[Peace-discuss] [socialistdiscussion] Fw: Fw: The Occupy Movement, Co-optation and the 2012 Elections
Larry Duncan
lduncan at igc.org
Wed Dec 7 16:54:53 CST 2011
Ricky,
Thank you for this contribution. Much in here to think about.
In solidarity,
Larry
On Dec 7, 2011, at 4:37 PM, Ricky Baldwin wrote:
> Not sure what Richard's saying here, but I have a comment on the
> overall discussion. I do agree that the Democratic Party is not
> the "friend of labor" that some folks would like to portray it as,
> that we can't count on a "savior" to come out of the electoral
> process at all in fact. And I agree that SEIU was too quick to
> endorse Obama, and I doubt the union leadership even got anything
> good for it, at least nothing big. In addition, I've said for
> years that unions should take most if not all the money we spend on
> political candidates and put it into organizing - though to spend
> it properly even on organizing would take some care. On top of
> that, I often disagree with a lot of the endorsements we do.
> SEIU's State Council (although not my local) gives a lot of money
> to Mike Madigan, for example, which is a travesty that is truly
> worth denouncing, and there are efforts to change that. I'm sure
> some people won't listen to what I have to say about this, as soon
> as they see I disagree with part of it, and they'll say it's all
> because I work for SEIU and I've been active in the labor movement
> so long that my brain has been colonized or something. But folks
> on this thread who know me I think know that I have no problem
> criticizing where it's due. I've been fired from unions, and
> argued and yelled and fought when it was right to do so, too.
>
> But I think "cooptation" is being used a little too broadly here.
> When a white supremacist city council adds a black member who will
> not speak up just to justify their actions, that is cooptation.
> When a big corporation adds union reps to the board of directors,
> who then join the corporate mindset instead of using the board as a
> tool to work for workers' interests, that's cooptation. If the
> Occupy movement transformed into a Democratic Party cheerleading
> squad, yeah, OK, that would be cooptation. But what's happening
> here is different.
>
> The Occupy movement began with a laundry list of demands, most of
> which were shared by people from many walks of life - including
> labor union members. Consequently the movement gained support of a
> wide variety of folks, including union members. Many people,
> however, experienced the Occupy movement through the news media and
> thought less of it - the media deemphasized the demands that would
> earn the movement broad support, emphasized superficial factors
> that separated them form the larger population, like hair style,
> hygiene, etc. This is not surprising. It's PR for the
> corporations. A number of union activists and leaders, among
> others, put forward a great effort to debunk the media images and
> emphasize common ground with the movement. These people (including
> me) are part of the growing movement, part of drawing more people
> in, part of organizing events and part of defining the message(s),
> which appears to be a group effort.
>
> I happen to disagree that the movement needs to get behind Obama's
> and the Democrats' election campaigns, or this jobs bill. I think
> the election of more Democrats will likely be a side effect of the
> movement -- excellent research by people like Francis Fox Piven
> suggests that, historically, change often can be seen first at the
> ballot box, where the danger of cooptation is real but not the
> whole story. But Piven also shows how grassroots movements become
> weaker, the more closely they become involved in electoral
> politics instead of the politics of disruption. So it's important
> in my opinion for the Occupy movement to maintain its independence
> from the Democrats, or Greens, or whoever, and push certain
> principles. Some of those will translate into legislation,
> probably legislative compromises. That's OK, that's natural. And
> it's OK for people in the movement to speak up and say to
> politicians, OK, we like this that you're doing and don't like
> that. The point is to continue and deepen the disruption, keep
> making principled demands, and let the institutions of power
> react. I know not everybody is not going to see it this way,
> including people who say its too accommodationist or something and
> those who say it's too idealistic or radical or something. But I
> have to say I understand both. Unions, for example, on their best
> day are typically very practical. They see elections as mattering,
> even if the difference between the candidates is not as great as
> we'd like. The real effect on people, for example, who make
> minimum wage, is real if we elect a candidate who opposes a raise
> versus someone who supports raise in the minimum. That's just one
> example, but I say it to just point out that I get as angry with
> the Democrats as anybody on this list, I'll bet, and many of them
> are just about useless, but I understand when somebody says we have
> to elect them. Because it matters to people's lives. So if union
> leaders speak up and say all this means we have to get behind
> Obama, I think that's understandable. I think they are off base,
> just like I think people who say we should oppose the Democrats
> just because they are Democrats are off base, but I don't think
> it's cooptation necessarily just like I don't think the opposite is
> necessarily a conspiracy to undermine the movement's
> effectiveness. We should expect everyone to try to steer the
> movement in the best direction they know. That's what's bound to
> happen next. Let's just stay cool through that. If we can hand
> together through that period, we have the potential to do something
> big together.
