This is from Michael Novik. "Here's a proposal on clarifying and strengthening the demands for the May 1 general strike by adopting 5 broad themes, each with illustrative sub-points, like so: * For Migrant Rights: Full Legalization for All! Repeal Repressive Anti-Immigrant Legislation! Stop Sweeps, Raids, Detentions and Mass Deportation! * For Economic, Social and Environmental Justice: Stop Cuts and raids on pensions, Medicare, Social Security - Make Banks Pay! Guarantee Living-wage jobs and the right to organize! Reverse Global Warming! * For Peace with Justice: End overt and covert US wars and military interventionism! Bring the Troops Home - fulfill promises to veterans! Respect indigenous sovereignty! * For Civil Liberties and an End to the Police State: Repeal NDAA, Homeland Security and the USA PATRIOT Act! End the Drug War! Stop the New Jim Crow! Stop Police Brutality, Prison Isolation and Political Incarceration! *For Housing, Education and Health Care as Human Rights: Stop Foreclosures - principal reduction now! End Homelessness! Quality public education for all! Forgive crushing student debt! Protect food and water quality! Single Payer Now!" Sixth Woman's Rights, Gender Equality, etc. I can't remember it exactly I was not given a copy. ------------------------------------ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- LAAMN: Los Angeles Alternative Media Network --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unsubscribe: <mailto:[email protected]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Subscribe: <mailto:[email protected]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Digest: <mailto:[email protected]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Help: <mailto:[email protected]?subject=laamn> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Post: <mailto:[email protected]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Archive1: <http://www.egroups.com/messages/laamn> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Archive2: <http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/laamn/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/laamn/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: [email protected] [email protected] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [email protected] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
