About This May Day Thing

Well.

It's General Strike Day.

I've been parsing the supposed "disbanding" of the New York City GA and Spokes Council. I first came across this notion the other day in a blog post I can't find right now -- and it really doesn't matter all that much -- having to do with something else, and I thought, "That's odd." I was aware of dozens of actions and activities in New York City alone planned for May 1, and the notion that somehow the NYCGA and Spokes Council, the heartbeat as it were of Occupy Wall Street, had disbanded during the preparations for the General Strike seemed daft, indeed bizarre.

But as I checked around on the various OWS and NYCGA websites I though maybe it was true as there was very little updating. Online discussions were limited or truncated. Obviously something had happened early in April to start shuttering things down but just what it was difficult to say.

Then I found the statement from Facilitation that they would no longer be providing facilitation services to either the GA or the Spokes Council... due to... something... that was not entirely clear. "Yer on yer own, folks!"

Hmm.

Well.

The primary issue, as far as I could make it out, was that participation had fallen to the point where only a few (say 25-40) diehards were left attending the GAs in New York, and the Spokes Councils had never really taken hold. They'd been contentious from the outset, and their constant squabbling led to lack of participation with SC as well. On a number of occasions facilitation was either verbally or physically assaulted, and as a Working Group, Facilitation decided it wasn't going to put up with this shit anymore. 'MmBye!' Meanwhile, no one was taking notes and livestreamers were refusing to attend and stream the meetings of either group; sometimes they were specifically disinvited in any case, there being a good deal of tension between the streamers and Occupy participants due to a perception that some of the streamers were most interested in promoting themselves regardless of any needs of OWS for Solidarity.

To say that the Revolution has been going through a rough patch is to put it mildly. Very mildly indeed.

Of course OWS itself is not the Movement; it is one of a number of independent and autonomous Occupys in New York City, one of hundreds around the country and the world. The notion that OWS is the HQ or Revolution Central is widespread but erroneous. Occupys do their own thing. What OWS began may have been the trigger for the Movement/Revolution, but OWS is not the HQ for any of the plethora of autonomous Occupys.

Because of the brutal police overreaction and occasional rioting against Occupy encampments, and the apparently very intense surveillance and disruption of various Occupys in the United States and elsewhere, it has been very difficult if not impossible for more than a few Occupys to maintain a continuous presence let alone continuous activism. As an organic and evolutionary Movement, however, Occupy has broadly responded to the state suppression unleashed with such fury against it by dispersal, somewhat like spores on the wind, wafting far more widely than I think anybody anticipated -- certainly this development wasn't anticipated in much of the internal workings I was aware of.

For example, I had seen Occupy more as a concentration of Revolutionary activism and as a basis for the development of intentional communities that would be able to survive any sort of repression, but that isn't quite how it worked out. Instead, most Occupys yielded to repression and allowed their encampments to be destroyed without (much of) a struggle. The intentional communities that spontaneously arose at Occupy encampments seemed to disappear, or, as in New York, they struggled mightily to hang on to their encampment spirit and largely failed.

This didn't mean that the spirit was gone; it meant that in many cases it had spread more widely than a concentration in a single site would have allowed.

There are few encampments left, but the encampments themselves were symbols, much like the iconic and symbolic tents have become. The encampments were demonstrations that Another World Is Possible, and they showed ways to do it.

The Alternative Spirit, if you will, is now just about everywhere, whereas there is very little focus on the concentrations of effort that the encampments represented.

I certainly find that's been true in my own approach to revolutionary (and Occupy) affairs. My focus and activities have changed significantly as the reduction in my blogging output and choice of topics shows. My attendance -- online or in person -- at local Occupy events is spotty at best, and my participation is very limited. Right now, I'm mostly interested in study and reconnection with some of the Alternatives of the past as well as an intensified preparation for a very uncertain future.

In that study, I have become convinced that pretty much all of the elements for Another World, putatively Better, already exist, and most of them are working pretty well. Hooking up with them means gradually -- or in many cases, suddenly -- decoupling from The World As We Know It. As I decouple, something that has been under way for the last few years, I find that the necessity to need and to have and to want and to do have diminished substantially. It's a surprising form of liberation. At first, I attributed it just to getting old, but I think there is something else going on as well. When you see that needing and having and wanting and doing are all tied in to our materialist culture and lifestyles and there are many appealing alternatives, every one of which is essentially an open door to Another World, it becomes easier and easier to Let Go.

And Letting Go, in these times, is the individual's revolutionary act.

"Letting Go" is the key element of today's General Strike; whether that is really clear or not to its participants remains to be seen. It's a start on letting go of the ties that bind so many Americans.

Whither the Revolution?

I can't say. I have no idea. It's all a muddle. Maybe last fall and winter's Occupy was a misfire, like that of the Decembrists. Maybe so. But even the failed Decembrist uprising laid the groundwork for things to come...

http://maydaynyc.tumblr.com/

Why I'm Not A Fan of the Spokes Council Model

The New York City General Assembly adopted a significant revision to the operations of OWS and a significant limitation on the power and authority of the General Assembly itself when it adopted the Spokes Council Proposal of the Structure Working Group on October 28.

Fritz Tucker's widely publish dissent has made the rounds. It's very clear to someone who has been following the NYCGA what Tucker's dissent is dealing with, but it may not be so clear to the non-involved public. It looks like the question is all about money and nothing else. In fact, there is a lot more going on than simple pecuniary interest.

There has actually been a great deal of dissent and wide-ranging discussion leading up to this major structural change, and though I can't be certain (one's eyes can deceive one), it appears that much of it has now disappeared from both the NYCGA and the OWS websites. Instead, there are hundreds of off topic posts among which a few of the posts arguing against the Spokes Council model remain, like raisins in a pastry.

But one thing is certain: minutes have not been posted from any NYCGA since November 4; there are no minutes posted of any Spokes Council meeting; there are no archived Livestreams of any GA since November 2, and there are none at all for any Spokes Council meeting.

Announcements are made of pending meetings of the Spokes Council, and the time or place is changed suddenly. There is no follow up on any of the OWS websites, so whether or not they actually took place is unknown. Nature of these meetings is changed suddenly; announcements are not necessarily timely, nor are they particularly accurate.

Requirements for Spokes Council membership are strict but not necessarily adhered to, necessary forms are not provided or not easily found, communications falter.

