'Freepers' Attempt to Derail OccupyLA - But Movement May be to Blame...

[BradBlog]

Rightwing Opponents of Occupy Wall Street Walk Through its Open Door to Block Progress
Why OWS must become the egalitarian democracy it seeks - Part I: Ill-defined 'consensus' is not democracy'

A post on Tuesday on the hard right Republican website Free Republic suggests that opponents of the Occupy Wall Street movement may well be injecting themselves into the demonstrations' open consensus process in order to confound the objectives of the nascent movement.

"(We n)eed LA Freepers to show up to block this vote by the Occupy LA General Assembly," the poster identifying him/herself only as "joinedafterattack" wrote in apparent hopes of scuttling a discussion that night about a proposal being negotiated with the LA City Council to trade 10,000 square feet of office space and some farmland with demonstrators in exchange for their voluntary exodus from the lawn in front of City Hall.

The call by the rightwingers to take part in a General Assembly meeting at OccupyLA for the specific purpose of blocking a proposal (one that was rejected, in any case, by the majority of demonstrators that night) exposes the vulnerability of Occupy Wall Street's "consensus" decision-making and an internal contradiction between a movement which rails against rule by the 1% even as it permits the one to block the will of the many...

FULL STORY: http://www.bradblog.com/?p=8952

[louis-t]

1. I'm sure all those freepers will conduct themselves like

ladies and gent..... :rofl: Awww, I just couldn't finish it.

[Luminous Animal]

2. Doesn't Occupy LA use the 90% tactic in order to reduce the chance of a block by

infiltrators?

[Fire Walk With Me]

4. It will adapt, if it hasn't already. I'm putting this before the right people.

[Luminous Animal]

6. Cool!

[BradBlog]

12. OccupyLA uses 100% Consensus...

...with that requirement going down to 90% by the THIRD attempt.

But, again, as noted in the story, the consensus system allows the minority to dictate policy to the majority -- the very thing OWS and the 99% movement is fighting *against*!

[Zhade]

18. That is such an absolutely stunning misreading of the consensus process, where do I begin?

I guess the first, and maybe only, thing I need to say is that it only allows a minority voice to dictate THEIR RIGHT TO EXPRESS THEIR DISAGREEMENT. While that may lead to frustration and attempts to drag out the process, the movement's dedication to consensus ensures that simply being heard does not dictate policy... unless that minority voice sways the 99% that is in consent with what's being challenged.

[JHB]

3. Just look for the big cluster of unused porta-potties

They always bring more than they need, and you can bet they would never let actual OWSers use them.

[lonestarnot]

9. Loaded with northern tp koch autographed.

[MADem]

5. ...exposes the vulnerability of Occupy Wall Street's "consensus" decision-making ...

It's a problem. Unless, of course, some members of the 99 percent are more deserving than others. Where is the line to be drawn, and who is going to stand up and do it?


The goal of egalitarian democracy will not be realized absent resolution of the anti-democratic, internal contradictions that have emerged from within the movement itself.

It is ironic that the decision to proceed by way of an ill-defined "consensus" system was, itself, superimposed on a now world-wide democratic movement by a small group who came up with the idea of Occupy Wall Street and that a movement which rails against rule by the 1% has come up with a rule of governance that can permit a single individual in some cases --- and a small group of individuals in other cases (each Occupation may have slightly different rules governing its General Assemblies) --- to block any and every action.

[jwirr]

7. Kind of sounds like our present congress.

[alcibiades_mystery]

8. Rough consensus and running code

It built the Internets.

Not total consensus and bullshit, or partial consensus and bullshit, or no consensus and running code. Rough consensus and running code: Most folks agree and the shit works. It's not that complicated.

[jberryhill]

15. Haven't kept up with ICANN, have you?

As in, literally, who died and left you in charge?

[alcibiades_mystery]

23. Ha!

:-)

[jberryhill]

25. There's only a certain kind of person who would see the joke there

Don't make me figure out who you are, lol.

[coalition_unwilling]

10. Most freepers, whether they admit it, are members of the 99%. As such,

they are fully entitled to attend any General Assembly and participate according to the same processes that everyone else observes.