>
> But I think we will need to resist the impulse to devolve into
> infighting instead of organizing. See you Saturday.
>
> Ricky
> ________________________________________
> From: Richard Mellor [aactivist at igc.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2011 8:59 AM
> To: socialistdiscussion at yahoogroups.com
> Cc: William IWW Blomington Campbell; william gorrell; stefen
> robinson; Ricky Baldwin; Neil Parthun; david johnson; Dave Powers;
> Colm Mistéil; Bill Gorrell; Jim Eyman; Germaine Light; Harry
> Kelber; Harry Kelber; Larry Duncan; Occupy Champaign Urbana; Steven
> ISO Wyatt; Ricky Baldwin; Leighton ISO Christiansen; Jesse
> Phillippe; Gene Germaine Vanderport; Chris OCCUPY Goodrow; Belden
> Fields; Jacob Occupy Yetti; Peace-discuss; sf-core
> Subject: Re: [socialistdiscussion] Fw: Fw: The Occupy Movement, Co-
> optation and the 2012 Elections
>
> David, the source of the piece though comes from an organization
> whose members in the Labor movement never raise this issue of
> cooptation on the part of the Labor officialdom who are a major
> vehicle for coopting the movement in to the Democratic party and
> keeping any serious demands off the table, never raise it
> concretely and in the open I mean which means arguing against the
> officials promoting it. With regards to demands they have help
> here from the Anarchists also who oppose them. Action action
> action but demand nothing. In fact that was a slogan you saw many
> times, occupy everything demand nothing.
>
> Richard
> On Dec 6, 2011, at 4:57 AM, David Johnson wrote:
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: John Reimann<mailto:1999wildcat at gmail.com>
> To: David Johnson<mailto:dlj725 at hughes.net>
> Sent: Monday, December 05, 2011 9:41 PM
> Subject: Re: Fw: The Occupy Movement, Co-optation and the 2012
> Elections
>
> David:
>
> The two editorials, taken together, are most interesting, because
> the co-optation of the Occupy movement does not start simply with
> the blunt drive to turn it in the direction of supporting the
> Democrats. A far more subtle and therefore more serious threat
> comes from the attempt to keep its program - its demands - within
> "acceptable" limits. This means "acceptable" to the liberal
> Democrats and, therefore, acceptable to the union hierarchy.
>
> It's with this in mind that the second editorial on the Emergency
> Labor Network has to be considered. The program of the ELN is made
> up to insure that the "progressive" wing of the labor hierarchy
> cannot disagree with it. In other words, the ELN itself is part of
> the very same co-optation that the first editorial decries!
>
> John
> P.S. I see that you sent your communication to multiple recipients.
> What would you think of forwarding this note on to them also?
>
> On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 5:54 PM, David Johnson
> <dlj725 at hughes.net<mailto:dlj725 at hughes.net>> wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Larry Duncan<mailto:lduncan at igc.org>
> To: Larry Duncan<mailto:lduncan at igc.org>
> Sent: Monday, December 05, 2011 7:12 PM
> Subject: The Occupy Movement, Co-optation and the 2012 Elections
>
> http://www2.socialistorganizer.org/index.php?
> option=com_content&task=view&id=466&Itemid=1
>
> The Occupy Movement, Co-optation and the 2012 Elections
>
> Editorial
> (November-December 2011 Issue of The Organizer newspaper)
>
> Hundreds of thousands of people have taken to the streets across
> the country since September 17 in the Occupy Wall Street movement
> to protest the intolerable conditions of massive unemployment,
> growing inequality, rampant home foreclosures, and stepped-up cuts
> in the social safety net. Their outrage has been focused against
> the bailout of Wall Street, while Main Street has been left to
> languish, and against the influence of big-money over the political
> system.
