The following living document was ratified by Occupy Boston’s General Assembly (GA) October 23, 2011:
We the people who have occupied Dewey Square, under the name Occupy Boston, have done so in order to maintain a place, where all voices are welcome for the open discussion of ideas, grievances, and potential solutions to the problems apparent in our society. We are and will be holding general assemblies where proposals may be brought to the group as a whole, to be consented to. We have and will continue to occupy this space for the purpose of DEMOCRACY.
34 Responses to “Statement of purpose ratified October 23, 2011”
I approve.
How is this addressing INEQUALITY and the ECONOMIC state we are in?
” Job growth in the US nonexistent? ”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbKNx_U8CMg
Love it. Very simple, and focused on maintaining a process of democracy, from which all other analysis and solutions will grow organically.
YES
Very good.
This SOP is weak, poorly worded, and has a gramatical error in the form of an unnecessary comma in the first sentence. It is also incorrect: we do not welcome all voices, as evidenced by our internal solidarity statement that clearly explains how racism, sexism, homophobia, and other oppressions are NOT welcome in our camp. We are “occupying this space for the purpose of democracy?” Seriously? I understand the desire to be inclusive in our language, but could we have at least passed something that wasn’t vague to the point of being useless? Is that shit really going to resonate with people who believe the system we currently have is democratic? And how are we not focusing on the one fucking thing that IS resonating with people right now: economics! I’d of blocked the shit out of this if I was at camp last night.
I second the removal of that extraneous comma.
I am in complete agreement with Skeet – not a very effective statement of purpose. Economics should be the focus and it is the reason the movement resonates with the 99%.
It is very dissapointing after how many suggestions have been posted around this. I had hopes when I saw on the General FAQs the following statement, which should have been the SOP:
“Most people who support Occupy Boston call for reforming Wall Street and removing special interest from government, but there no one single issue or demand that summarizes our movement. People are dissatisfied with how our country is being run and want fundamental, lasting change of many kinds.”
— from your own site https://www.occupyboston.org/faq/general-faq/
The ONE thing that is resonating with people is economis –
A Time Magazine/Abt SRBI poll conducted last week found that among those familiar with the protests, 86 percent of respondents believed that “Wall Street and lobbyists have too much influence in Washington”; …
http://www.srbi.com/Economics_2011_Poll.html
Very frustrating…
What does that mean?
Answer: nothing
This is a load of garbage from self righteous people without a purpose who think they’re important. It’s been what 5 weeks and this is what has come from it “possible solutions”? How has that worked out with the problem of not having a job? Oh yeah they don’t want solutions they just want to hang out, feel important while at the same time blame life’s problems on someone else.
How’s this for a purpose: Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and looks like work. ~Thomas Edison
Yeah, if that’s the strongest statement of purpose the working groups could muster for ratification, then I feel cheated for giving the time and resources that I did to the Occupy Boston group.
Basically, this statement marginalizes the movement as a support group for people lamenting ‘apparent problems’ with our SOCIETY. It’s so vague it has no purpose.
I know criticism is not so welcome considering the struggle of Occupiers, but is this seriously why people are getting arrested?! Too hold a space for grievance and brainstrorming sessions? Isn’t there a modicum of outrage left over the still failing economic system?
What happened?
I have been going to work on very little sleep during the past couple of weeks following the blogs and posting suggestions on the Wiki for an SOP focused on economics – cheated is RIGHT!
I believe that this movement is fundamentally about democracy and more specifically about eliminating the role that big money has in ensuring that the political system serves the rich and powerful at the expense of the mass of people. It makes sense, then that the movement is itself highly democratic. It can be a struggle to make this work in the present setting and we should be patient. Grammar aside, what I like about this statement is its focus on democracy. Dewey Park as a place where democracy is operating.
Andy, how old are you 12? We HAVE a democracy. It may not be perfect but we have one and are infinitely luckier than citizens of other countries. This is laughable and if others who are less fortunate around the world read it they will say “there are those spoiled brat Americans again”….
We are not the Middle East who needs to start from scratch. We need to tweak our democracy. And you all are delusional – in Dewey Park democracy is NOT operating otherwise you would have responded to the hundreds of posts I have been reading both on the blogs and the wiki around corporate greed, influence of money on politics as root cause for real symptoms like people being out of a job.
