Post by christucker72 on Jun 11, 2012 4:40:19 GMT -5
This is a very rough draft of introduction of my rather academic piece, which I haven't even proofread or spell-checked yet, but gives you idea of where I'm going. If overwhelmed, jump to bottom, where I think I highlight a logical truth that might help illuminate aspects of schisms, debates, relevant to our quest for the Holy Grail. I don't intend to impose my subjective opinions, but aim to stimulate feedback productive & provide tools to deepen understanding of some key issues.
"Objective, Logical, Conceptual Analysis of Occupy & the CC2/99D"
Intro: the aim of this piece is to inject some conceptual clarity, logical coherence & empirical accuracy into- often unproductive & misleading debates about- & inquiries into- the Occupy movements, and OWS spin-offs, like the 99D/CC2 organization. To be clear, I have no intention of imposing my normative views about these organizations/movements (e.g. what they should do/be, whether one is somehow "better"), or claiming this is an exhaustive empirical assessment. It is not. I was inspired to write this piece by my observation that persistent analytic, logical, empirical flaws had plagued discussions about OWS & some spin-offs, and these distortions of objective truths, was influencing media coverage, perceptions (of public, actors), organizational actions, and thus broader political system, which such groups hope to ultimately reform. For example, a key empirical mysteries that inspired this piece was that 99D founders' attempts to elicit support & solidarity from ostensible allies, instead inspired categorical denouncements from OWS/Occupy-Philly, and some individuals/factions in 99D/OWS going out of their way to speak as if some fundamental irreconcilable differences made cooperation, solidarity impossible & possibly undesirable.
Given that it the casual observer would be struck by similarity of each group's core values, top policy preferences (e.g. overturning Citizens United ruling, enabling unlimited corporate spending on elections), with two obvious difference being: each group's organizational structure & tactical modus operandi (Occupy movement's primarily use public protests, elected delegates to CC2 will vote on- & present to all branches of US government- a 99% Declaration of grievances & possibly sue US if redress isn't forthcoming).
Given that I had registered as a candidate for the CC2 election, had an affinity for the nonviolent Occupy spirit/causes, I wanted to know whether either organization had some appalling positions that justified an apparent schism (and my opposition), or whether each group/movement could be overcome past tensions, express solidarity in fighting for the same big reforms with different tactics, and unite vs. their common adversary of monied special interests corrupting our democracy, over-representing the elite 1%.
If the latter were true, it would be unfortunate (or fortunate, depending on your biases) if both organizations mistakenly acted, as if playing role in fictional/real elite 1%'s "divide & conquer" strategy, unnecessarily invested resources/time in a fabricated family feud, diverted media/public attention away from big problems & their joint objectives, to a sibling squabble over personalities, procedural differences, etc. I think it's safe to say that supporters of both organizations (an known # participate in both), would not want to work against each other, if it turned out that any tensions/divisions were based upon misunderstandings, falsehoods, petty bickering between specific individuals. Likewise, most supporters of both organizations presumably would like to know if a natural alliance partners were turned against each other because factions/leaders in their organization harbored strong beliefs, which they opposed, or did not think worthy of turning away an potential ally. For example, an average pro-life activist would be puzzled if his/her organization started demonizing another pro-life organization as fundamentally opposed to their cause, would like to know what was behind the mysterious divide, and might switch organizations upon discovery that her leaders supported terrorist attacks on abortion doctors/facilities, or urge leadership to unite, upon discovery that the divide was based upon ego conflicts, or slight differences, deemed trivial compared to the bigger cause. After all, if Founding Fathers, James Madison & Alexander Hamilton had chosen to ignore their major common interests & turned against each other, regardless of consequences, we might've ended up being British citizens, with universal healthcare, without fears of Executives proclaiming unprecedented powers (to indefinitely imprison w/o charge/trial, deny liberty of modern transport, order quasi-torture, of anyone He deems suspicious). Had MLK Jr. opted to denounce all white supporters of the civil rights movement, then we might not have ended up with a black US President in 2008, who has possibly gone further than all his predecessors, in proclaiming powers to suspend/ignore civil rights. The previous two comments revealing historical ironies & some of my personal biases, should not detract from my argument that members of groups with similar core reform objectives would not want to unnecessarily undermine their cause, and reduce their political pressure, because they mistakenly turned against natural allies, for reasons that they would not support.