>
> This explosion of anger against the unbridled greed of the
> banksters and speculators in the span of just two short months has
> changed the terms of the national debate. No longer is the
> discourse dominated by the dangers of Big Government and Big
> Unions; today the media and the population at large are talking
> about the role of Wall Street and the banks in destroying our
> economy and subverting democratic rights. This is no small feat.
>
> The Occupy protests - with chants of "Enough is Enough! - We Refuse
> to Pay For Their Crisis! - They Got Bailed Out, We Got Sold Out!"
> -- speak for the working-class majority in this country.
>
> Today, as the Occupy encampments are being shut down by violent
> police repression nationwide -- under directives from Homeland
> Security and therefore under the political responsibility of
> President Obama and the Democratic Party -- Occupy activists are
> discussing what to do next to advance the movement. This is the
> context in which a diverse series of heavy-weight political players
> -- from the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) to The
> Nation magazine -- are ratcheting up their efforts to co-opt the
> Occupy movement and steer it into the Democratic Party's 2012
> election campaign, some with a hard sell, others with a softer sell.
>
> SEIU's Hard Sell
>
> The SEIU has been the most brazen in its effort to co-opt the
> Occupy movement. In mid-November, Mary Kay Henry, president of
> SEIU, gave President Obama her union's early endorsement, with the
> following motivation: "We need a leader willing to fight for the
> needs of the 99 percent. ... Our economy and democracy have been
> taken over by the wealthiest 1 percent."
>
> SEIU has put together a coalition -- which includes the AFL-CIO,
> MoveOn.org and numerous liberal organizations -- with the goal of
> busing thousands of protesters from across the country to "Occupy
> Congress" in Washington, D.C., on December 5-9.
>
> In an interview with Greg Sargent (Washington Post Opinion, The
> Plum Line, November 18), Henry explains the purpose of Occupy
> Congress. One goal of the protests, Henry says, is to pressure
> Republicans to support Obama's jobs creation proposals. This is a
> jobs bill which, at best, would create 1.5 million to 2 million
> jobs, nowhere near the 15 million jobs that the AFL-CIO leadership
> had been calling for but has since dropped by the wayside. Even
> worse, the jobs program would be paid in large part by cutting
> Social Security taxes, thus weakening the fund and leaving it more
> exposed to the budget cutters -- which is unacceptable.
>
> Henry argues that this support for the Democratic Party is not in
> contradiction with the Occupy movement, noting that Occupy Wall
> Street has created a framework -- "we are the 99 percent" -- within
> which such activities would fit comfortably. "We want to draw a
> stark contrast," Henry said, "between a party that wants to
> scapegoat immigrants, attack public workers, and protect the rich,
> versus a president who has been saying he wants America to get back
> to work and that everybody should pay their fair share."
>
> Glen Greenwald, writing in Salon.com on November 19, decried this
> attempt by SEIU to "integrate Occupy Wall Street into the very
> political institutions that it has slammed with such anger." He
> stated:
>
> "The notion -- advanced by SEIU -- that it's the Democratic Party
> and the Obama White House working to bring about the changes and
> implant the values of the 99 percent is so self-evidently false as
> to be insulting."
>
> "Wall Street funded the Democrats far more than the GOP in the 2008
> election; the Democrats' key money man, Charles Schumer, is one of
> the most devoted Wall Street servants in the country; Obama
> empowered in key positions Wall Street servants such as Tim
> Geithner, Larry Summers, Bill Daley, Rahm Emanuel, and an endless
> roster of former Goldman officials; ... the President named the CEO
> of GE to head his jobs panel; ... and the Democratic President,
> after vocally urging an Age of Austerity, tried very hard to usher
> in cuts to Social Security and an increase in the age for Medicare
> eligibility."
>
> Greenwald's exposé of Wall Street-Democratic Party collusion is
> good, but it leaves out the main indictment of the Obama
> administration: Obama and the Democrats played the central role in
> selling out Main Street when they bailed out Wall Street to the
> tune of more than $8 trillion (including the funds from the Federal
> Reserve).