I could go on and on, but the overall picture is clear enough: in an effort to alleviate the chaos inherent in a Direct Democracy model as used by the NYCGA, the Spokes Council model was proposed to operate in parallel and in tandem with the GA; the proposal was rejected several times before a revised proposal was accepted, but once it was, many of the operations at Liberty Plaza and throughout the OWS Movement -- in New York -- went into a state of paralysis or chaos as people tried to figure out what was what and who was now suddenly who, and how this whole New Model OWS was supposed to work. Nobody knew and information was in very short supply.

I am reminded once again of images I don't want to recall; that reminder was very stark as the captives on the Brooklyn Bridge were corralled and then led one by one and in batches to their fate. Without resistance.

Now it is a reminder of the chaos of re-establishing authority in a brand new, very complex system that under psychological if not physical assault every minute of every day. Review the documents of the chaos and the re-establishment of authority in the ghettos of Eastern Europe during the Period of Unpleasantness* in the previous century. This is what the re-establishment of authority through the Spokes Councils looks like to me, and this is one of the reasons why I don't like it.

[*Period of Unpleasantness = the totalitarian/Nazi conquest era in Europe, not simply World War II; Fascist, Nazi, and crypto-Nazi ideology and political power pervaded Europe from the end of WWI through the end of WWII. The scapegoating of the Jews long pre-dated either of those events; their ghettoization and finally extermination was all but pre-ordained within the overall European context, and people still remark at how the Jews mostly meekly complied with the Orders for their round up, concentration and death. When I see some of the same meekness and compliance in the face of authority in New York -- especially -- I get very nervous about what may be in the cards in the by and bye. I try not to make too much of it, but I won't turn my back on the evocative nature of what I see. Better to point it out than to avoid the issue.]

I don't have an ideological objection to the Spokes Council model in tandem with the GA, for I think it could be an excellent means of scaling up the operating model of the Movement. An inherent problem with Direct Democracy is that in order to function properly, it has to be maintained at no greater than a certain, fairly small, scale. Those who originated the idea and practice in Athens thousands of years ago figured that out pretty quickly: the model could only function -- and even then not necessarily well -- at a scale of no more than 5,000 or 6,000 participants. Ideally, the Assemblies were smaller; and there had to be an elected body from within the Assembly to handle day-to-day operations in any case. In other words, the Assembly was not capable of appropriately handling minutiae, nor -- tragically for Athens -- could it appropriately handle bigger questions of War and Empire and such on behalf of the People.

The Spokes Council model, if it is operating properly (which it is not in New York) can provide a means to deal democratically with both the larger and smaller matters that the General Assembly cannot do well or at all. But it carries with it significant risks to the interests of and the overall health and well being of the People it is supposed to represent.

The Spokes Council is, after all, a form of Representative Democracy that is at least tangentially related to the failed Representative system the OWS Movement seeks to... change or at least to move beyond.

The advantage of a Spokes Council model is that it can be scaled up, whereas realistically -- as the folks in New York found out -- the GA model cannot. They had to split into two General Assemblies, one at Liberty Plaza and one at Washington Square, and empirically, they were still too large to operate productively. Something of the same problem has occurred in other cities (Boston, Chicago, Oakland, etc.) where the GA and the Occupation became too large for the site and for reasonable operations and they calved off supplementary locations.

If each is autonomous, then (if) as each grows, they will have to split in order to survive. The GA model is one of endless proliferation and autonomy. It has its function, but it also has inherent limitations. (Think biology.)

The Spokes Council model allows for limited and structured proliferation on a common pattern with common interests and goals, especially if it is taken to its logical extension: the Council of Councils, or as has been attempted in rough form via conference calls, the National Council of the Occupations. This is already taking place.

Supreme Soviet, Politburo, all of that. It is that Soviet model -- as well as the failure of the current liberal democratic representative model, let's not fool ourselves -- that is at the foundation of much of the criticism of the Spokes Council model. We've seen this movie before. We know how it ends. Why would we want to willingly go through it again?

But is there any rational alternative?

Fritz Tucker's well-articulated dissent has to do with money and how money is collected and handled by the NYCGA, and how the Spokes Council takes the authority over money away from the GA. Tucker also raises the alarums over the fact that a handful of interested people are ramrodding the Spokes Council model, setting themselves up as "leaders" forcing what they want on the rest of the body by stifling dissent and discussion and limiting what can and cannot be raised at Assembly.

I won't dispute his points. The problem of charismatic leaders is intrinsic to the human condition, and it does not good at all to simply complain about it. What needs to happen, it seems to me, is to recognize that the emergence of leaders -- even in an "leaderless" movement -- is completely natural, human nature, and the way to deal with it is not to try to prevent it, but to institute adequate controls on the assertion of Leadership. It's the lack of those controls that has led to so much disaster in our poor and weary world. (Cf, the Period of Unpleasantness in Europe).

The Spokes Council ideal attempts to deal with this natural human state through rigorous adherence to stated principles, and through the constant rotation of the Spokes. Since theoretically anyone can become a Spoke (momentary leader), and everyone is encouraged to be, no one charismatic Leader can (theoretically) emerge. I would urge caution in that belief. The model is not functioning at all in New York, and if it ever does get up and running, I can almost guarantee that a handful of more assertive and persuasive Spokes will assume control of the whole, and they will be almost impossible to dislodge. Most people will go along with it because most people are more comfortable with this state of affairs. They would rather be led than lead.

Human nature once again.

In my view, the best course of action for the time being is proliferation through operating General Assemblies. The problem is that many -- maybe most -- GAs don't function in the manner in which they are intended in part because there has been very little information about and training to use the GA model. Simply put, people of good will don't know how the GA model works and they don't know what to do in the face of their ignorance. They can't learn it from the Puerta del Sol Quick Guide, either. This was one of the chief failings of the initial OWS expansion. There was very little documentation and no training (unless you went to New York) on the practical aspects of "how to do it." Consequently, hundreds of Occupations came into being all of a sudden and each had to figure out for itself how to function, mostly without communications, guidance or even insight from those who had already done it.

Many adopted the superficial aspects of the NYCGA -- ie: hand signals, stacks, etc. -- but not the core principles (if those were even known), and from an operations standpoint, many, if not most, adopted some version of Robert's Rules rather than the far more egalitarian, anarchic and open model of the NYCGA and its progenitors.

Anarchy is not well-understood in this country, and many Anarchists can't articulate their politics very well. They can do "it," they just can't express what "it" is coherently or cogently.

