December 3rd, 2011

Semiformalishmaybe

Between Cloud and Ground

(This is extracted and elaborated on portions of a post I decided not to share)

Last night, I attended a post-occupy occupy meeting of OccupyPHL's Coordination Committee, held in 30th Street Station's food court. It was one of the larger CoCo meetings that OccupyPHL has held; most post-park meetings have been held so far in a Quaker center near where Dillworth Plaza/City Hall was occupied (apparently they are very happy to take part because it's putting their community in touch with a number of youth and it fits their social causes). I have not been to any of these meetings; this is my first meeting of any kind since Dillworth was cleared. The mood was fairly mixed, the intro was as irritatingly immersed in multiculturalist-flavour-of-liberal BS as I remembered (what that non-shared post was a long grumble about), but the meeting was pretty productive; Occupy is organising a number of marches and other events. I'm glad to see that the traditions of radical-democracy (in particular, how discussions/votes/proposals happen) are being carried forward; some form of this will help grassroots movements have robust public discussions in a structured-and-open way. I'm coming to think that Boston's variant is better than PHL's, but PHL's will certainly work.

Apart from some marches, there's some talk at a national form of Occupy; finally we're going to try to take the smattering of ideas and see if they can scale up and solidify on solutions. One form of this is The 99% Declaration and the convention it calls for. Some parts of it are wishful thinking or ill-conceived, and some I simply disagree with, but my readers who are interested in politics or philosophy of jurisprudence will probably find it an interesting read. Some (not terribly long) commentary:Collapse )

Semiformalishmaybe

Kool-Aid Shout

I'm a bit weirded out at some of the behaviour of one of the Occupy groups I follow on plus. Twice now they've done posts that I disagreed with, I offered a criticism of the post, and they then deleted the entire post.

I'm not sure how to take this; is this a sign that they agreed with me? Is it a form of quiet retraction? Should I feel happy or offended?

The second post was today where they posted about Occupy being rooted in anarchism and as a great anarchist triumph. I said something to the effect of "There are a lot of others in the movement, many of whom are opposed to anarchism; it would be unwise to plant the anarchist flag on it unless you want to drive the rest of us away". It started to get a handful of +1s and then *foom* away went the original post. I don't remember what the first one was about (it was a few weeks ago).

(Update: they re-posted, with the following added: 「When I first shared the article, there was immediate disagreement about portraying Occupy as anarchist and excluding others. This was not my intention; obviously Occupy is supported by an overwhelming diversity of voices.

I deleted the post to give me time to reflect on it further; in the end I decided to repost and remind everyone that nothing posted here represents Occupy in any official way.」)