>
> When union activists have objected that Occupy Congress is
> explicitly aimed at supporting Obama's jobs bill and the Democratic
> Party, Occupy Congress organizers have replied, echoing Mary Kay
> Henry, that this should not be a problem as Occupy allows for a
> "diversity of tactics."
>
> The Nation's Softer Sell
>
> Other liberals are a bit more clever in their co-optation approach.
> In an op-ed article published widely November 25 under the title,
> "Channel the Anger and the Hope," Katrina vanden Heuvel, editor and
> publisher of The Nation magazine, lavishes heavy praise on the
> Occupy movement and then goes on to write the following:
>
> "For me the central question now is how to channel the anger and
> hope of Occupy into strategies that will forge a new politics and
> economy. ... This requires a politics of conviction, but it also
> demands avoiding a denunciation of the Obama administration's every
> misstep and failure. ...
>
> "While I do have my disappointments with President Obama, ... he is
> now talking more forthrightly about jobs and fairness, and
> challenging the ridiculous idea that asking the wealthiest to pay
> their fair share is akin to class warfare. ... It is time to work
> with determined idealism and grounded pragmatism to begin building
> the kind of society we have dreamed of but not yet achieved."
> No doubt Ms. Vanden Heuvel's "grounded pragmatism" will lead to a
> more specific call down the road to get on board with Obama to stop
> "the ferocious forces of reaction and establishment power and
> money," as she calls them.
>
> Whither Occupy Wall Street?
>
> Occupy Wall Street is structurally vulnerable to this co-optation.
>
> While every Occupy protest features signs and banners that read,
> "Wall Street Got Bailed Out, We Got Sold Out!", very few, if any,
> signs can be seen, and very few, if any, speeches can be heard,
> denouncing the Obama administration and the Democrats for enabling
> the Wall Street banksters who sold us out. Wall Street didn't do
> the job on its own; it took the politicians in the twin parties of
> capitalism, led by Obama, to turn over our money - and mortgage our
> future -- to these speculators and swindlers.
>
> The main leading forces in the Occupy movement -- with their
> opposition to placing demands on the State and eventually winning
> political power -- do not offer an independent, working-class
> fightback perspective to the workers and youth who burst onto the
> scene and have sought in the Occupy movement an avenue for struggle.
>
> As important as the encampments have been for establishing this
> movement, and while they must be defended against the State, the
> emphasis on "liberating space" reflects a utopian view that it is
> possible to build islands of a free society within a sea of
> capitalism and, therefore, that societal change will principally
> come about from individual lifestyle choices. History shows that
> until working people control the wealth of society, it is
> impossible to build and sustain an alternative egalitarian society.
>
> Likewise, organizational structures based on strict consensus are
> profoundly anti-democratic in that they allow a small minority to
> block the will of the majority, and therefore are not suited to
> building a sustainable mass movement against capitalist austerity.
>
> These political dynamics have led most of the Occupy movement to
> refuse to take on the Obama administration. This void has been
> filled largely by calls to demand "greater accountability" from
> Wall Street and the banks or call on their supporters to take their
> funds out of the major banks and place them in cooperative-style
> credit unions.
>
> At a public forum in New York City on November 9 sponsored by The
> Nation magazine, well-known authors Naomi Klein and William Greider
> repeated time and again that Occupy Wall Street is essentially a
> modern-day version of the Populist rebellions of the past.
>
> Klein offered the Mondragon federation of cooperatives in the
> Basque region of Spain and the expansion of local farmers' markets
> as the examples of what the Occupy movement must now fight for here
> in the United States.
>
> Greider, for his part, pointed to Lawrence Goodwyn's "The Populist
> Moment," as the place to look for examples of how a new "movement
> culture," "participatory democracy," and economic cooperatives
> could work in this country.
>
> Both Klein and Greider are not wrong in this assessment of the
> Occupy Wall Street movement as, essentially, a Populist movement.
> Notwithstanding the largely agrarian character of the Populist
> movement in its heyday (in the 1890s), there is a striking
> similarity in the cross-class composition and political targets of
> these movements, directed as they are, against the financial
> oligarchies of their time -- the 1 percent.