If they hard block a proposal, they are required to defend their hard block before the entire assembled GA. If they maintain their hard block long enough, the proposal will be tabled for that night and that night only and will come back the next night, if the proposer so wills. So that means the freeper with a hard block has to show up more than one night to have any practical effect.

So how many freepers are going to be willing to leave their parents' basements for more than one day? They're valiant keyboard warriors and REMFs, but not so good at the hard work of building consensus.

[BradBlog]

11. Please read the full story...

As it notes, OccupyLA still works on 100% consensus. Just one person can hard block anything and, as in the case of what the Freepers were hoping to block, it was a very time sensitive issue. In fact, after it failed, the Mayor announced the shut down of City Hall Park.

I point his out only to note that sometimes coming back the next night to try agaIn may not be a viable option. More importantly though, allowing the minority to dictate policy over the majority seems the complete *inverse* of what the 99% Movement supposedly stands for.

[cui bono]

16. Very good point. The 100% concensus should definitely be re-examined.

Especially when the number of people is constantly growing. I mean how often do you get 100% consensus on anything even no agitators? You are absolutely right, it allow for a tiny minority to control action and that's very much what the movement is against.

[coalition_unwilling]

22. Well, I have personally witnessed a proposal get hard-blocked

3 nights in a row. Each time, the proposers diligently reworked the proposal to take into account the hard blockers' concerns. And, on the 4th night, the proposal passed.

Furthermore, on Sunday, November 28, when there were 3-4,000 in attendance at GA, 3 proposals passed by consensus. I personally witnessed it. If the Freepers were out there, they certainly were not hard blocking on Sunday night.

Finally, I would have hard blocked that 'offer' from the Mayor's office on grounds that it was negotiated in secret and that it was a disgusting attempt to bribe OLA with its offer of 100 shelter beds. And I'm no Freeper. The proposal you're alluding to failed not because of Freeper hard blocks, but because of many principled and well-though-out objections to it.

The source article you asked me to read in full mis-defines and mis-represents 'democracy.' It does not mean 'majority rule,' except if one stretches ingenuity and language to their limits. Democracy means 'one person, one vote' but says nothing about the process by which those votes will constitute passage or defeat of any given proposal. For the record, OLA uses 90% consensus on actions, but 100% consensus on statements.

Imagine a world where the voice of a homeless or mentally ill individual has equal weight to the voice of an Eli Broad or Bill Gates. It's not that difficult

Edited for clarity and pernicious typos.

[Luminous Animal]

24. Thanks for this. :)

[mwrguy]

13. Who do you think was breaking windows in Oakland?

Not real occupiers.

[AntiFascist]

14. The 1% are often supreme experts at infiltration....

this can happen anywhere, not just at Occupy GAs.

When there is a block, minority or otherwise, the reasoning behind the block should be held up to the light of day to determine if there is a hidden agenda that may help the 1% at the expense of the 99%. This is not always easy as some issues need to be discussed ad nauseum, or compromised if a decision favors one group of people over another.

[Zhade]

17. What a load of horseshit. I've been to only three GAs, and even I can tell you why.

I saw it in action tonight -- when someone has an issue, IT IS DISCUSSED AND NOT LET GO until consensus is reached.

Consent doesn't always equate to total agreement, but it always mean acceptance -- which only comes after people's concerns are expressed, discussed, and debated. Any freepers who think this tactic will disrupt the movement are just demonstrating how little they understand its participatory-democracy core.

[coalition_unwilling]

26. Thank you. Those who are critial owe it to themselves to vist a GA

in person, so they can see the process in action. I was initially very skeptical and referred to the hard block as a one-person filibuster. However, I have gotten converted for exactly the reasons you mention.

[Scuba]

19. Sounds just like the Democratic Party in Washington....

... infiltrated with right-wingers who support cuts to Social Security and Medicare, and arresting US citizens and holding them without charges.

[Zhade]

20. Or assassinating their sons with drones.

Had to be said.

[Scuba]

21. Sadly, I agree it had to be said. n/t