So what happened was that many of the Occupations started out on an Authoritarian model, often without even realizing it. Some of them are trying to move toward a more open/egalitarian (ie; Anarchic) model but are having a very difficult time doing it. The Original Sin was to start out on an Authoritarian path. Once on it, you're almost stuck there.

On the other hand, some of the Occupations which started out on an Anarchic path (such as New York City's) are now gingerly feeling their way back toward Authoritarianism (with a stop for some Chaos to let the need for Authority percolate in) because their "leaders" (in waiting) have decided Anarchy Doesn't Work.

What do you do?

What do you do when you realize this Revolution is not going to be stopped? All the struggles over "models" are really peripheral. The Revolution is carrying on regardless.

And in that context, the hyper-sensitivity some have shown over Black Bloc tactics becomes almost clownish. Much more deeply rooted and important matters are at hand, and a broken window or two simply doesn't matter in that larger scheme. Not to put too fine a point on it, but Black Bloc is all but irrelevant in the larger scheme.

The Movement-Becoming-Revolution is already beyond Black Bloc.

Oakland is the Energy Center for the Movement now, and it is in Oakland where a lot of the real work of consolidating the Revolutionary aspects of the Movement are going on. But eventually, the Energy Center will shift again, maybe to somewhere abroad, where other aspects of the Movement will be worked out and consolidated.

What's happened to the Movement-That-Became-Revolution in Europe and North Africa ought to be instructive, but who among us even knows what's happened there? If you rely on CNN, you literally know nothing at all about it, and I haven't had time to look into it as deeply as I want to.

Watch Greece, watch Spain, watch Italy, watch Morocco and Tunisia and Libya, especially watch Egypt.

"Reality" changes every day.

Decide for yourself whether Spokes Councils are the way to go forward. For me, they're not. But I've been known to change my mind!

OWS History Lesson

This is quite good. I tend to be something of a history nerd anyway, and Graeber's outline of what happened back in the early days -- it seems so long ago now -- and how it became what we see today is illuminating.

A tasty morsel of the kinds of things I like:

On August 2, I showed up at a 7 PM meeting at Bowling Green, that a Greek anarchist friend, who I’d met at a recent activist get together at 16 Beaver Street, had told me was meant to plan some kind of action on Wall Street in mid-September. At the time I was only vaguely aware of the background: that a month before, the Canadian magazine Adbusters had put out the call to “Occupy Wall Street”, but had really just floated the idea on the internet, along with some very compelling graphics, to see if it would take hold; that a local anti-budget cut coalition top-heavy with NGOs, unions, and socialist groups had tried to take possession of the process and called for a “General Assembly” at Bowling Green. The title proved extremely misleading. When I arrived, I found the event had been effectively taken over by a veteran protest group called the Worker’s World Party, most famous for having patched together ANSWER one of the two great anti-war coalitions, back in 2003. They had already set up their banners, megaphones, and were making speeches—after which, someone explained, they were planning on leading the 80-odd assembled people in a march past the Stock Exchange itself.

The usual reaction to this sort of thing is a kind of cynical, bitter resignation. “I wish they at least wouldn’t advertise a ‘General Assembly’ if they’re not actually going to hold one.” Actually, I think I actually said that, or something slightly less polite, to one of the organizers, a disturbingly large man, who immediately remarked, “well, fine. Why don’t you leave?”

But as I paced about the Green, I noticed something. To adopt activist parlance: this wasn’t really a crowds of verticals—that is, the sort of people whose idea of political action is to march around with signs under the control of one or another top-down protest movement. They were mostly pretty obviously horizontals: people more sympathetic with anarchist principles of organization, non-hierarchical forms of direct democracy, and direct action. I quickly spotted at least one Wobbly, a young Korean activist I remembered from some Food Not Bomb event, some college students wearing Zapatista paraphernalia, a Spanish couple who’d been involved with the indignados in Madrid… I found my Greek friends, an American I knew from street battles in Quebec during the Summit of the Americas in 2001, now turned labor organizer in Manhattan, a Japanese activist intellectual I’d known for years… My Greek friend looked at me and I looked at her and we both instantly realized the other was thinking the same thing: “Why are we so complacent? Why is it that every time we see something like this happening, we just mutter things and go home?” – though I think the way we put it was more like, “You know something? Fuck this shit. They advertised a general assembly. Let’s hold one.”

So we gathered up a few obvious horizontals and formed a circle, and tried to get everyone else to join us. Almost immediately people appeared from the main rally to disrupt it, calling us back with promises that a real democratic forum would soon break out on the podium. We complied. It didn’t happen. My Greek friend made an impassioned speech and was effectively shooed off the stage. There were insults and vituperations. After about an hour of drama, we formed the circle again, and this time, almost everyone abandoned the rally and come over to our side. We created a decision-making process (we would operate by modified consensus) broke out into working groups (outreach, action, facilitation) and then reassembled to allow each group to report its collective decisions, and set up times for new meetings of both the smaller and larger groups. It was difficult to figure out what to do since we only had six weeks, not nearly enough time to plan a major action, let alone bus in the thousands of people that would be required to actually shut down Wall Street—and anyway we couldn’t shut down Wall Street on the appointed day, since September 17, the day Adbusters had been advertising, was a Saturday. We also had no money of any kind.

After the explosive events on Thursday, thanks to the appearance of hizzoner KJ and his hijacking of the General Assembly, things calmed considerably by Friday, though there was still a lot of angst and hostility to work through during the day. By the evening, I was chatting with an oooooolllllllldddd comrade from the long ago, an artist and a constant advocate for social justice, whose works adorn this and many other cities, and whose work -- especially on behalf of United Farm Workers, but including many, many other activities -- is simply brilliant. It was wonderful to see him again.

At one point during the evening's festivities, there was a moment of tension when it was determined that the General Assembly and the time of my old comrade's discussion group were in conflict. This is a constant problem with the local Occupation; there still is no real consideration, and often seems to be no consciousness, of anyone or anything else except one's own specific activity or interest. I find that both fascinating and troubling. Anything that gets in the way of what someone wants NOW is subject to swift and sometimes brutal denunciation.

Well, of course my old comrade took it all in stride. He said to me, "You know we've been through all this before. Many times." I nodded. "And it's best just to take it as it comes, we don't have to make it a fight on the inside."

Sure enough.

