I have just spent the last two days at Occupy Melbourne. To say that it has been an interesting political experience is an understatement! I feel we are currently witnessing a battle for the democratic soul of the Occupy movement in Melbourne. There is the linked struggle to decide whether Occupy Melbourne is actually committed to maintaining a protest site within the Melbourne CBD and a struggle to see whether it is the Working Groups or the General Assembly which is the ultimate power within Occupy Melbourne.
My perceptions is that since Saturday 29th there has been what can almost be described a as a coup by a number of people within key Working Groups to try and shift Occupy Melbourne out of the CBD to a protest camp within Edinburgh Gardens in North Fitzroy. This is in direct contravention to the wishes of two General Assemblies on Saturday 29th where the overwhelming majority of attendees expressed no desire to move out of the CBD. I describe some of these dynamics in depth in this artice WTF happened at Occupy Melbourne on Oct 29th?. Briefly, at the Treasury Gardens GA the crowd was given three choices of location to try to re-establish OM. This was the Treasury Gardens, RMIT or Edinburgh Gardens. Of these three options Edinburgh Gardens received the least support. When we moved to RMIT and were faced with the threat of eviction from there the crowd was again given the options of going to the Edinburgh Gardens, staying at RMIT or going to a third location within the CBD on public land. The crowd after a lengthy debate overwhelming voted for going to the State Library to re-establish.
What is important to note that members of the Logistics team pushed at both of the GA’s to go to the Edinburgh Gardens on the grounds that they knew the layout of the Park and we were currently allowed to camp there. When the debate at RMIT was clearly going against them members of the Kitchen Working Group announced they were leaving to go to Edinburgh Gardens and the Kitchen was already being set up there. This was prior to the end of the General Assembly. What resulted on Saturday night and Sunday was a failure from key elements of the Logistics, Kitchen and Media Working Groups to support the attempts by around 70 people to Occupy the State Library in line with the GA decision. The Logistics Working group removed key resources from the State Library, such as blankets, on the grounds that they did not want to risk their loss. The Kitchen Working Group did not provide either dinner or breakfast to the new camp and only brought lunch when hassled by people at the State Library. They took key communal resources to Edinburgh Gardens. A member of the Media team tweeted and Facebooked that the new OM camp was at the Edinburgh Gardens. These messages were removed by other Media members when they were noticed which highlights that these working groups did not operate as a homogenous mass during this time and various elements worked to both support and undermine the State Library camp.
However the real attempt to hijack the Occupy Melbourne Movement and undermine the ongoing attempts to Occupy the CBD occurred at the Sunday General Assembly. What followed was a series of attempts to delay or avoid any discussion of the future of the Occupy Movement and in particular where the camp was occurring that night and how it could be supported. This was led by key members of the Facilitation Working Group. The first sign that something was amiss was when the Faciliation Working Group delayed the start of the General Assembly for at least forty-five precious minutes. They were huddled in a group discussing god knows what while the rest of the meeting of a couple of hundred people waited patiently. Once the meeting began, moderated by the “Baron” we then had a fairly lengthy description of how GA’s worked. It was five o’clock before we even got to the first report back from a Working Group. There was no explanation made for the delay. Nor was the agenda of the meeting shared the General Assembly. .The first report back was from the Facilitation Working Group. We were told that the Facilitation Working Group felt they had not been respected at the General Assemblies during the day before and therefore they felt that their processes needed working on. To allow this to happen a special meeting of the Facilitation group was to be held on Tuesday at Gopals in the City and that the Facilitation Group was not prepared to facilitate any more GA’s until this process had occurred. Therefore the next General Assembly was not to occur until Wednesday at 6PM at the State Library. I couldn’t believe my ears. The standing procedure of Occupy Melbourne since its inception has been that every day during the occupation a GA would occur. For the Facilitation Working Group to announce that no GA’s would occur for the next three days meant that either an occupation would have to continue each day without any decision making capacity or that they were assuming no occupation would be occurring. I immediately asked to speak to be able to object to this decision which had not been presented as a proposal but an announcement. I was told by a member of the facilitation team after they consulted with the team as a whole that I was not able to dissent to this decision, it was a decision made by the working group and not open for discussion. When I asked whether I could make a procedural objection to how the meeting was being run, I was told this also was not possible! Very frustrated I continued to listen to the meeting.
The second shock of the meeting came when, after being prompted by heckling from the crowd, the moderator informed the meeting what was on the agenda and there was no mention of discussing what would be happening that night or the future of the occupy movement at all. When I again put my hand to ask to be able to speak to object to this, I was again told this was not possible and that the decision about what to do that night would not be discussed in the GA but instead would be discussed in a separate Logistics Working Group meeting after the GA finished. I had actually been in the Logistics meeting at 2PM held on Sunday and no mention of this was made. At this stage I got up out of my seat and without knowing when I might be able to speak, I just put my name on the speaking list.