It is undeniable that the OWS & subsequent affiliate Occupy movements & 99% organizations, within USA & internationally, have influenced political discourse, media attention & triggered both sympathetic & hostile responses from US officials, celebrities, & journalists. Therefore, it is undeniable that the future of what Occupy & any affiliated organizations or movements- framed within this 99% discourse, symbolically linked within the minds of relevant officials, observers & participants- comes to mean, will have a significant influence on the future trajectory of US- hence global- politics, and thus, every particular issue area, about which one is interested. To clarify, I would consider it a "significant influence on the future," if the apparent mobilizing power of the Occupy symbol was obliterated & discredited by the deliberate actions of an agent provocateur, or an unrepresentative crack pot, because the non-existence- or trivialization- of Occupy & affiliated 99% organizations/movements, would also have a significant impact upon the trajectory of US politics, just as the effective disappearance of the Tea Party, Democrats, US Chamber of Commerce, would have.
As this is a draft, I'll jump to one of the important logical truths that my exploration has illuminated:
*No one can credibly claim that there are fundamental, irreconcilable differences that would preclude cooperation & solidarity between the non-hierarchical, de-localized "Occupy" movements, and the yet to be elected "Continental Congress" organization, which will remain largely undefined until delegates are elected & they vote on the ultimate 99% Declaration on July 4th. While the organizational structures & governance models are undeniably distinct, no one associated, could possibly know what the CC2 delegates might self-determine when voting on the ultimate 99% Declaration. Likewise, no one associated with the Occupy movements, could credibly claim to represent all Occupy movement supporters, or local Occupy-affiliates, without logically contradicting their own fundamental, core principles of autonomous, non-hierarchical self-organization. While it is true that OWS/Occupy-Philly General Assemblies voted to reject 99D founder's request for mutual support (apparently, based upon- rightly or wrongly- his outrageous behavior/speech), this does not change the irrefutable fact that any 99D founder could not know what the future, elected delegates would feel were "deal-breakers," anymore than these two Occupy GA's could know that they categorically opposed an organization, which had not yet voted on anything, let alone its core values, or priorities. Are members of both organizations genuinely so committed to either representative/direct democracy governance models that they'd knowingly turn away an ally, which seems to share almost identical substantive goals? This author thinks not, but the point of this article is that this question cannot even be answered yet!"
(See chart & further explication in finished article)
-Christopher M. Tucker (MN-District 3)
"Objective, Logical, Conceptual Analysis of Occupy & the CC2/99D"
Intro: the aim of this piece is to inject some conceptual clarity, logical coherence & empirical accuracy into- often unproductive & misleading debates about- & inquiries into- the Occupy movements, and OWS spin-offs, like the 99D/CC2 organization. To be clear, I have no intention of imposing my normative views about these organizations/movements (e.g. what they should do/be, whether one is somehow "better"), or claiming this is an exhaustive empirical assessment. It is not. I was inspired to write this piece by my observation that persistent analytic, logical, empirical flaws had plagued discussions about OWS & some spin-offs, and these distortions of objective truths, was influencing media coverage, perceptions (of public, actors), organizational actions, and thus broader political system, which such groups hope to ultimately reform. For example, a key empirical mysteries that inspired this piece was that 99D founders' attempts to elicit support & solidarity from ostensible allies, instead inspired categorical denouncements from OWS/Occupy-Philly, and some individuals/factions in 99D/OWS going out of their way to speak as if some fundamental irreconcilable differences made cooperation, solidarity impossible & possibly undesirable.
Given that it the casual observer would be struck by similarity of each group's core values, top policy preferences (e.g. overturning Citizens United ruling, enabling unlimited corporate spending on elections), with two obvious difference being: each group's organizational structure & tactical modus operandi (Occupy movement's primarily use public protests, elected delegates to CC2 will vote on- & present to all branches of US government- a 99% Declaration of grievances & possibly sue US if redress isn't forthcoming).
Given that I had registered as a candidate for the CC2 election, had an affinity for the nonviolent Occupy spirit/causes, I wanted to know whether either organization had some appalling positions that justified an apparent schism (and my opposition), or whether each group/movement could be overcome past tensions, express solidarity in fighting for the same big reforms with different tactics, and unite vs. their common adversary of monied special interests corrupting our democracy, over-representing the elite 1%.