---------------------------------------

Note: word has it that hizzoner KJ went to watch the arrests in the Plaza tonight; he was incognito, sitting in the dark, apart from the hullabaloo across the Plaza. Someone spotted him and gave him a shout out, asked him to come join the demonstration; he declined. Then he was apparently challenged on the issue of the First Amendment rights that were being violated nightly by the continuing arrests of peaceful demonstrators.

At that point, according to reports, he fled, surrounded by police.

There were reports that at Thursday night's arrest drama, some of the officers (or maybe only one officer) were threatening and intimidating some of the witness/supporters of those arrested, apparently basing their attitude on specific things posted on the Facebook page, claiming threats were made toward the mayor.

This is bizarre in the extreme.

But then tonight, reports started coming in of police following demonstrators when they left the Plaza and some being pulled over by police on "suspicion" or being cited for minor infractions like flicking cigarette ash out of their car window.

Of course it could all be coincidence.

Couldn't it?

It Happened in New Haven

I'm putting up this video of New Haven's October 15 March and First (Full) General Assembly as a resource for future reference. I hope that people who are thinking about facilitating a General Assembly or are merely curious about how a General Assembly which follows the blueprint of the New York City General Assembly works.

The GA begins at about 56:00. To get ready for it, the crowd does the Revolution Chant that is very popular in New York. "Get up, get down. There's Revolution in this town," and they do it as enthusiastically and rhythmically as I've ever seen or heard it done.

Pretty good for Yalies.

OccupyNewHaven is camped at the Upper Green -- with the support of the city -- indefinitely.

Watch live streaming video from occupynewhaven at livestream.com

If you stick with the video, you'll see that they use the People's Mic very effectively (there is a good deal of wind interference with the audio, so be prepared not to be able to hear everything. I'm told that a piece of tape or even a bandaid over the laptop microphone will cut wind interference) they have to deal with disruption, and not everything moves smoothly. They've never done it in New Haven -- though I don't doubt some of the Work Group members and other speakers were active in New York before setting up in New Haven. They get confused, and take some wrong turns, but they are able to get back on track relatively easily, partly because there is always someone there who has the knowledge necessary to point the Assembly in the right direction.

Other things to pay attention to: They're having a great time. Part of the reason to use the People's Mic is to keep the Assembly actively engaged in what is going on. It's a form of participation that has a remarkably positive effect on the General Assemblies that use it (more and more of them all the time). The speakers are prepared. The Assembly functions without the need for Robert's Rules of Order. They only had one proposal; it was handled immediately and was approved without a vote. They instead heard questions, asked whether there were any blocks or other concerns, then asked for a "temperature check" -- essentially a preliminary non-binding vote. They received near unanimous approval in the "temperature check" and there were no blocks or opposition. Therefore, no actual vote was necessary. Consensus had been achieved.

Non-Violent Communications

Yesterday got kind of interesting for a while down at the Occupation. It's always interesting, but yesterday was somewhat exceptional.

After coming off the high of the day before, the much larger crowds, the marches, the rallies, the camaraderie and spirit that seems to infuse all these efforts everywhere around the country and the world, yesterday's get-together and gab-fests (yak-yak-yak all the time until nobody has any voice left any more!) was mellow and more sparsely attended.

The arrestees from the night before weren't released until almost noon. They are being kept longer at the jail, and while so far as we know they aren't being physically abused, some say they have witnessed physical abuse of other prisoners -- not Occupiers -- and they have been kept in conditions of extreme discomfort for many hours -- typically more than 12 now -- with no food or water. It's not a pleasant experience for anyone, and the fact that so many of our participants are volunteering for jail every night has been an inspiration to everyone else to keep going. Going to jail isn't cheap, either. I'm told that each Occupier/Prisoner is assessed $575 in costs each time they are arrested and jailed. But there is no lack of support. And they all have excellent pro bono legal representation.

The current sheriff used to run the jail, and he's well known for having made a number of important reforms while in charge of the jail. The number of suits for abuse was growing year by year, and the reports out of the jail about brutality, neglect, and generally appalling conditions were scandalous. It was costing the County a lot of money in settlements as well. The situation may not have been as bad as that which is now being exposed regarding the Los Angeles County detention facilities, but it was bad, and something had to be done.

And something was done, one of them being the replacement of the jail supervisor with one of the department's most capable officers. There were still problems at the jail due to the nature of the officers assigned there -- new officers, generally, just getting their feet wet in law enforcement -- and the fact that no institution in our society, especially not incarceration focused institutions, changes quickly, nor necessarily positively, but the number of complaints declined, and the outrageousness quotient was reduced.

One of the teach-ins I attended yesterday as an observer dealt with Conflict Resolution and Non-violent communications, attended by about 20 participants and two "teachers." One teaches conflict resolution at the community college, the other is a conflict mediator in the private sector. As a side note, as I've previously noted, I am a certified workplace conflict mediator and have been a meeting facilitator perhaps hundreds of times. One loses track after a while! I have not engaged in meeting facilitation for at least five years, nor have I mediated workplace conflicts for almost ten years, which is quite a relief in many ways, for it takes a great deal out of you to do it and do it well. And I think I have mentioned previously that I would not volunteer to facilitate any level of Assembly or working group activity at this or any other Occupation for the simple reason that I know all too well that my training and experience in the field is simply a wrong fit for this kind of participatory democratic endeavor. I even hesitate to offer advice. The kind of mediation/facilitation skills that I learned and practiced are something like riding a bicycle. You never forget them, and they kick in automatically when the environmental cues are there. I would revert to the way I used to do it without even being conscious of the reversion. Those ways are superficially egalitarian, but they are actually very hierarchical and authoritarian, and they have a tendency to reinforce the "dominant paradigm," of course without meaning to. Of course not...

So it was interesting to observe how these two teacher/trainers approached the topic of conflict resolution and non-violent communication in the context of the OccupyTogether movement. Which, in fact, they didn't. There was hardly any mention of it, and what there was had mostly to do with how its objectives aligned their concepts of non-violence and conflict resolution... except... they don't. It's quite different.