My chance to speak eventually came when a proposal from the Community Outreach Working Group that a GA should be held on Wednesday and every Wednesday afterwards in the City Square. I objected to his proposal. After a few minutes delay and some more discussions amongst the facilitation group I was eventually allowed to speak. I stated that I objected to the proposal on the grounds that no decision should be made on future General Assemblies until the issue of what we were doing next as an occupation was resolved as this should inform any decisions on where and when GA’s should occur. The discussion on this proposal should be deferred until after this discussion. I also expressed my dissent to the fact that at this stage what we were doing that night was not even on the agenda.
At this stage chaos descended upon the meeting. People began heckling the moderator as the Facilitation team descended into yet another huddle. Arthur Dent heckled the Facilitation team a number of times for turning their backs on the meeting to talk to each other. The Facilitation team then asked for a few minutes break from the meeting to discuss how to proceed. All the while time was ticking on making any meaningful discussions on what to do that night more difficult by the minute.
When the Facilitation team eventually returned to the meeting, they stated that they had not prepared for a discussion about what would happen that night and therefore were not prepared to facilitate such a discussion. They said instead we would continue with the agenda of report backs from working groups, at that point they would step down from facilitating the meeting and a discussion of what should happen next could happen if someone else was prepared to facilitate the discussion. When it was suggested that we should not continue with the report backs and get straight on with discussing what to do next the Facilitation team again conferred and without putting it to the meeting decreed that we would continue with the working groups report backs. Time was still dragging on without this vital discussion being able to occur.
The next dramatic moment of the meeting occurred when a member of the Kitchen Working Group gave his report back. He started by saying that if anyone had a problem with the actions of the Kitchen Working Group they could come and speak to him after the General Assembly. He then launched into an extremely aggressive diatribe to explain why the Kitchen Working Group had moved the kitchen to the Edinburgh Gardens. He stated that nobody had consulted the Kitchen Working Group about moving to either RMIT or the State Library and they were not prepared to have the kitchen equipment threatened with confiscation or have knifes near where police might be. However this explanation was expressed whilst screaming and stating words to the effect that if anyone thinks the Kitchen Working Group is going to do this they can go and get fucked. He explicitly rejected the decisions of the General Assembly on Saturday. Many people in the crowd were visibly shocked during this tirade and whilst some clapped, many heckled. The atmosphere in the meeting was not good. I considered leaving the meeting because I was so upset at the level of contempt for the collective displayed by this individual which was not challenged by the moderator or facilitation team but decided it was important to see how events panned out.
It is also worth noting that a s the reports continued from the Working Groups little or no mention was made of the ongoing occupation at the State Libary that had resisted eviction by police the night before. This occupation which was line with the decision of the GA at RMIT was clearly being written out of the narrative. Eventually the moderator mentioned that the Occupation had occurred but this was at least half way through the meeting.
Working groups reportbacks continued without any proposals being made to save time. It was not until 7PM that working groups report finished at which point the moderator and the facilitation stepped down. This was three hours after the scheduled start of the meeting and not one minute of discussion of what was happening that night had been allowed to occur.
At this point Nick Carson stepped up to offer to facilitate the meeting. Arthur Dent objected to this saying it should be opened to the floor to see if anyone else wanted to facilitate. I put my hand up as did a fellow Occupier Mitch. A vote was taken with myself and Nick getting around 60 votes each. Someone suggested a division!!!! and people lined up on either sides of the meeting. This whole surreal affair was getting out of hand and Nick made the great suggestion we co-chair which I happily agreed too. This was put to the meeting who overwhelmingly agreed to this suggestion.
We then began at 7.10 to begin the difficult process of trying to get an agenda together including discussing what to do that night with a really tired, understandably fractious crowd. Some members of the crowd left at this stage but well over 100 people remained. Most prominent members of the Facilitation team left at this stage but a couple stayed on to help with taking minutes, speaking lists, etc which was great. There was a heated discussion initially sparked by my decision to drop the “soap box” corner off the agenda where people could speak to any issue, until after we had dealt with what to do next. Some of the people on the list felt aggrieved as they had been waiting hours to speak and when it was put to the meeting, I was overruled. So we continued with the speaking list from the earlier part of the meeting. People spoke on issues such as supporting Qantas workers and taking our money out of banks and putting it in credit unions. Some new proposals from two participants were made about changing GA meeting process. These included proposals to dissolve the Facilitation working group, have moderators elected each meeting, to have the education working group give workshops on facilitation, to change the way assent or dissent is measured in meeting, etc. None of these proposals were able to be fleshed out within the time constraints and these proposals were scheduled to be discussed at Wednesday’s GA (let’s see if they appear on the agenda for Wednesday and indeed if the minutes from this GA appear on the website too). At about 7.45 I proposed to the meeting that at 8PM regardless of where we were on the agenda we would stop and begin discussing what was to occur that night – there was consensus on this proposal. One further proposal was made, which was that the next GA was to occur at the State Library at 6PM on Monday if the camp was still occurring. Two clarifications were added and accepted by the meeting which were these GA’s were not to discuss broad issues of politics and direction but immediate concerns about the camp and that they could proceed without a member of the Facilitation team if necessary.
At 8PM, Nick asked the meeting who was prepared to camp that night at the State Library and about 20 people said they were prepared to stay. We dissolved the GA at that point and a short meeting occurred to organize the logistics for those staying the night. Sean from logistics was there to coordinate food from the kitchen, signs, blankets etc.
