OccupySacto.org

Parting thoughts, for now. My usefulness to Occupy Sacramento has pretty much come to an end. Though I tried, in a dozen different directions, I have had to conclude that what I have to offer is not of much use; that, or Occupy Sacramento is in no position to make use of them. I do keep watch, periodically, and remain available to any who might have use of my suggestions and thoughts about Occupy Sac.

I will leave you with these closing thoughts on some things I envision for the future of Occupy Sacramento:

- OCSac was not able to challenge the disruptive denial of First Amendment rights which seriously limited our ability to prevail as a permanent 24/7 park protest. I propose it now change its tactical view of major park presence on a 7-day participation cycle and simply maintain an information-media booth at the park each day, say from 8am to 6pm weekdays and perhaps longer on weekends (unless there are planned actions for mass arrest actions which need to be staged after 11pm). The OcSac Booth can both be a visible presence, a place for anyone to visit and chat during the week, and to provide current information to the public. Relieved of the need to keep or have large numbers of occupiers on hand, Occupy can concentrate on encouraging and facilitating other progressive groups and organizations in the community to use the park to stage their rallies and such, (or use it for a staging area for marches to the Capitol, etc.). These can be efforts of anything from the various labor unions in the region to women's groups, homeless advocates, parents concerned with education - anything that identifies itself with progressive ideas, politics and change.

On one regular weekend day each week, OCSac might reserve for its own 'park occupy day' and carry out its own activities, whether protests, information days, physical meetings of committees and workgroups, core group strategy and planning sessions along with a regular, weekly GA. (if the GA keeps its business down to truly important, overarching matters that impact the whole of the movement, then one day/week should be more than sufficient). This kind of schedule should provide us with a visible presence at the park, end the matter of confrontations over extended park use, yet still create an atmosphere in which a public space for protest against the 1% is maintained. Easier for us; but not necessarily less pressure on the 1%. Over time, this might establish Cesar Chavez Park as the central public commons for political protest of all types. That seems reasonable - one park out of hundreds around the city that is devoted to peaceable assembly and protest. The ideal location, right accross the street from city hall.

- A technical team needs to be created to provide an online 'occupy experience' that emulates what a full 24/7 park experience might be as a virtual reality. This 'committee' would be charged with creating a full complement of online tools - meeting and chat 'spaces' for various committees; places to author, discuss and perfect ideas (present some of them as online motions for GA); recruit, inform and educate new OCSac participants; spaces for legal teams to keep us advised and informed, provide informational materials and documents, conduct live interviews, post event announcements, keep group and committee records, contact addresses, etc. In short, these virtual occupy protest structures become the main participation arena for the bulk of Sacramento citizens and occupy participants - seamlessly interfaced with park activity. Our virtual reality should be as easy to move through, conduct workshops and consensual meetings and perform other real-world emulations of democratic process. Though I tried, I was not successful in assembling this team to begin such work. But it is critical to our success. We have the technology to do this, we simply haven't done it under the false dichotomy that the only valid participant was one that showed up at the park. We've lost time and capability in not setting this up - but it still needs to be done. There is no difference between an online occupier and a park occupier - let's get over who is the most worthy or valuable occupy participant. People have talents and resources to lend to Occupy, they all need to be welcomed and melded into a whole occupation.

- The permanent committees needed by the occupation are few in number, but they need to be just that - permanent, solid, accountable and accessible. There are a few that are vital to our success but which haven't even been considered by GA as yet. Few (none I think) are actually accessible except for physically engaging them at the park, that is if one can find out when they are going to be there. The biggest enemy of our groups and committees has been the mythical war between lateral structures (strategic, consensual, democratic) and vertical ones (tactical, hierarchical, representative). By now, we should have learned one thing - this war and the shouting matches that attended it are delusional. There is no war between them - both forms of organizing have their place and both are essential to get things done and keep them moving in the right direction. Spontaneous and anarchical efforts have their place too, but they have nothing to do with the organized part of the occupy movement - they are separate events by definition and Occupy Sac should simply let them be what they are and can be. By the same token, such efforts need to leave Occupy to be what it is and end the insistence that occupy be their soap box or that its structures threaten their "freedoms". They do not, they never did.

- One other thing that has seriously crippled our efforts is the tension between the Occupy mission and the various issue-based struggles (gender, human rights, health care, anti-war) etc. etc. The real mission of Occupy is to remove the 1% and its agents (corporations, public officials, police, courts, etc.) from controlling our democracy and designing the lives of the people for their benefit. The issues are all symptoms of that control and cannot be successful until the occupy mission is fulfilled. People should still work passionately on their issues - but they should relieve occupy from having to respond to them. That is precisely what fractured and factioned the progressive movement into the 1000 impotent splinters that have permitted the 1% to continue their rule over our society. Occupy needs to stay fixed on our mission and anything which exposes the 1% and dismantles their ruling powers. As mentioned above - most issues already have organizations and efforts designed to advance their causes. That is where issue activities should be referred. Occupy still has need to conduct certain marches and protests, but all with the intent to expose and breach the control of the 1%. Issue people may dislike this as it does not permit them to use Occupy as a platform for their particular causes. But in the end, if they let Occupy do its main job - to stand steady and oppose the rulers of oppression, they will find the actual solution-sets for their own issues are measurably more able to make permanent headway.

- Strategically, Sacramento Occupy will need to come to terms with the fact that local political processes are thoroughly 20th century and corrupted to the core. We have permitted developers, real estate moguls and banks to design our lives and exploit us in their self-interested ambitions. Our politicians are all of this stripe - the Mayor, the City Manager and the entire City Council. They don't know any better; they all come from a 20th century mold. "Private-Public Partnerships" is their term for letting private corporations and the ruling class take control of our lives. K-street, Core Downtown, Sports Arenas and the like are not even their ideas, they are propositions of the 1% to continue the takeover and loot what hasn't already been taken from us. The homeless are an endless parade of forced-mobility tactics the politicians have used to marginalize and scapegoat the most vulnerable among us, all the while pretending to care. The dismantling of our school system and the mission creep of police-state enforcement in our local schools is just the outward face of what is crumbling from within. The only answer is a progressive movement and political slate that can sweep them all from office and begin anew. However, whatever there was of our local "progressive movement" and alliance is virtually defunct. We see no real, viable opposition to political business as usual and the back-room deals that characterize Sacramento. Correcting that situation will need to be on the second phase of our local occupy agenda. A local political arm is going to need to be birthed at some point. Occupy cannot do this, but it should encourage and facilitate its formation in every way possible. Its time the Sheedys' and Fongs and Cohns are retired and real imagination and vision is permitted a seat at our political tables. Our form of 1% rule sits on our local governing councils and in the board rooms that control them. We will not have accomplished anything if we don't remove those obstacles to getting social and economic justice for the 99%.

That's about it - just some of the overarching things with which Occupy Sacramento must deal in the coming months and years ahead. Wishing all the best, and in solidarity - red

Red, I only read the first paragraph of your ramblings. Let me say I agreed with it 100%. I'm proud you finally realized it by yourself.

Good thoughts, redslider.