Nobody gives a crap about grammar. I could take a few commas missing if there was the right message. I mentioned N number of times – take the lead on the message from OWS !!! All of us, formerly BIG supporters and especially those out there in the real corporate world – wanted Focus, not Idealism ( and false idealism nonetheless since NEWS FLASH – we do have a democracy and are not looking for a complete overhaul of our entire system!!!!!!)
WHY WAS THIS NOT STATED in the SOP ?
“more specifically about eliminating the role that big money has in ensuring that the political system serves the rich and powerful at the expense of the mass of people”
I’m not 12. I don’t understand this need to go after people. This is part of the problem with our imperfect democracy. What makes this so troubling is that, as far as I can tell, we generally agree.
I should have eliminated this part “Andy, how old are you 12?” – but real frustration is evident. I am not sure if ‘Skeet’ up above is ‘JSkeet’ on the Wiki. If one and the same person, him, myself and others spent some time on drafting and refining a SOP. JSkeet took the constructive feedback, actively “listened” to what people were voicing, refined and output new proposals. He heard the message loud and clear from people supporting the main message of Occupy Wall Street which in a straight-forward manner expressed that we are all against corporate greed and influence of money on Washington.
Why direct people to the Wiki and request opinions if no one is going to read them. I sent numerous emails to the “Ideas” Working Group as well – with supporting facts that what resonates with a broad audience is eliminating the influence of money in politics. I was passionate about the fact that the right Statement of Purpose is important – it just seems like a missed opportunity…
Like I said, I agree with you about both the failure of this movement to listen to voices beyond Dewey Square and the importance of focusing on the corrosive role of money in our democracy. I would, though, argue for a little more patience. Not infinite, but a little more.
We can still have other statements that put forth the reasons we are all here. Please continue working on them!
Here is another example from the Wiki which was drafted by a second set of individuals who said they are taking it to the GA:
“Occupy Boston is a collaborative effort to revive participation in our government and ensure our elected officials represent the people’s interests. Diversity of ideas and passions has been a source of strength in America and we invite all people to bring their wisdom and voices to our movement. It is our purpose to provide a public forum for the debate over the political and economic reforms that best reflect the interests of the people.”
http://wiki.occupyboston.org/wiki/Talk:Statement_of_purpose (BY pcovery and Stewart76 – isn’t he one of the organizers there on the ground; the main message about political and economic reforms got lost and that’s why folks here are frustrated.
I would slightly modify the above:
“Occupy Boston is a non-partisan collaborative effort meant to revive participation in our government and ensure our elected officials represent the people’s interests. It is our purpose to provide a public forum for the debate over the political and economic reforms that best reflect the interests of the people. Diversity of ideas has been a source of strength in America so we invite all who are interested, to participate in this debate. “
Andy,
Another idea to take back is to have the very BROAD statement ratified be a general
‘Declaration of Occupation’ to show that you are resolute to stay there as long as it take until change happens.
For a FOCUSED ‘Mission Statement’ see if they want to use what’s suggested right above. Like this:
DECLARATION OF OCCUPATION (broad…)
We the people who have occupied Dewey Square, under the name Occupy Boston, have done so in order to maintain a place, where all voices are welcome for the open discussion of ideas, grievances, and potential solutions to the problems apparent in our society. We are and will be holding general assemblies where proposals may be brought to the group as a whole, to be consented to. We have and will continue to occupy this space for the purpose of DEMOCRACY.
MISSION STATEMENT (focused)
We are a non-partisan collaborative movement. We are here to revive people’s participation in our democratic process and ensure that our elected officials represent our interests. It is our purpose to provide a public forum for the debate over the political and economic reforms that best reflect the interests of the people. Diversity of ideas has been a source of strength in America, so we invite all who are interested, to participate in this debate.”
Occupy# is running out of time… Like King Arthur, you need more than a purpose, you need a quest. I suggest you find “Campaign Finance Reform.” The 2012 election is your opportunity.
Win campaign finance reform and win the holy grail.
Absolutely. Occupy folks on the ground – are you reading the blogs, wiki and facebook posts? Is the voice of the 99% virtual supporters being heard because it really does not feel like it…
Here is one from Facebook today:
“Amy Lynn While I think it’s great that all sorts of people are supporting this movement, I hope it does not become tainted by religion or political affiliation. I think the focus needs to stay about financial regulation, holding Wall Street criminals accountable for fraud and corporate funds to stay out of politics all together. (Just to name a few). “
Death by committee!