If the latter were true, it would be unfortunate (or fortunate, depending on your biases) if both organizations mistakenly acted, as if playing role in fictional/real elite 1%'s "divide & conquer" strategy, unnecessarily invested resources/time in a fabricated family feud, diverted media/public attention away from big problems & their joint objectives, to a sibling squabble over personalities, procedural differences, etc. I think it's safe to say that supporters of both organizations (an known # participate in both), would not want to work against each other, if it turned out that any tensions/divisions were based upon misunderstandings, falsehoods, petty bickering between specific individuals. Likewise, most supporters of both organizations presumably would like to know if a natural alliance partners were turned against each other because factions/leaders in their organization harbored strong beliefs, which they opposed, or did not think worthy of turning away an potential ally. For example, an average pro-life activist would be puzzled if his/her organization started demonizing another pro-life organization as fundamentally opposed to their cause, would like to know what was behind the mysterious divide, and might switch organizations upon discovery that her leaders supported terrorist attacks on abortion doctors/facilities, or urge leadership to unite, upon discovery that the divide was based upon ego conflicts, or slight differences, deemed trivial compared to the bigger cause. After all, if Founding Fathers, James Madison & Alexander Hamilton had chosen to ignore their major common interests & turned against each other, regardless of consequences, we might've ended up being British citizens, with universal healthcare, without fears of Executives proclaiming unprecedented powers (to indefinitely imprison w/o charge/trial, deny liberty of modern transport, order quasi-torture, of anyone He deems suspicious). Had MLK Jr. opted to denounce all white supporters of the civil rights movement, then we might not have ended up with a black US President in 2008, who has possibly gone further than all his predecessors, in proclaiming powers to suspend/ignore civil rights. The previous two comments revealing historical ironies & some of my personal biases, should not detract from my argument that members of groups with similar core reform objectives would not want to unnecessarily undermine their cause, and reduce their political pressure, because they mistakenly turned against natural allies, for reasons that they would not support.
It is undeniable that the OWS & subsequent affiliate Occupy movements & 99% organizations, within USA & internationally, have influenced political discourse, media attention & triggered both sympathetic & hostile responses from US officials, celebrities, & journalists. Therefore, it is undeniable that the future of what Occupy & any affiliated organizations or movements- framed within this 99% discourse, symbolically linked within the minds of relevant officials, observers & participants- comes to mean, will have a significant influence on the future trajectory of US- hence global- politics, and thus, every particular issue area, about which one is interested. To clarify, I would consider it a "significant influence on the future," if the apparent mobilizing power of the Occupy symbol was obliterated & discredited by the deliberate actions of an agent provocateur, or an unrepresentative crack pot, because the non-existence- or trivialization- of Occupy & affiliated 99% organizations/movements, would also have a significant impact upon the trajectory of US politics, just as the effective disappearance of the Tea Party, Democrats, US Chamber of Commerce, would have.
As this is a draft, I'll jump to one of the important logical truths that my exploration has illuminated:
*No one can credibly claim that there are fundamental, irreconcilable differences that would preclude cooperation & solidarity between the non-hierarchical, de-localized "Occupy" movements, and the yet to be elected "Continental Congress" organization, which will remain largely undefined until delegates are elected & they vote on the ultimate 99% Declaration on July 4th. While the organizational structures & governance models are undeniably distinct, no one associated, could possibly know what the CC2 delegates might self-determine when voting on the ultimate 99% Declaration. Likewise, no one associated with the Occupy movements, could credibly claim to represent all Occupy movement supporters, or local Occupy-affiliates, without logically contradicting their own fundamental, core principles of autonomous, non-hierarchical self-organization. While it is true that OWS/Occupy-Philly General Assemblies voted to reject 99D founder's request for mutual support (apparently, based upon- rightly or wrongly- his outrageous behavior/speech), this does not change the irrefutable fact that any 99D founder could not know what the future, elected delegates would feel were "deal-breakers," anymore than these two Occupy GA's could know that they categorically opposed an organization, which had not yet voted on anything, let alone its core values, or priorities. Are members of both organizations genuinely so committed to either representative/direct democracy governance models that they'd knowingly turn away an ally, which seems to share almost identical substantive goals? This author thinks not, but the point of this article is that this question cannot even be answered yet!"
(See chart & further explication in finished article)
-Christopher M. Tucker (MN-District 3)