>
> But any serious student of the Populist movements of the past has
> to understand that the demise of these Populist movements -- or put
> another way, their gradual liquidation -- came through their co-
> optation into the Democratic Party, albeit not always directly.
>
> And the reason for this liquidation into the Democratic Party is
> actually explained -- though not intentionally -- in the
> introduction of "The Populist Moment" when, echoing the Populists
> of that era, Goodwyn categorically rejects the Marxist concept of
> class. Goodwyn advocates a "movement culture" of the "people,"
> without class distinctions, and explains that the "presumed
> analytical clarity of the category of class" is nothing of the sort.
>
> It is precisely this rejection of the existence of class society --
> and class struggle -- by large sections of the Occupy Wall Street
> movement that make it so vulnerable to the Democratic Party
> operatives and their fellow-travelers. It's what enables SEIU, The
> Nation, and all too many progressive intellectuals to say that
> support for the Democrats in 2012 is just one among many "diverse
> tactics" to be deployed by the Occupy movement.
>
> Support for the Democratic Party in 2012 by any wing of the Occupy
> Wall Street movement would represent a lethal blow to the Occupy
> movement as a whole. The Democratic Party is financed, run and
> controlled by Wall Street and the capitalist class. It is not a
> vehicle, even a partial one, to advance workers' struggles. On the
> contrary, it is the graveyard of all workers' and social movements.
>
> * * * * * * * * *
>
>
> http://www2.socialistorganizer.org/index.php?
> option=com_content&task=view&id=467&Itemid=1
>
> Why Class Matters: Occupy and Workers' Resistance
>
> There is a concerted drive the world over by the ideologues of
> capitalism, and relayed by the neo-Populists, to dissolve the
> working-class majority into a new political category called "civil
> society," which includes both workers and bosses on the grounds
> they have "common interests" against the 1 percent.
>
> But workers and bosses cannot "work together" in harmony because
> their interests are diametrically opposed.
>
> Wage earners -- called the "gravediggers of capitalism" by Karl
> Marx for their capacity to overturn the system that relies on them
> -- make up the huge majority of the population in the United
> States. Workers survive by selling their labor to the capitalists,
> in exchange for a wage.
>
> The economy and all of society inevitably grind to a screeching
> halt without the labor of working people. Workers -- Black, white,
> and immigrant; men and women; blue-collar and white-collar - have
> the power to shut down any city in a matter of minutes just by
> folding their arms. We run the schools, the fields, the stores, the
> factories, the offices, transportation; we are the soldiers in the
> military; and we produce and distribute food, gas, light, heat --
> everything.
>
> Working-Class Upsurge
>
> This reality of class struggle can be seen played out every day
> both at home and abroad with the rise of working-class resistance
> to the capitalists' onslaught on our jobs, rights and conquests.
>
> Internationally, this has been expressed in the central role of the
> working class and its organizations in the revolutionary uprisings
> in Egypt, Tunisia, Greece, and beyond. Similarly, general strikes
> have swept dozens of European countries in recent months.
> The first and perhaps most explosive re-emergence of the U.S.
> working class on the national scene took place last February in
> Wisconsin when hundreds of thousands of workers and youth -- at the
> initiative of the Teaching Assistants trade union (TAA) and then of
> the South Central Wisconsin Federation of Labor -- took to the
> streets with their organizations, occupied the State capitol for
> three weeks, organized strikes and held regular mass demonstrations
> in the freezing cold to demand that the governor withdraw his plan
> to attack public-sector workers by dismantling their collective-
> bargaining rights.
>
> Workers nationwide rallied to support the struggle in Wisconsin,
> sending shock waves throughout the U.S. ruling class.
>
> While the massive uprising in Wisconsin did not succeed in stopping
> the attacks on collective bargaining (given the default of the
> trade union officialdom, which offered huge concessions in wages
> and benefits in exchange for an agreement to rescind the governor's
> bill), the uprising electrified the country, showing that a massive
> struggle in the streets (including a mass occupation of a state
> capitol) by workers, youth and their organizations, could
> potentially turn the situation around.