It had taken until 8PM, four hours after the scheduled beginning of the meeting to even have a cursory discussion of what was happening that night. There was unfortunately no space to discuss if and why the Occupation needed to continue that night. There was no space to discuss what had happened the day before. Elements within the Facilitation working group had successfully sabotaged the meeting as a decision making forum. I believe this was deliberate. I believe that these same elements had not accepted the decision of the GA from the day before and wanted the camp to continue at the Edinburgh Gardens. I believe that this sabotaging of the meeting and attempts to delay the GA was an attempt to have people disperse that night, making it very difficult to organize continuing occupation at the State Library until we reassembled on Wednesday. In the meantime a core group of people would continue camping in North Fitzroy and another attempt would be made on Wednesday to have the camp moved to the Ed Gardens. I believe that the facilitation group has completely usurped its role by trying to decide what issues go on the agenda’s of GA’s and when they are to occur. Their role should solely be to facilitate discussions at GA’s on agenda items which are generated from the floor and from the report backs from Working Groups.
I believe these elements are accusing anyone who opposes this blantant manipulation as not respecting them and not respecting consensus. On Facebook there has been many posts accusing Socialists of undermining the GA’s and not respecting consensus. This blatant redbaiting is being used to delegitimise critics and to delegitimise decisions made at the GA on Saturday that some people don’t like, in particular not going to the Edinburgh Gardens. I believe elements withi the Facilitaiton team is trying to create an aura of mystique and expertise around the process of consensus to justify tightly controlling the process. For example on a Facebook thread from today one member of the facilitation team stated “The meetings that have run well required several hours planning and info gathering.” WTF? I have been involved in consensus decision making for 20 years and news flash it’s not rocket science. They need to take a deep breath, step back from trying to shape the agenda of each meeting and just follow simple meeting procedure. It is their role to order the agenda, take speakers for and against, test consensus and where appropriate sum up positions and make compromise proposals to move the decision making process along.
I also believe that the Kitchen collective by moving to the Gardens has effectively split the camp and they continue to work on Facebook and in person to undermine the viability of the State Library by attracting people and resources away from the camp mandated as the official OM camp by Saturday’s GA. I believe that some but absolutely not all members of the media are undermining the State Library camp by making announcements on FB that either downplay or ignore the ongoing struggle to maintain a camp at the State Library. It should be noted that other members of the media team are very committed to the CBD occupation. I believe that the logistics team has been placed in a difficult situation by being asked to service two camps but they are inadvertently undermining the CBD occupation by taking resources to the “safety” of Edinburgh Gardens. I support keeping gear safe but this could be done without two camps by keeping gear at Trades Hall or Ross House within easy reach of the CBD camp. Once again I think the logistics team is being placed in an impossible situation.
People will say I am being divisive by writing this piece and airing “dirty laundry” but I think it is vital people have a chance to think and discuss these things before Wednesday’s crucial GA. The future of democracy within OM is at stake. Are working groups going to dominate decision making or are working groups going to be held accountable to GA’s? I think the tail currently is well and truly wagging the dog. I should add this is obviously just my perspective and because I camped out on Saturday night some of the exact order of events in my recall may be a bit faulty but I stand by the general thrust of what I have written. These kind of issues have come up at other Occupy camps around the world and I have faith that we can sort through these internal problems and come out even stronger but this requires honesty, transparency and a willingness to deal with the internal as well as external challenges to our movement. Good luck and solidarity to all those committed to building this movement into a powerful force for equality and social change.
By Davey Heller
Here is an article I wrote after this one which I think explains more clearly what has happened over the last week at Occupy Melbourne No leaders? No politics? A perspective on the struggle for control of Occupy Melbourne
Footage below of the report back made by the Facilitation Working Group announcing that no GA would be occuring until Wednesday and why.
Comments
What is the discussion around different locations about?
What is the discussion around different locations about? Is there reasons behind the location divide? Would also be interesting to hear the perspective of the facilitations team and the kitchen crew?
Re: Occupy Melbourne – is this what democracy looks like?
Hi Davey, I was the person who spoke from the kids and parents group - I didn't say that an occupation was not happening, in fact I was on the phone to the guys at the State Library until at least 1am and was following everything that was happening there. I supported their stand and think that they are heroes. I also tried to put to the assembly that we re-affirm that ALL WGs need to remain accountable to the GA - however this was passed over.. Just a point of clarification..
ALL WGs need to remain accountable to the GA
Hi Davey, I was the person who spoke from the kids and parents group - I didn't say that an occupation was not happening, in fact I was on the phone to the guys at the State Library until at least 1am and was following everything that was happening there. I supported their stand and think that they are heroes. I also tried to put to the assembly that we re-affirm that ALL WGs need to remain accountable to the GA - however this was passed over.. Just a point of clarification..
Davey, people like you scare those that are less confident
I found you to be very angry Davey, yes things need to be changed and no doubt will but your attitude put me off just as much as Arthurs, it's people like you that scare those that are less confident. You seemed to be pushing your own agenda and acting desperate for the limelight. I hope you will not be moderating in the future.