If it’s true that an SOP was being worked through committee and on the wiki, and somehow this milquetoast made it through on the grounds that it’s a living document and therefore needs no substance, then I suspect purposeful marginalization.
I believe the reason people continue to show up and donate is because of moral outrage over the corruption of our system of democracy by big money interests. Why would this simple fact not resonate? Why not wait another GA to figure out the wording?
To anyone offended because you believe this umbrella statement was meant to be open to interpretation and seems inclusive of our outrage, I think you are not outraged enough.
You have a microphone, and what comes out is: We are here to talk about problems in our society! Ok. What problems brought you to the mic? Is this exercise of your 1st ammendment rights a novelty or a true grievance?
Do you want to help the 99% or just the illusion of belonging to a movement?
I can’t help but feel frustration.
Death by committee!
If it’s true that an SOP was being worked through committee and on the wiki, and somehow this milquetoast made it through on the grounds that it’s a living document and therefore needs no substance, then I suspect purposeful marginalization.
I believe the reason people continue to show up and donate is because of moral outrage over the corruption of our system of democracy by big money interests. Why would this simple fact not resonate? Why not wait another GA to figure out the wording?
To anyone offended because you believe this umbrella statement was meant to be open to interpretation and seems inclusive of our outrage, I think you are not outraged enough.
The statement is very vague, and the comma should be removed. All of those who don’t like it should still continue to work on other statements. There is nothing that says we can’t have other purposes and amendments, or even removals of statements. This is at least something which is reflective of what’s going on here for now. If anything is to be passed under the name “occupy boston”, it must be done through the democratic process, so that is the fundamental purpose as of now. That is the only way to get something done. Everything else is autonomous (which is obviously welcome)
I am happy that a document called “Statement of Purpose” has been adopted but disappointed that the statement fails to express the social and political concerns that brought people to Dewey Plaza.
I hope that, now that perhaps a consensus exists that a statement of purpose is useful, the movement can take steps toward a meaningful statement.
I have been waiting for a statement of purpose before requesting that my union local endorse Occupy Boston. Even though this statement barely seems credible as the basis for an endorsement of the action, I will take it to the union and see what happens.
I think Anonymous-Observer’s idea of having a statement of occupation (naturally focusing on the occupation itself) and a more focused statement of the mission of this movement is a good one. The latter is more important because the occupation itself is likely to disappear. If it has served the purpose of galvanizing a movement, then that’s okay. But, to succeed, the movement will need a focused mission. Like many others, my vote would be along the lines proposed by Anonymous-Observer with perhaps more emphasis on breaking the link between big money and politics.
Great Andy. Thanks for the support. I hope it will be followed with some actions.
I am watching CNN right now – once again – an individual in the audience (part of the 99%) just spoke up on CNN saying the one thing that resonates with her most is this influence of big money on politics.
Let’s address it !
WHAT WE NEED TO DO –
A concrete action REGULATE THE PAY OF FAILING CEOs
http://247wallst.com/2011/10/20/america%e2%80%99s-most-overpaid-ceos/?utm_source=247WallStDailyNewsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_content=OCT202011A&utm_campaign=DailyNewsletter
“Once again, this list makes it clear that shareholders who cannot effectively vote to have management removed are saddled not only with those ineffectual executives, but also with their pay packages. The notion of “pay for performance” is still not applied systematically among America’s largest public companies. There is no sign that the SEC or any other regulator is likely to change the method by which CEOs at public companies are compensated, so next year, there will be another 24/7 Wall St. Most Overpaid CEOs.”
Read more: America’s Most Overpaid CEOs – 24/7 Wall St. http://247wallst.com/2011/10/20/america%e2%80%99s-most-overpaid-ceos/#ixzz1boefaylO
It’s a living document could be changed later. Speaks of horizontal democracy the consensus prosses in a simple way. I was there when it was presented for consensus, the first time there was no corum so it got another date. The second time it was read there was corum for consensus. It was amended and passed. Of course the merging of consumer, commercial and investment banking among other problems started the movement, but thats the way we deal with those issues! Just voicing my oppinion.. Excuse my grammatical errors, writting english for three years. May we b happy and find consensus. (Can I live with the Statement of Purpose, yes I can)
Anonymous-observer, your frustrations are valid but your attack on Andy was petty and your understanding of our political system is lacking. We live in a republic, not a democracy. Occupy Boston functions as a democracy through the general assembly system and consensus voting. The United States of America (with our occasional elections and rare referendums) functions as a constitutional republic, with democratically elected representatives making important society scale decisions without constant input from the public.