Luckily, before I had a chance to open my big, fat mouth about it, I saw a man striding down the walk into the Plaza toward me. It was someone I haven't seen in nearly 15 years, a man who wrote two of the plays our theater produced back in the day, and who is now living and writing in Oakland. It was a remarkable reunion. He was with a musician friend, and he said he was in town briefly for a poetry reading and an exhibition of some of his paintings, which was even more delightful. His musician friend was accompanying his poetry reading on saxophone. This was getting better and better. He said he'd come down to check out the Revolution. He said he'd been arrested at the protest in San Francisco, not an experience he expected or wanted to repeat. We were shortly joined by another old pal, an old chum from the anti-war movement, and we chatted and carried on for quite a while reminiscing and bringing one another up to date, and exploring the nature of the changes we were witnessing and were a part of right now. There are plenty of activists from the Old Days, and artists, and civil rights and social justice workers and supporters from the Old Days involved if only peripherally in this revolution, and I think to most of us, this is quite a different thing than we have ever known before; it is fully a creature of the young -- as it should be -- and yet it is consciously inclusive, not exclusive at all. Every one of us who can do so is welcome to become part of it, contribute what and how we can, even if it is only attention from time to time. Come see for yourself, get involved, join us! The Revolution is here!

I can get pretty emotional about it, as can others from my generation. Most of us recognize that no matter how far we thought we had come, we didn't come far enough. No matter how much we thought we had won, there was still an enormous amount to do, perhaps a greater mountain to move than any of us had ever consciously thought of. The youth are taking on the challenge absolutely fearlessly, and I have nothing but the highest admiration for them.

I want to help, and I do what I can, but I know they have to do it themselves, and they are doing it, day in and day out, and we should all be proud and confident that what needs doing will be done.

So we talked and chattered until it was time for General Assembly, and we went our separate ways, now knowing the connections between us are much stronger than ever before.

The GA was... difficult. I will not detail what happened, because it is still a work in progress, and there are a few more mountains to climb before it is working smoothly. It did demonstrate how non-violent conflict is actually a positive element in the whole Occupy movement, and how disagreement is as important as, if not more important than, consensus as the movement grows and the nature of this Revolution is clarified. Consciousness was raised. It was tough, but it happened.

And your correspondent wound up part of the Facilitation Working Group/Committee. Yikes! Well, hail, we do what we can. It was, perhaps, inevitable.

We need more facilitators who are willing and able to work with and through the General Assembly process. The same five people have been trying to do it all from the beginning, and quite naturally they are reaching their limit of endurance. Us old farts are amazed they can keep it up as well as they do. So I expect that my role, such as it is, will be to help recruit and accustom new facilitators to the General Assembly process. It's not really a matter of training. It is more a matter of watching and doing, and being willing to make mistakes.

And what I might have said to the Conflict Resolution and Non-violent Communications teach in is that "non-violent communications" is already being used by the power and money elites as a weapon against us and as a way to disarm the movement. Learn to recognize it when it is being used as a weapon rather than as an aid.

When the 1% starts talking to us directly, watch for their use of confidence and trust building language that actually serves as a mask for what they have in mind -- which may be quite nasty and potentially violent. Be alert to the use by the 1% of conflict resolution techniques. They will do it. They are already doing it in some cases.

The reason to watch out for it is that when they do it, it is a trap. Don't fall into it. They do not have our interests at heart. Hold out. Be firm. Do not yield to their blandishments.

Thank you!


Thank you!

On Consensus,Participatory Democracy, and the Occupation Movement (Sort of) How To

This is the Pnyx in Athens as it is today. This is where the practice of participatory democracy was first developed in Ancient Greece, and where many of our democratic concepts were first worked out.

The agenda is formal and extremely important. The roles, techniques, and skills necessary for smooth operation must be accessible to and developed in all members. Evaluation of the process must happen on a consistent and frequent basis, as a tool for self-education and self-management. Above all, Formal Consensus must be taught. It is unreasonable to expect people to be familiar with this process already. In general, nonviolent conflict resolution does not exist in modern North American society. These skills must be developed in what is primarily a competitive environment.

The Consensus Handbook, C.T. Butler and Amy Rothstein, 1991

The Truly Revolutionary aspect of the Occupy Movement is its conscious restoration of participatory democracy or direct democracy. We are very unused to it, so foreign does it seem to most of us, that we almost recoil at first contact with it. Some of the Occupations operate by consensus rules that generally avoid votes and voting. The rule is that a proposal is adopted if there is no serious objection.

Operating on the principles of Consensus is really very new and very unfamiliar to most Americans because few have any experience or training in the technique. We live in a competitive, hierarchical, and more and more authoritarian society. Consensus decision making must be taught, learned, and practiced for it to work at all. Even then, the process is difficult and froughtful, especially when combined with participatory democracy as we see in the New York City General Assembly, and as we're seeing develop throughout the Occupy Movement.

There is no easy way to do it, but there can be some useful ways to look at the process so that you can more easily "get it."

One of the activists with OccupySeattle (h/t Shon) has shared some of his insights and a set of principles he has developed as he learns -- and now teaches -- the process.

[This is a draft, as of October 13, 2011. There will no doubt be refinements and updates]

All decisions that effect the whole are made by general assembly. That way, groups can’t take over, or misrepresent.

Groups are for doing work and bringing proposals. If you have an idea, start a group! Don’t ask the assembly, just find some friends and do it!

Yelling really loud doesn’t put you on stack. Raise your hand. If you have a proposal or announcement, come to the front and get on the agenda. Never repeat what someone else already said.

Assembly time is precious. You can’t speak every time. Think three times before you speak. Does this really help the assembly make a better decision?

Nothing is more precious than the thoughts of the quiet. Nothing is more precious than the words of the silenced. Speak up! Please! Especially when it’s really hard!

Use the people’s microphone. It makes us choose our words. It makes us listen.

Facilitators make space and move the process. Facilitators never present content or represent another’s idea. The assembly is responsible for keeping facilitators in check.

The assembly is responsible for signing [demonstrate hand signs as you speak] to the facilitators. If the assembly doesn’t sign, the facilitator doesn’t have anything to facilitate!

No one else can speak for you. That’s why we need you here!

Great! Now how do you do it?

There are probably as many different ways to do it as there are Occupations throughout the world. Since each Occupation is autonomous, each will adapt and adopt a process that works for them. One of the principles of the movement, however, is that we are trying to reclaim the public square for public discussion, debate, consideration and decision making by the People on their own behalf.

In other words, the movement is claiming the physical space and creating the mind space for People to take control from those who have been ruling in our names but not on our behalf so poorly for so long.

A way to transition into an effective participatory democracy and consensus decision making process:

Before the [next] General Assembly ask for volunteers to prepare for the introduction of a direct and participatory democratic process; say that volunteers are needed to learn the basic format of a full-participation General Assembly like those in many other cities, and to learn the roles of facilitators and moderators as they apply to that model of procedure.