>
> The uprising in Wisconsin also gave impetus to a drive in Ohio --
> organized by the trade unions and independent of the Democratic
> Party -- to launch a referendum process to overturn a similar anti-
> union measure in that state. On November 8, the referendum to
> overturn Senate Bill No. 5 passed by a large margin: 61%, and this
> in a state that boasts of having the largest Tea Party base. This
> was a huge victory for the trade union movement.
>
> This movement has been expressed in the direct class struggle
> itself -- with a two-week Verizon workers' strike (which galvanized
> huge union and community support nationwide), the first-ever
> nationwide strike by nurses last October; and strikes and mass
> walkouts against cuts in education by teachers, teaching
> assistants, and students across California in October and November.
>
> Sharp Longshore Confrontation
>
> Perhaps the sharpest class confrontation, however, has been in
> Longview, Washington, where the ILWU members have been on strike
> six months to oppose changes in their contract language demanded by
> the EGT grain conglomerate. For weeks the workers occupied the
> waterfront and prevented all cargo from moving. This was
> reminiscent of the factory occupations of the 1930s. But state
> authorities ordered state troops to storm the waterfront and break
> up the dockworkers' occupation. Longshore workers and their
> families were beaten, pepper sprayed, and arrested by police armed
> with tear gas, rubber and live ammunitions to protect the interests
> of EGT.
>
> Solidarity with the Longview workers was, in fact, one of the main
> reasons for the port shutdown on November 2 in Oakland, California
> -- the fifth largest port in the United States. This action was
> organized by ILWU members in conjunction with more than 30,000
> people in the framework of a General Strike/Day of Action called by
> Occupy Oakland.
>
> But a standoff remains in Longview, with the ILWU leadership and
> AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka refusing to escalate the struggle
> coastwide to help the workers get back their jobs and their union
> contract. But here, as in Wisconsin, the last word has not been
> said by the workers themselves.
>
> Occupy movements up and down the West Coast, supported by ILWU rank-
> and-filers, are now organizing a West Coast Port Shutdown on
> December 12, 2011 in solidarity with both the ILWU Local 21
> Longview workers and the truck drivers (mostly Latinos) in the
> ports of southern California who were fired in a union-busting
> attack when they attempted an organizing campaign. These truck
> drivers selected the date of December 12 for the action; it is the
> day of Our Virgin of Guadalupe, a day revered by workers of Mexican
> origin in the United States.
>
> What Way Forward?
>
> On November 28, the Emergency Labor Network -- a network of
> unionists and labor activists formed in Cleveland, Ohio, in early
> March 2011 -- issued a statement that calls for building committees
> to promote the fightback around the demand of "No Cuts!"
>
> The ELN statement reads, in part:
>
> "The assault on the safety net and human services programs is a
> bipartisan one. This underscores the need for building a powerful
> independent movement that opposes all cuts on an uncompromising
> basis. ...
>
> "A stop has to be put to any and all attacks on our vital social
> programs, and Ohio shows that when the unions put their pedal to
> the metal we can prevail, we can push back their attacks, we can
> stop them in their tracks.
>
> "[W]e urge the formation of committees in our unions and in our
> communities to promote public forums on these burning issues, build
> action coalitions locally against the cuts, and move our unions and
> organizations at the federal, state and local levels to mobilize to
> stop and rescind the cuts."
>
> This statement is extremely significant; it points the way forward
> for the labor and Occupy movements today. The Organizer newspaper
> fully supports this ELN text and urges its readers and supporters
> to join in building fightback committees against the cuts.
> The trade unions have the means to organize mass mobilizations and
> strike actions to demand: "No Cuts! Make Wall Street Pay for the
> Crisis!" With the growing momentum created by the Occupy Wall
> Street movement, the time is now for the union movement, in
> alliance with the independent organizations and struggles of Black
> and Latinos, to pull out all the stops and organize the kind of
> fightback that can put a stop to the ruling-class assault and turn
> things around for once and for all in the interests of the working-
> class majority.
>
> At the same time, it will also be necessary -- and this is
> inextricably linked to the previous point -- to open the widest
> discussion within the labor movement and beyond about the need for
> the unions to break with the Democratic Party and build their own
> party -- a Labor Party based on the unions and the organizations of
> Blacks, Latinos, and all the oppressed.
