One Comment

1. Jackie says:

   July 6, 2012 at 8:04 pm

   I think that, in either an midsuiged effort to appease the very people who hate you and the rest of Occupy Harvard or a circuitous attempt to undermine Occupy Harvard, you have insidiously mischaracterized the way the GA works.Suppose STOP THE OCCUPATION NOW comes to the GA with a bunch of his 1% buddies on Thursday. As you know, many supporters of the movement will be elsewhere showing solidarity with the mass demonstration in NYC. Yet, according to your description, this hostile contingent could essentially vote Occupy Harvard out of the Yard if they get enough of their gang there. But that is wrong. First, it is not clear to me that a non-supporter is allowed to propose anything at the GA. Though this rule has not been made explicit, it is a concept embedded in countless procedures of the GA (e.g., a block only being available if one feels that a proposal would hurt the movement, implying that it is the movement and not individual preferences that matter, etc.) Second, the quorum device requires that the people at the GA be representative of the movement not of its detractors. Third, there is, of course, the block, which (though it could be set aside if not deemed principled) should prevent any proposal to leave the Yard from coming to a vote. Finally, even if a GA has been infiltrated by hostile elements and they somehow manipulate the proceeding and vote to leave the Yard, no one who has a tent out in the Yard is under any obligation to comply, for all retain the right to pursue autonomous action.In short, there are sufficient safeguards in the GA process to prevent it from being hijacked by 1%ers something your comment brushes over. I, for one, am glad that there are such safeguards because pliant individuals who are overeager to please those who wish to destroy the movement (as you appear to be) would allow them to succeed without any resistance.

   Reply

0 Trackbacks