Go over the basic General Assembly purposes, procedures and rules with the volunteers, and explain the roles of facilitators and moderators. Urge that everyone share this information with everyone else so that in the shortest possible time anyone can serve as GA moderator or facilitator. (Written material to share can be helpful; the New York City GA 3 fold brochure is a brief outline of the process and is easy to print and distribute. Those who want more in depth information can be referred to websites such as the Quick Guide and others. See Resources.)

Remember: General Assembly can be fun! It should also be rewarding for every participant.

Schedule the next General Assembly and stick to the scheduled start time. Schedule the General Assembly to start at a time when the most people will be available at the Occupation to participate (ie: not in the early morning, nor before a "reasonable" time in the evening. There is more flexibility on weekends for many people, and a mid-afternoon weekend GA can be a good time especially if there are many other weekend events planned.) Allow at least an hour on the schedule for the General Assembly but be aware that the Assembly may take longer or it may be shorter.

Prepare an agenda based on agenda formats and rules found helpful in other GAs.

Ask for two volunteers to moderate/facilitate the next General Assembly and one to be the recorder.

At the next General Assembly:

Introduce volunteer facilitators and moderators and describe their roles. Ask if there is any concern in the Assembly about these particular people serving in these roles at this Assembly.

If concerns are raised about moderators/facilitators, hear them as well as any alternatives that may be proposed. If the concerns are serious, ask the volunteer to step aside; if the Assembly agrees, use an alternative volunteer. This step may take a while, or it may go very smoothly, but it is important for enabling participants to fully engage in the rest of the process.

If there are no serious concerns, continue:

Read the statement of principles and the procedural rules and methods.

Ask for any questions.

Discuss if necessary.

Ask if there are any unresolved concerns about proceeding under these principles and procedures.

Hear any objection.

Discuss modifications if necessary to achieve consensus.

Ask if there are any further unresolved concerns. If none, announce consensus and proceed with General Assembly.

If consensus is not achieved, but all concerns have been discussed, call for a vote, supermajority (at group's discretion) approval required.

If required supermajority is achieved, proceed with General Assembly.

If neither consensus nor supermajority vote are achieved, state that the General Assembly cannot continue, and thus crucial decisions on behalf of the Occupation cannot be made. Propose to adjourn. (This step will require its own set of questions and discussion, and more often than not, it will lead to consensus to continue. If not, adjourn the Assembly. If so, proceed with the General Assembly.)

First Order of Assembly Business:

Read Agenda; ask for additions or changes; call for consensus.

Proceed to Agenda items, one by one.

Those items need to include:

Working group informational reports, questions and proposals (one by one)

General Information

General Announcements

Proposals (as presented by Assembly participants.)

Agenda order can vary according to the needs of the Assembly.

Each proposal becomes an item for question, discussion and consensus (or vote if necessary) on its own account. If no consensus is reached, or a supermajority vote is not achieved, the proposal is returned to the proposer for further work. It may be resubmitted at the next General Assembly or it may be dropped.

Proposals should only be those items which affect the whole Assembly and Occupation. Working group activities are otherwise autonomous. It's important to clarify what activities are likely to affect the whole Occupation.

Questions and discussion of each proposal is handled in a regular order.

The proposal is stated by the spokesperson for the working group or by an individual (NEVER by the moderator or facilitator);

Call for questions about the proposal

Ask for any concerns about the proposal

The proposer restates the proposal based on questions, information, or concerns raised by the Assembly

Ask if there are any unresolved concerns

If none, then the proposal is adopted by consensus, and at this time, ONLY, the moderator or facilitator may restate the proposal for the record.

If there are unresolved concerns at this point, two courses are possible:

The proposer can ask for a vote, (supermajority required to adopt the proposal);
if a supermajority not achieved the proposal is deemed to be blocked and it is returned to the proposer for further work and possible resubmission at a subsequent General Assembly.

Alternatively, the proposer may withdraw the proposal from further consideration at this Assembly and resubmit it or a modification at a subsequent Assembly.

Once all Working Group Reports, proposals, informational issues, and announcements are completed:

Ask if there are any other matters for General Assembly consideration;

If there are additional items, ask that they be brought forth; ask that additional items be only those that affect the whole Occupation; save other matters for an "Open Forum."

After hearing additional items, and acting on those that require an Assembly decision (using the same procedure as previously described for proposals), ask again if there are additional questions or items. If additional items are raised, ask if they can be postponed to the next General Assembly or can be brought up in an Open Forum or Working Group for discussion.

If there are no other action items for the General Assembly, announce the time and place of the next General Assembly;

Adjourn the General Assembly.

Clarity is essential in making proposals, modifying them, and in restating proposals which have been adopted. Proposals which have been adopted are by definition matters which will affect the whole Occupation; therefore, it is crucial that everyone at the Assembly know exactly what is being proposed, discussed, and adopted so as to minimize confusion and dissension. This necessary step is often neglected with predictable -- negative -- results.

Each adopted proposal then becomes part of the General Assembly Record which must be made available as quickly as possible to the whole Assembly as well as essentially to anyone who asks. Questions and discussions need not be made part of the Record, but they may be included at the discretion of the Recorder. Announcements and Information should be made part of the Record along with the sources of the Information and Announcements. If possible, a video record of each General Assembly should be made and archived for public access. At a minimum a written record of all proposals and decisions of the General Assembly, along with Announcements and Information, must be maintained and be made available as quickly and as widely as possible.

No decisions that affect the whole Occupation should occur outside the General Assembly process, and under no circumstances should Working Group or General Assembly facilitator/moderator activity take place in secret or behind closed doors, no matter the temptation to do so. Transparency and openness in all matters that can potentially affect the whole Occupation are crucial for the success of the Occupations and for the success of the General Assembly process. The minute participants perceive that there are secret or closed door meetings going on, or that cliques are forming and acting to establish authority or control over the Occupation and Assembly, the Occupation is on the road to dissension and failure.

Each Occupation should resolve that: No decision that will affect the whole Occupation is valid if made in secret or behind closed doors.

As this is being posted on October 15, 2011:

A statement from #OccupyWallSt on the occasion of Global Solidarity Day, October 15, 2011:

This is not a a protest, it is a movement. Come out in the streets with us ... and you will understand the difference. You will literally feel the energy. We will not stop until we see fundamental change and justice. We are closer than you think.

Everywhere. Around the World. Are we ready for a brand new day?