More of this crap and we prove we don't have what it takes
Eyes on the prize people. More of this crap and we are proving we don't have what it takes to bring about change.
Nobody is trying to undermine the movement, such accusations appear to me as petty, a bit paranoid and I find it embarrassing.
Broaden camp, lightning occupations here and there, GA in CBD
To me, both camps represent Occupy Melbourne. Our collective is Occupy melbourne not Melbourne CBD. I fancy Occuping the Botanical gardens when it gets a little warmer. If I am ask to leave or give my ID, I will say very politely, "What authority gives you the right to ask that of me?, then,"I do not wish to contract with you today sir". And then "Is there any thing else I can help you with today?
The kitchen is the heart of a house and the kitchen staff where the hearts that fed the occupiers, homeless and lonely for a glorious week.
Hey lighten up, Occupy comming to the burbs of Melbourne. These warriors need to rest and recoup, they have been physically there. Not plotting or planning who can say what when or where, or how this movement continues. Individuals leading independantly will fill up on their own importance and pop under pressure. this is a movement of forward thinking each single one their are leaders . We have all experienced ridicule for being part of this thing we all have invested sole and passion.
I see great things from broadening the camp. We can all meet at the CBD treaury gardens for GA. Meanwhile lightening occupations ocurring here and there or city square, back to the library, Fiztroy gardens, Occupy Captain Cooks Cottage. Could have Occupied the cenetary tonight
Notify Willing Workers On Organic Farms, that we need some people prepared to camp in the city.
It is intense isn't it, but then nothing worth while is and personally it may take decades to really undestand the consiquences of that act of disent on the 15th oct and the city square stockade attack six days later. in the words of ? Carpenter We've only just begun, sharing horisons that are new to us."
Seek welcoming privately owned site to safeguard resources?
It is understandable that some people will think along the lines of protecting resources/equipment etc from loss as a result of any further eviction action. Any decision on location needs to address ALL the essential considerations. The question therefore are:
1.whether to have the support base which requires equipment at a different site from the demos, to safeguard against loss/damage
2.what site(s) to choose for these two activities, that will still allow the movement to be effective
Finding a central site that is privately owned and that welcomes the movement and supports the principle of peaceful protest would seem to be the ideal solution.
It's people who claim that Davey scares them, that scare me!
In response to Anonymous who posted: "I found you to be very angry Davey, yes things need to be changed and no doubt will but your attitude put me off just as much as Arthurs, it's people like you that scare those that are less confident. You seemed to be pushing your own agenda and acting desperate for the limelight. I hope you will not be moderating in the future".
Davey's post does not come across as being angry at all to me. However, if he was angry, then I think he has ever right to be given the blatantly undemocratic behaviour of a small minority of people involved in Occupy Melbourne. A great many other people share Davey's opinion and annoyance at the blatant attempt by some to hijack OM.
It seems to me that "anonymous", you are engaging in passive aggressive behaviour to push you own agenda and to try and intimidate Davey and others who disagree with the undemocratic behaviour of a small minority at OM. You are clearly trying to intimidate people from speaking out about this by accusing them of silencing you because you are apparently underconfident and by by accusing Davie of having ulterior motives (ie. wanting the limelight) without any proof whatsoever. If you are underconfident then that is your issue and its not Davie's responsibility to fix it, it is your responsibility.
I certainly hope that it will be people like Davey who will facilitate and moderate in future, as he clearly wants the meetings to be democratic and inclusive and respectful of the decisions made.
Unelected people making decisions is never acceptable
Good article Davey, unelected people making decisions is never acceptable especiallly when it's against the vote of a collective
Great article keep going
Congrats on a very thoughtful and informative article.
We all need to support the decisions of the GA.
There may be many people who have invested a lot in setting up the working groups at the beginning. These people need to be supported - and engaged with - very sympathetically.
The actions of individuals or groups who are delegated by the GA (no-one has been elected yet) are always subject to either ratification or reversal by the GA. Also, the GA can set up new groups and recall existing ones.
I have seen a proposal by one group to introduce majority voting at GAs. This will make the situation worse. A small well-organised minority can easily manipulate the GA process with majority voting.
Rotating roles - such as facilitation - through various individuals and groups is always a good thing. But facilitation is a tricky process and they need to know what they are doing. I support Davey as a facilitator.
Let's stay positive. Groups typically develop in four stages - forming; storming; norming; and performing. We are at the 'storming' stage.
Solidarity.
We should have sought more commentary for an informed decision
As one of the alleged facilitor/leaders/control holders I find some of this commentary really divisive.
A few points: the one time I actually got to participate in the GA rather than have my voice silenced by facilitating - because THAT IS actually what happens... I put this proposal that was unanimously supported: each working group needs to write up its own mandate, including nominating clearly anyone who has to deal with external authorities and this needs to be ratified/amended as necessary by the GA.
Woah - the sheer power I was trying to maintain in the proposal - amazing! Sorry for the sarcastic tone but honestly... I am finding some of this a bit ridiculous.
I put that proposal in the spirit of open-ness and transparency. None of the groups has done that yet, but perhaps we can encourage it again.