>
> These discussions will be promoted in the pages of Unity &
> Independence, the monthly supplement of The Organizer newspaper, in
> the weeks and months ahead.
>
> -- The Editors
>
>
>
>
> --
> "Poems don't belong to those who write them; they belong to those
> who need them" - from movie "Il Postino"
> Check out: http://worldwidesocialist.net/blog/
>
>
> __._,_.___
> Reply to sender<mailto:dlj725 at hughes.net?subject=Re%3A%20Fw%3A%20Fw%
> 3A%20The%20Occupy%20Movement%2C%20Co-optation%20and%20the%202012%
> 20Elections> | Reply to
> group<mailto:socialistdiscussion at yahoogroups.com?subject=Re%3A%20Fw%
> 3A%20Fw%3A%20The%20Occupy%20Movement%2C%20Co-optation%20and%20the%
> 202012%20Elections> | Reply via web post<http://groups.yahoo.com/
> group/socialistdiscussion/
> post;_ylc=X3oDMTJyZWEwYmVsBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzE4MDM1OTUzBGdycHNw
> SWQDMTcwNTA2MDM3NQRtc2dJZAMxMzk5OARzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNycGx5BHN0aW1lAzEzMj
> MxNzYyODc-?act=reply&messageNum=13998> | Start a New Topic<http://
> groups.yahoo.com/group/socialistdiscussion/
> post;_ylc=X3oDMTJmYjRvajkxBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzE4MDM1OTUzBGdycHNw
> SWQDMTcwNTA2MDM3NQRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNudHBjBHN0aW1lAzEzMjMxNzYyODc->
> Messages in this topic<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/
> socialistdiscussion/message/
> 13998;_ylc=X3oDMTM3bm1jNGUzBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzE4MDM1OTUzBGdycHN
> wSWQDMTcwNTA2MDM3NQRtc2dJZAMxMzk5OARzZWMDZnRyBHNsawN2dHBjBHN0aW1lAzEzM
> jMxNzYyODcEdHBjSWQDMTM5OTg-> (1)
> Recent Activity:
>
> Visit Your Group<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/
> socialistdiscussion;_ylc=X3oDMTJmbTNpZXZ1BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzE4M
> DM1OTUzBGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTA2MDM3NQRzZWMDdnRsBHNsawN2Z2hwBHN0aW1lAzEzMjM
> xNzYyODc->
> MARKETPLACE
>
> Stay on top of your group activity without leaving the page you're
> on - Get the Yahoo! Toolbar now.<http://global.ard.yahoo.com/
> SIG=15o1v6kuc/M=493064.14543979.14562481.13298430/D=groups/
> S=1705060375:MKP1/Y=YAHOO/EXP=1323183487/L=f19d7af8-2009-11e1-
> a298-2f4fbeb4b4b9/B=x3gQOEoGYv4-/J=1323176287897459/
> K=zo9NbWnt47BHZv7tDWy6vg/A=6060255/R=0/SIG=1194m4keh/*http://
> us.toolbar.yahoo.com/?.cpdl=grpj>
>
>
> [http://l.yimg.com/a/i/us/yg/logo/us.gif]<http://
> groups.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTJla3ZlcGFqBF9TAzk3NDc2NTkwBGdycElkAzE4MDM
> 1OTUzBGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTA2MDM3NQRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNnZnAEc3RpbWUDMTMyMzE3N
> jI4Nw-->
> Switch to: Text-Only<mailto:socialistdiscussion-
> traditional at yahoogroups.com?subject=Change%20Delivery%20Format:%
> 20Traditional>, Daily Digest<mailto:socialistdiscussion-
> digest at yahoogroups.com?subject=Email%20Delivery:%20Digest> *
> Unsubscribe<mailto:socialistdiscussion-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com?
> subject=Unsubscribe> * Terms of Use<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>
> .
>
> __,_._,___
>
>
> "Capitalism teaches the people the moral conceptions of cannibalism
> are the strong devouring the weak; its theory of the world of men
> and women is that of a glorified pig-trough where the biggest swine
> gets the most swill." -James Connolly 1910.
>
> http://weknowwhatsup.blogspot.com/
> http://www.clnews.org/
>
More information about the Peace-discuss
mailing list