Down at the Occupation

Every once in a while, someone gets upset about seeing Anarchy symbols at OccupySacramento, so much so that they are frightened enough to ask that they be removed before there is trouble. And I counter that Anarchists are the ones who have made the space for the Occupations to flourish. There is nothing to fear from them and there is much to praise.

Went down to the Occupation (that isn't quite an Occupation yet) in Sacramento this morning and then again this evening. There was supposed to be a General Assembly this morning. It didn't happen.

Since we do not really have an Occupation here, but instead have been coming-and-going (with arrests each night), the camp has to be set up each morning and torn down each night and a GA scheduled at 10am is a little more than folks can handle at this point. So I made the recommendation that early morning General Assemblies not be scheduled -- not even tentatively -- if there is any likelihood that they won't happen. Nevertheless my morning at the Occupation was not wasted time at all.

There was a visitor just in from OccupySeattle, and he brought with him a fellow who had just arrived from San Diego who was a strong supporter of the Occupation there. They had not know each other before, met in the airport here, found common interest, and came over to see what was up, attend the General Assembly, and see if they could help with process or any other matter having to do with OccupySacramento. This is one of the really extraordinary things that happens in connection with these Occupations. It is really a network of Occupations, but not in a formal sense. Participants are traveling all over to see for themselves what other people are doing, offer to help any way they can, stay for a day or a week or whatever time they can, and then go back to report on what they found and say: "Here's an idea I picked up in (name your place), why don't we try this?" Or, just as often, "I helped the Occupiers in (the other place) through this problem they were having and learned that pretty much everybody faces the same challenges."

In itself, that's a kind of magical thing. People are always doing this sort of networking and information sharing on a professional level, all very scheduled and routinized, but this is very informal and essentially serendipitous. I went to the GA this morning to speak a bit on process, but the GA didn't happen. Shon arrived from Seattle and wanted to discuss process in great detail and make recommendations on best practices.

So we talked. And talked and talked. It's kind of what you do at these impromptu gatherings and consults. I was picking his brain a lot because he said he'd was in New York for the first week of OccupyWallStreet where he saw how they developed and adapted the General Assembly framework from the Spanish model (which is in the Quick Guide) and how difficult it was -- but how rewarding in the end when it actually started to click. Then he went to Seattle where he's been since -- until today -- helping to develop and implement an adaptation of the model suited to Seattle. And one of the most interesting things he shared with me was that he had been in Zagreb during the occupation of the University there in 2009, and that it was a very inspirational experience for him. It was when he realized how important occupying was -- persistence, insistence, refusal to be moved, constant agitation, organization and demand were the keys to success. And the student occupiers were successful. They were able to remove the corrupt and incompetent University administrators and now they are in charge of the university. It took time and patience and determination, but it was done, so don't anybody say that Occupations are futile. They are not. They are an essential tool for instituting real change, establishing social -- or in the case of the University, academic -- justice.

The Occupation itself is a first step. The Sacramento Occupation is not yet a "real" occupation in that the Occupiers pack up every night and most of them disperse at Plaza closing time. Those who don't disperse are arrested and spend the night in jail. So far, approximately 50 Occupiers have volunteered in Sacramento for arrest. It has happened every night since the Occupation began. The objective here is to raise the issue of first amendment rights of assembly, free speech and petitioning for the redress of grievance, and the persistent arrests seem to be raising some consciousness about how little the People's voice is heard and how little it counts in the halls of power and money.

Without a "real" Occupation, though, we don't have territory that we are defending. We are still in the process of acquiring it, through an almost baroque process of sacrifice and appeal. The matter of allowing the Occupation to stay overnight at the Plaza is now in the hands of the City Council and the City Manager. The City Manager is perfectly capable of acting on his own, as is the Police Chief. They have the independent authority and the discretion to decide not to arrest anyone and allow the Occupation without further incident. But they won't do it.

The situation in Seattle is quite different. In Seattle, the Occupation claimed a very public space, Westlake Park, in the heart of Downtown Seattle, pretty much the hub of civic life. They claimed it, they moved in with tents and tables and they refused to be moved. Thousands came out to support them. The police have repeatedly harassed them and have on occasion become violent, tearing down the tents, pepper spraying Occupiers, using physical pain compliance tactics in arrests and so on. There have been a number of arrests, but not as many as here in Sacramento.

The Mayor initially declared the Westlake Occupation had to go. In fact, he put his foot in his mouth many times, eventually declaring his support for the Occupation, but still insisting that the Occupiers had to leave Westlake -- in part because there were other things, like anti-war rallies, planned there. He seemed insistent on making himself out to be the fool. He did offer an alternative space at the City Hall, where, after much discussion, and repeated votes to stay at Westlake, about half the Occupation moved. Then I learned that the rest of them were dispersed from Westlake this morning by police, something Shon didn't know.

His main concern, in any event, was establishing and securing the direct democracy process in Seattle and anywhere else there are Occupations because it is the process that maintains the Occupation over time and that protects the Occupation from hijacking and co-option.

I absolutely agree with him on that matter. But it is proving to be almost as difficult to make that point as it is to establish an effective direct democratic process. It takes time, patience and much practice to establish an effective process, and Shon was very open about how difficult it was in Seattle, in part because there were so many people intent on disruption.

I found that interesting because the stories of disruption he told were very similar to the ones I've heard in Austin and read about in other places. And yet, they do not seem to be happening here. At least not among those who are participating in the Occupation.

Shon described well-dressed people who would essentially try to disrupt through demands at General Assembly that were inappropriate or off topic or simply daft. Initially, I thought he was talking about the homeless mentally ill that are denizens of Westlake Park just as they are here in Cesar Chavez Plaza, but he said they weren't. They had very little problem with them. It was these people in "Brooks Brothers suits." He suspected they were police (or even DHS agents?) sent specifically to disrupt the General Assemblies, make it impossible for them to function and force the dissolution of the Occupation; the way to counter it was to reinforce the Assembly process and maintain the procedures that focused on the needs of the Assembly as a whole and which devolved authority as much as possible.

It seemed to be working when he left, but he mentioned the split that happened over the requirement that the Occupation vacate Westlake, despite the votes to stay. I suggested that was an inevitable outcome and that not too much should be made of it. Resistance is fine for those who can do it, but many people are afraid of the official reaction to resistance -- especially in Seattle given some of the incidents associated with the WTO protests and afterwards.