One clear mistake that was made on the Saturday as that in order to try and be more time efficient we suggested just having a couple of speakers in support of each proposal, rather than for or against. This backfired, we should have sought more commentary for an informed decision. That said, the people who put the proposal up about Bowen Lane should have also done their homework; that decision WAS actually made by a small caucus of people, who it turns out hadn't talked with key logistics groups to see what was possible.
As I understand it the facilitators wanted to re-group, learn from the process, mistakes made and suggested that they would come back to facilitate wednesday GA - in the meantime, GA's could occur that dealt with the direct needs of the campers... it wasn't a great conspiracy was it?
As for presenting consensus and facilitation as this dark art. I know you have been involved in activism for many years Davey, but if you think that running a meeting well of hundreds of people happens without some proper planning and foresight, you are foolish. People need information to make informed decisions and good facilitators plan ahead to make sure that is available. In order to dispel fears about the upcoming eviction I spoke with many people over several hours, planned out a proper agenda and made sure all info was at hand: result was an efficient meeting, people had some fears dispelled and the meeting actually finished early. I consider that a good result.
People in the FWG have been crying out for more people to get involved, and have been open to changes and improvements in the process - presenting them as otherwise is unfair. I don't see how these accusations are going to help move us forward.
Each working group needs its own mandate, ratified by GA
Thanks for those observations. I can't come and physically help your group at the moment but I can offer some feedback on the process.
Re: '...each working group needs to write up its own mandate, including nominating clearly anyone who has to deal with external authorities and this needs to be ratified/amended as necessary by the GA. Woah - the sheer power I was trying to maintain in the proposal.' Good proposal. I suggest that you add two more words though: ie. '...ratified/amended or REJECTED'. I don't think that this proposal (if accepted) would confer working groups with power over others at OM.
Working groups can continue without explicit regulation by the GA but their activities can always be subject to the oversight of the GA. I.e. if push comes to shove a working group can always be recalled (dismissed) by a GA if they have been found to abuse the process. (I don't think that it would come to this at OM but this is worth keeping in mind)
Logistics do not have the power of veto to stop any proposals
Nicola,
firstly, everyone has the right to put a proposal up at the GA - they do NOT have to talk with Logistics first or get their proposals vetted by Logistics. They do not need permission from Logisitics before putting forward a proposal. Everyone has the right to put ANY proposal for discussion and debate at a GA and Logistics do not have the power of veto to stop any proposals being put forward and discussed and neither do Logistics have the right to veto any proposal that may have been adopted by the GA.
Secondly, all working groups, including the facilitation and the logistic working groups, are just that - working groups, they do not make decisions for Occupy Melbourne. The GA does that. While working groups should be able to bring ideas to the GA for discussion, their role once a decision is made at a GA is to implement the decision made - not to oppose the decision, not to veto the decision or to stymie the decisions made. Instead their role is to implement the decisions voted on.
As for Consensus being a "dark art" what a load of hogwash. I have been involved in consensus decision making for years, including in Australia, the UK and in conflict zones, both with small groups and very large groups and you do not need hours of preparation if you know what you are doing.
The job of a facilitator is not to caucus with people "with many people over several hours" (as you write) before a GA, the job of a facilitator is simply to facilitate the meeting at the meeting.
What do you hope to achieve?
This might sound like a dumb question,but what do you hope to achieve with occupation of Melbourne ?What is the goal?
Thank You
To gather support for the principle of people BEFORE profit
Not a dumb question at all and I am very glad you asked it, Lilly. Although of course there can be many responses, depending on the thoughts of the individual, I believe that the goal is simply to draw people's attention and gather support for the principle of people BEFORE profit. This does not mean NO profit but is just asking that people are looked after first. There is NO need for anybody on this abundant planet of ours to be going without food or shelter. Absolutely no need. Yet how long have there been folk going without? So it has to stop. And NOW. I hope this answers your query.
I don't think you will change anything by protesting
I don't think you will change anything by protesting, it looks like the banks are still making big money., It looks like Qantas will screw over their workers, it looks like public servants will not get the pay rise they are after, no one in big Business cares about a bunch of protesters thats the facts sorry,but you go and enjoy yourselves trying to save the world LOL
I would prefer to strive as joyously as I can towards betterment
Okay, this is not easy to express, so please do bear with me and forgive me if anywhere along the way I tie myself in any cognitive loops or knots.
Personally speaking and thinking, for I cannot speak or think for others, I prefer as much as I possibly can to demonstrate and/or do positive non-violent action rather than protest as such. Things like empowering people to grow their own food in communities together (and there are workshops being planned along these lines, to hopefully take place at OM.. perhaps elsewhere), and building rather than just simply tearing down. Nor do I think 'us and them' thinking or force works very well to create positive change either as these tend to engender oppositional responses.
Mindfulness from heart leads to better results and less of a sore head from banging it against a hard wall. It is also not non-violent to be banging ones head as that is violence to self. I myself also at times have a sore head when I do things in certain reactive ways *wry smile*. Yet this is a learned/known response.