Continue your good work for the movement, but don’t expect that it can all take place online. If you are physically able, please come to the occupation and make your voice heard directly. I think you have important information to offer and the people present would benefit greatly from hearing you speak. Just be careful not to fall victim to those who will rebel against any inkling of “but this is what appeals to the 99%!” This isn’t about mainstreaming the message, it’s about bringing the movement back to its (5 week old) roots. While democracy is crucial, it can’t be the purpose; in this case it must remain a means to an end — getting corrupting corporate money out of politics and bringing Wall Street to justice.
I already took back in an earlier post my comment to Andy so I won’t bother to address your ‘petty’ comment. Bottomline, I am happy you see the initial statement as flawed.
As you well know the word democracy does have dual meaning. Mainstream citizens know that we live in a democracy. Period. And we do –(meaning 1) “Democracy as meaning merely the popular type of government–that is, featuring genuinely free elections by the people”
You are getting into nuances of “Direct Democracy” vs “Representative Democracy” and I do know we have a representative democracy.
The statement posted did not call for a “direct democracy” (meaning 2) so I assumed it just called as for DEMOCRACY as a purpose and we already have that. I am not sure that our goal is to change the system to a direct democracy. A small wording change “in the name of” democracy to replace “purpose” would have resolved that debate.
What you stated at the end about going back to the roots – yes, now you’re talking. It would be great if all on the ground watch this documentary “Inside Job” (http://vimeo.com/25142692) to understand why the support has spread to people like me who will never show their face there because we work for the ‘enemy’ corporations and I need to do that to keep my kid in college. I will remain an ‘in the closet’ supporter and there are hundreds of thousands like me that you are not tapping into…yet…Your guys role is to make sure no one on the ground holds it against us that we can’t be there.
Lastly, I thank all those who are there on the ground, and do not want the whole movement to happen online. But you must admit that not much real actionable online activities that would have impact are promoted by our young movement.
I look elsewhere to find ways to help virtually including OWS site. The info should be here at my fingertips on this site.
http://www.newbottomline.com/take_action_online
http://www.makewallstreetpay.org/
http://mainstreetalliance.org/4239/business-against-tax-haven-abuse/
http://kidsnotceos.com/
http://ownersfightback.blogspot.com/
A few points:
* There is no sense in blaming Occupy Boston for doing or not doing something to your satisfaction, because Occupy Boston is you! Everything that’s been done here, from setting up tents to setting up this web site was done by volunteers who just stepped up and did it. There are no entrance requirements for participating.
* The people who run the GA, the cyber presence, the camp, are understaffed. Most of us do have jobs and all had full lives before OB happened. If your suggestions aren’t acted upon right away, understand this doesn’t mean we don’t value them. Be patient, come to camp, get on the wiki, figure it out, make it happen.
* The way this movement is being run, it cannot fail. The reason is the democratic process. You really have to participate to understand this. You can’t see it from the outside.
* I like anonymous-observer’s suggestion, which I repeat here:
MISSION STATEMENT (focused)
We are a non-partisan collaborative movement. We are here to revive people’s participation in our democratic process and ensure that our elected officials represent our interests. It is our purpose to provide a public forum for the debate over the political and economic reforms that best reflect the interests of the people. Diversity of ideas has been a source of strength in America, so we invite all who are interested, to participate in this debate.”
I can have patience. I think the fear of failure is wha’t driving some of us to push the envelope a bit…but I DO, I really DO appreciate what you all are doing. If there would be a way to mobizie the voice of the people and all your supporters, especially with the winter coming, I would have more faith that you are right Andy “The way this movement is being run, it cannot fail”.
If you look on Facebook there are 35,000 supporters. There are even more who are supporters of OccupyBoston and wish to remain anonymous – for some because we work in the greedy corporations who are laying us off, who are not giving us pay raises even when we bust out butts.
So ALL I WANT is for OB (all of us) who want to change the system – NOT TO FAIL. It’s not a matter of patience is a matter of fearing this. Thanks again Andy.
Andy,
I am just passing a message (constructive feedback) – to help only – someone is requesting that the marches are clearly communicated in advance in terms of times, routes etc – if you read this blog (bottom) the request is there and an example for OWS
https://www.occupyboston.org/2011/10/24/marches-week/#comments
Thanks for passing on the message on the ground there…