It hasn't come to that in Sacramento. There are arrests, but there is no police harassment, nor is there any overt threat of force. There is an effort to maintain good relations with the city and with the police that so far has kept the peace. But at some point, I think the necessity of an actual Occupation is going to take hold, and what will happen then, who knows?

We're seeing the ratchet of authority tighten all over the country. Step by step. Whether it is about "cleaning" the Occupation space, or offering alternative sites, or juicing up the police to conduct raids and mass arrests, or what have you, Occupations are under increasing pressure to cease and desist -- or become absorbed by the Borg and serve as little more than any other grassroots (or astroturf, as the case may be) lobby. That's the pressure more and more Occupations are under. It's not co-option, it's conformity. The resistance to that is strong right now, but how long it can be sustained is anyone's guess at the moment.

I returned to the OccupySacramento site this evening during the General Assembly, which was essentially a freeform presentation by committee (Working Group) representatives, requests for information or help with duties, and public speakers with positions they wanted to press. I spoke on the need to establish a more participatory democratic process in Sacramento's Occupation and mention my discussions with Shon this morning. I proposed a Working Group to study and report on best practices; there was no objection. So.

That's my assignment.

I have resisted volunteering as a facilitator or moderator -- and at this GA it appeared that there wasn't one -- due to the fact that I am a trained mediator and meeting facilitator. Those skills are simply not right for the moderating or facilitating the process of direct democracy. But interestingly, the first person who spoke up about being part of the process working group was another mediator!

So, this is going to be interesting.

Again with the Hijack Meme

General Assembly in Washington Square October 8, 2011.

This is getting tiresome.

The notion that the Occupations are a unity is a delightful fiction, but it simply doesn't fit the facts.

To a very significant degree, the Occupations have spontaneously arisen and are at best only loosely affiliated. There is no central Occupation Office where the Occupation Board sets Occupation policy and where Occupation media releases are cleared. Given the organizational structure of loosely affiliated autonomous Occupations -- active in over 100 cities right now with more than 1000 others being planned -- it's all but impossible for a unified, hierarchical, controlled and controlling Occupation HQ, Inc., to emerge. The institutional organizational structure is antithetical to the Occupation spirit. So much so that if some institution -- say MoveOn -- were to try to amalgamate with Occupations (each of which is autonomous), the institution would likely implode.

The problem for institutional players like MoveOn or any hierarchical political party is that the Occupations eschew hierarchy (or at least they try to), they refuse institutional categorization, and their organizational and operational model is that of a participatory, direct democracy, with recommendations, considerations, and implementations through Working Groups -- which are essentially voluntary task focused associations. There are no employees, no managers, there are no designated leaders, there is no board of directors, there are no offices, no officers, either. The Working Groups are themselves operationally autonomous; the General Assembly, which is composed of the "committee of the whole" -- ie: everyone who is participating, whether as individuals or members of Working Groups or both -- is the deliberative and decicion-making body for the whole Occupation. The New York City General Assembly may influence actions and decisions taken by other General Assemblies in other Occupations -- simply because it has been in operation longer and has a body of experience that others don't. But NYCGA has no authority over other Occupations, any more than, say, the Spanish People's Assemblies, which are models for the New York GA, have authority over OccupyWallStreet. They not only have no authority over any other Occupation, they don't want it.

Let's say for the sake of argument, that MoveOn manages to subvert and take over the New York City GA and thus gains control of OccupyWallStreet. That's what would have to happen: the GA would have to be subverted and taken over before there could be any MoveOn control or authority over OccupyWallStreet. But even if that were to happen, every other Occupation would still be autonomous; MoveOn would have to subvert and take over every GA in every Occupation one by one, they could not do it in batches.

And how, exactly, do you subvert and take over a participatory democracy operated under such...difficult rules. Unless literally every participant in the GA is a subversive infiltrator from MoveOn, there's no way for a General Assembly to become a tool of the Institution. That's because of the way consensus works in General Assembly. Consensus is not found through a majority vote; consensus is only reached when no one blocks a proposal.

That means that a single individual can force the reconsideration of any proposal. Thus, unless literally everyone at the GA is an infiltrator from MoveOn, MoveOn can't "take over." No institution can.

This is one reason I have had so much interest in the operations of the General Assemblies, and it's why I urge the adoption of as much of the Quick Guide as possible. It is the primary means of preserving autonomy and genuinely reflecting the consensus will of the People.

Yet there can be so much anxiety over the presence of provocateurs. Infiltrators are assumed. Staying on track is difficult under any circumstances, but if there is trust in the Assembly, even the presence of those who want to "destroy the movement" won't be able to do it.

The problems come -- and become compounded -- when the principles of the General Assembly process aren't followed either because they are too complicated or unfamiliar, or because the process of hearing everyone "takes too long." That was one of the issues raised in Austin: the GAs were taking too long because too many people wanted to talk about too many extraneous matters, and important matters were neglected. The other problem I saw was that the moderators were trying too hard to exercise authority and control. Part of the process is to explain the rules and how the GA operates before the GA begins and to gain consensus on those rules and the proposed agenda. Then stick to the agenda. Reports are made by the Working Groups. Proposals that require consensus to implement are made. Questions and discussion about the proposal ensues. The Question is asked whether there is consensus to adopt a proposal. Proposals that don't gain consensus are tabled, referred to working groups for reworking and reconsideration, or they are dropped. There is no open forum at GA. The discussion must stay focused on reports, proposals, questions and discussion. Then consensus is called for. If there is consensus, the proposal is adopted. The entire body has thereby decided. If there is no consensus, then the matter is returned for further consideration by a working group or whoever made the proposal. The proposal may be resubmitted at a later GA or be dropped.

As a rule, matters that will affect the whole Occupation (such as marches, for example) or that will require the expenditure of more than a set amount of money (typically $100) will be submitted at GA. Other matters are handled in the Working Groups or informally. Forums are separate processes, generally involving a moderator and a floor assistant and anyone who wishes to speak on either specific topics or any topic, if it is an Open Forum.

While the outline is simple, actually doing it isn't so simple. It takes time and patience to learn and much practice to do well. But if the process is respected and practiced routinely, it becomes the central core of the Occupation.

Except under very unusual circumstance, hijacks cannot take place.

"Mic Check!"

Richard Kim over at The Nation does a really good job explaining the value of the Human Microphone as utilized by the #Occupytheshitoutofthem movement.

I think he gets it!

Heh.

"MIC CHECK!"