As for the big corporations and banks, I do not view them as totally outside myself but that my own actions form part of the machinery. The lyrics of Donovan's song The Universal Soldier, which pertain to war, give somewhat of an idea of what I speak of. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PT6NRc37T_8
Nor do I particularly believe there should be no profit at all but a bit more along the lines of, and I will use a quote I saw by someone called James Rouse here which I thought was rather good: that "Profit is not the legitimate purpose of business. Its purpose is to provide a service needed by society. If you do that well and efficiently you earn a profit." It seems to me that the system is upside down, with profit coming before not only people but the planet itself that we rely on and the other creatures which co-exist with us and the planet. Instead we can be responsible and caring... for ourselves and others and, arising from this, be of service to each other, so that we may all have food and shelter. At the moment there is a lot of waste as we all go about our daily lives, encapsulated and isolated to an extent and unable to see the forest for the trees.
Yes, to try and create something which doesn't just invent the same old not working so well or working for a time then collapsing wheel is a big thing. Yet the same as things such as the pyramids, and banks and corporations themselves eventually came about, it can come about. I recently watched Mike Daisey's monologue "Collaborating with Corporations", in which he spoke somewhat of this.
http://www.abc.net.au/tv/bigideas/stories/2011/11/01/3352340.htm
I thought this was brilliant, although limited in some ways as I thought there was a tad too much us and them in it - but nobody is perfect, and certainly not me lol!
Fear creates resistance to change yet if we look about there are numerous things which many of us all do nowadays which are new as far as the ages go. Things we never dreamed of, often changes occurring without it even being realized that these new ways have found their way to coming about. Sneaky little things, they are. ;-)
Therefore change can occur, especially when there is a critical mass towards this. And critical mass is what it hinges on.
Yet critical mass itself upon closer look is made up of a diversity of things including individuals, who all have a footprint upon things. To realize their ability to take a step towards change is the biggy. Myself, I prefer and hope that this can be achieved without stepping too roughly upon others.
I would prefer to strive as joyously as I can towards betterment, being as mindful of my footprint as my current awareness allows me to, such things being relative... living and learning, realization dawning at times - other times bopping me one!
Okay, I hope I have managed to pull that out of my head and vomit it here in a somewhat coherent fashion.
All the best,
Diane :-)
Nicola - please watch the youtube clip of the GA
Hi Nicola - I know you are a really experienced activist who has done some great work. I am really confused why you are saying some of the things that you are.
For example you state:
"As I understand it the facilitators wanted to re-group, learn from the process, mistakes made and suggested that they would come back to facilitate wednesday GA - in the meantime, GA's could occur that dealt with the direct needs of the campers... it wasn't a great conspiracy was it?"
Please watch the Youtube clip below or embedded in the article.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B39obJr2RUE
It shows plain as day Beth stating to the GA as part of the Faciliation Working Group that no GA's were to occur until after the Faciliation Team has their meeting on Tuesday at Ghopals. She simply announces the next GA would be held on Wednesday. Either you have been misinformed or for some reason you are attempting to misinform others. Please just watch the video. This is an important point as it was this decision by the Faciliation Group to simply state by decree that no GA's were to occur until they were prepared to facilitate them that demonstrates to me the way this working group has ursurped all reasonable definitions of its power.
You also state -
"That said, the people who put the proposal up about Bowen Lane should have also done their homework; that decision WAS actually made by a small caucus of people, who it turns out hadn't talked with key logistics groups to see what was possible."
This is all coded red baiting and very tiresome. We know the "Small caucus of people" you refer to was Steve Jolly and the Socialist Party. It is entirely legitimate for ANYONE to put forward a proposal. If others felt that the Ed gardens were so great why did they not argue for it more strongly at the GA on Saturday in the Treasury Gardens? Why in fact did the logistics team seem totally unprepared to occupy the Treasury Gardens at all? People made that decision on Saturday because the case for the Ed gardens was weak (its out of the CBD), the case of the Treasury Gardens was not strongly made and we were intimidated by hundreds of cops and the case for Bowens Lane was the most convincing even if it was wrong in hindsight. I was not manipulated into voting for Bowens Lane but convinced by the arguments. I suggest that a bigger problem was that "key logisitcs" groups did not bother to make a case to the GA as they assumed the decision would be a fait accompli for the Ed Gardens.
Lastly - obviously people need some training in order to be able to faciliate but if the facilitation working group put more time into demystifying the process of consensus rather turning themseles into some kind of specialised priest class of the movement that would be much more beneficial. Keep the meeting process simple, publish the basic meeting procedure on the website etc If it takes "several hours" to prepare for every daily GA then I suggest we have a problem. Lastly it is not the job of the Faciliation Working group to "prepare the agenda" but facilitate the agenda largely as it arises from the floor. Whilst some obvious things could be pre-considered the problem in my opinion is that the Faciliation WG think they can determine the agenda. For example they did not put on the agenda for the Sunday GA what we were doing that night and resisted attempts to get this rather obvious item onto the agenda, to the point they refused to facilitate when this item was being discussed.
Nicola - I did not accuse you personally or anyone else in my article but talked about how the Faciliation Working group operated as a whole during the Sunday GA. Working Groups are obviously not homegenous but we need to be able to discuss how they are functioning as a whole. I am not accusing any one individual of anything but trying to stimulate discussion and reflection on the internal dynamics of this movement which is the only way a movement committed to "real democracy now" can move forward.
We don't have enough experienced facilitators
In response
The proposal has already passed Jack, but it was intended to help make the working groups accountable, and of course, the mandate could be rejected or amended - you make a fair point.
An Miki - yes, indeed - people can put up proposals... but I would have thought common sense would dictate it would be good to talk to relevant people beforehand to see what was possible re preparations for the action. And yes, it is the working groups job to implement decisions but its helpful if they actually can be implemented - eg: food truck couldn't go to bowen lane or whatever - would have been good for people to have this info beforehand maybe?
And we will have to agree to disagree...given the steep learning processes and nature of the working groups I did find it helpful to find out a bunch of information, and do some homework about what contentious issues might play out, and how best we could handle them fairly. That was my experience at a couple of GA's and also when helping facilitate spokescouncils at climate camp. We also have an issue of not having many experienced facilitators... and I think information and knowing what is coming up helps people try and logically order an agenda, and see, for example, what issues might come up and make sure all the needed info is at hand.
Perhaps as an experienced facilitator you might like to help train some people? There is certainly an identified need.
cheers
Aim for a bit of faith, don't default to a conspiracy theory
Please do not accuse me of coded red baiting. Although I disagree with some of the tactics used by some socialist groups I have been honest about this, and have happily worked with socialists over many years, including some folks on the facilitation working group.
I also think there are alot of people who have been accused of 'red baiting' when they might be bringing up legitimate concerns about how a group operates. People might also want to make comment on how anarchist crew operate - is that black baiting? :)
There was a discussion involving a range of representatives, not all socialists, who were keen on Bowen lane. Its not like they were hiding they were meeting, it was right out in the open, but the fact is, it was a caucus of people, a number of which I got the impression hadn't been involved in overnight staying... and it might have been helpful for them to talk with crew that had to enact their idea is all. We should all be aiming to be more strategic I reckon?
And I can't speak for them, but I certainly got the impression that a range of folk from logistics had actually put in a fair bit of homework into treasury gardens... i certainly didn't get the impression that EG was considered to be a 'done deal'.
Re the agenda - it has remained the same for pretty much all meetings, except for one which I specifically requested permission to prioritise talk on eviction which was given. I just spent time making sure we had all the relevent info for that discussion. I think that is why it ran more smoothly, that is all.
I wasn't there on Sunday but Beth directly clarified for a large meeting of the facilitation working group her perspective re what was said (and or intended, but possibly not well communicated?) re FWG not able to run another meeting till wed. I am satisfied with that but I won't speak for her. Certainly accusations of deliberately delaying the meeting seem unfair to me.
I think the FWG as a relatively inexperienced and totally underresourced and understaffed group has actually done really well to hold some of this stuff together - although the last few days have been hard - It feels like a fair bit of anger has been directed at facilitators for example, when people maybe are angry and frustrated about some decisions the group or other individuals made. As a group we all need to encourage better behaviour. One of the reasons people probably didn't want to moderate and the meet was delayed on sunday is because there has been appalling abuse and behaviour directed at the moderators.
There have been many suggestions for improving the process, and some that have been suggested well before tonight that there just hasn't been time to enact (flyers explaining process, update on website, standardised explanation each meeting etc etc)
There were over 40 people at the FWG meeting tonight - lots of constructive suggestions were gathered... if even half of them maintain involvement then we will be well sorted for numbers. Its gonna take some time to nut out some of the way forward, but we made a good start.
If folks could just aim for a bit of faith, instead of defaulting to a conspiracy theory maybe we stand a chance. I'm up for giving it a shot.
Let's not be divided and conquered but hang in there together
Rome wasn't built in a day, yet OM have been doing a lot in a short time and with a lot of pressure. Let's not be divided and conquered but hang in there together as much as we can. Well done to us all - especially those really in the thick of it - thus far, even if there are some frustrating, trying, and tiring times.
What do you think you have achieved Diane?
What do you think you have achieved Diane?
Denied space,we are directing our frustration towards each other
I feel I see clearly what is happening. Frustrated by being denied a public space in which to educate, inform, discuss, feed, learn and help, we are directing our frustration towards each other. The most important thing for this movement is to never let factionalism get the better of us. The media will never understand us because they can't encapsulate the whole range of issues and opinions in ways that will be easy for most people to digest. What I see in Occupy Melbourne is a range of individuals and groups contributing what and when they can, all with different knowledges, informed by different sources, seeking different changes, but united by the gut feeling that something must be done by us, NOW. The magic is that it isn't top-down, it is less about bureaucracy and hyperbole and more about action. Our movement is organic. It is living.
Be the change - every action is potentially revolutionary!
p.s. I have been close to tears many times whilst marching with you people. This is the greatest, most inspiring but sometimes sinister and disheartening period of my life. I am truly glad to be part this wondrous change.
In the organic living nature you identified lies the hope
Well said, Mitch!
It is important to caution against the danger of division. I would also suggest being careful about not letting affairs evolve (or degenerate?) into a game of cat and mouse with the authorities.
You have stated some good watchwords, which need to be continually the focus:
On the subject of the media, they will inevitably transform so as to avoid appearing as an irrelevant anachronism! Check out this mainstream website for some inspiration:
http://www.ethicaleconomics.org.uk/
In the organic living nature you identified lies the hope. It means that the movement can learn and grow in knowledge and experience. Some of the main causes of frustration seem to have been related to these two processes:
These difficulties could be addressed by agreeing some basic principles to observed in each of these processes, so as to reduce the likelihood of further frustrations. Personally, I can hardly wait!
We need to promote some serious policies
I have tried without success to air my own concerns about Occupy Melbourne on their site, unfortunately without success. This great "freedom" movement has silenced me. Not one of my posts has been posted on the site. Twice I have sent emails to people and received no response. For a so-called democratic movement it has barred me from having a voice in the Occupy Movement.
So I will make a few points here.
Occupy Melbourne has been like a dog without a bone since October 21st, which I refer to as Black Friday. Since that bloody day, when Robert Doyle sent the troops in to evict a peaceful and happy occupation of City Square, we have had nowhere to lay our hat. The General Assembly's have fallen into farce. The media has mocked our democratic processes. And no wonder. When someone gets up on stage and tells us that we shouldn't march anywhere because it is likely to stop traffic for a while we have to wonder what the fuck we are doing.
Democracy is great, but it's like all things, too much democracy only brings us down. In response to the above article, it is all well and good 100 or 1,000 people saying "let's occupy such and such a space" but unless they have the willingness to do the job, to go there and set up camp and face forced eviction, which is what will most certainly happen anywhere within the Melbourne CBD, then really, their opinion is simply hot air. It is the people who are going to physically occupy the space who must have the greater say on where that occupation should be.
The very first thing I contributed to the debate (which was ignored) was that we need to engage in dialogue with the City Council to negotiate a space which we can claim and camp in. If there is no such negotiable space we have three options. Find private land within Melbourne that someone is prepared to invite us to set up camp on (this could be RMIT, Melbourne University, a church, anything where the decision is taken away from the Council). If this is not possible we are reduced to two options. One is to set up camp in Melbourne with the knowledge that we will be evicted, and to resist like on the 21st until we have been pushed the length and breadth of the City, with violence and disruption and arrests etc etc. The other is to find an alternative place to camp outside of the CBD. But without a base Occupy Melbourne ceases to exist. So this has to be settled. I don't know why we wouldn't at least attempt to negotiate with the Council in good faith,stating clearly that it does not have the legal power to prevent peaceful assembly. But if that fails, and it most probably will, and in the meantime even if it had success, we need to find somewhere we we can be. I have outlined the three possible scenarios. It is the organisers and those who are willing to put bodies into sleeping bags and tents that must make this decision. This does not mean that a General Assembly ceases to have a function, but it cannot have that function.
At least that seems clear to me. Some of the facilitators were angry with me because I yelled a couple of times during proceedings at the 10th or 9th General Assembly. Well if you want trained monkeys then you'll get the brains of monkeys. If you want passionate, earnest, free thinking independent individuals then maybe you have to be prepared for an interjection now and again. One of the facilitators acted like the police, telling me where I could stand. They don't have that right. If you want to promote freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, then stand up for individual rights as well, don't stamp upon those rights.
I feel like the organisers have become like the pigs in Animal farm. They have made themselves more equal than the rest. They stand at the top. We stand at the bottom. The Bolsheviks did this. A short history lesson. The Bolsheviks named themselves that name, which means, in Russian, the majority. In the revolutionary movement of the time they were not the majority. The majority were calling for a capitalist revolution, not a communist one. They felt that capitalism had to come before communism. But Lenin and Co. named themselves the majority, called themselves the Bolsheviks, and took over the dialogue and direction of the revolution.
This is important because when we claim that we are the 99%, we are acting like the Bolsheviks. I'd like to think I stand for the 100%. But really I stand for just me. The greedy corporate mogul is as disenfranchised and alienated from his or her true nature as the proletariat is. But we don't represent a silent majority. We represent ourselves. We represent the disenfranchised and alienated in ourselves. We would do much better, instead of baseless chants, to focus on some real policies that will provide for true representation and true freedoms. The freedom to assemble is in Victorian law. One policy I would advocate is for proportional representation in Parliament. Real democracy. Democracy that recognises the number of greens and socialists in society. At present Federal Parliament has one green member. If there was proportional representation there would be twenty green members. There would also be socialists. But I haven't heard a single person promote this, just some stuff about corporate greed and "we are the 99%" That doesn't cut it. We need to promote some serious policies. The only policy I have seen on Occupymelbourne.org is the one for a treaty with our blackfella brethren. This is an excellent policy. Why is it the only one? Surely we need a super profits tax to return some of the billions in banking and other profits to the public? Why hasn't this been promoted?
Back to the organisation. You cannot claim that you promote freedom of speech when I have been disallowed to post on your website. You allow others to post but you censor mine. Why? And why hasn't one of you had the guts to come to me with any concerns you might have. Surely you have room for one dissenting voice, for one person who represents himself, who is independent, unaligned, who speaks for himself and not for others? If there is not room in your movement for that, what in the hell are you do presenting yourself as representing me?