http://www.flickr.com/photos/lou/6308538878/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/lou/6308538878/

The Occupy Oakland Media Collective today announces that it embraces a community focused strategy that aims to bring mass participation back to Occupy Oakland.  It was mass participation that shut down the Port on 2 November.  And it is mass participation that has been lacking at Occupy Oakland since a clique of so-called radicals seized control of the movement.

We resoundingly reject their goals, strategy and tactics.  They have twisted Occupy Oakland to serve their narrow, academic interests, rather than serving the people.

They have been present since the beginning of Occupy Oakland, at the earliest planning meetings at Mosswood Park.  Many of us noticed that there appeared to be a small cadre of people who knew each other and worked in concert.  Extensive investigation and research indicated that their writings are available at website known as Bay of Rage. They have also published an ebook, wherein they called themselves the “Oakland Commune.”  In the early days of the camp they conducted secret meetings wherein they planned strategy while inviting only select few people that they considered influential within the movement.

While the camp was still in the plaza, there was a banner reading “The Oakland Commune” and many people began to use the phrase as an alternate name for the camp.

What many people did not realize is that the clique who originated the banner were making a reference to the Paris Commune of 1871. In their own words “But we can’t ignore the limits of the barricades; since the Paris Commune in 1871, which the Oakland Commune now recalls.”  They consider themselves “insurrectionary anarchists.”  Although their writings are laden with the rhetorical flourishes common to graduate school seminar rooms, the message is simple– street fighting and rioting will usher in a new and better world.  In this view, we can all riot our way to freedom.

We disagree, because  these tactics have alienated the vast majority of citizens of Oakland.  We disagree because we believe these tactics will not allow us to build the better world that we want.

The shadow clique is white dominated, while Oakland is not.

The shadow clique is disrespectful of women and elders, unconcerned for the safety of children and appears to be willing to sacrifice the people of Oakland in pursuit of their larger goals.

The shadow clique rejects mass participation in favor of narcissistic intellectual masturbation for a chosen few.

Under the guise of diversity of tactics, they leave room for only one tactic, namely, random property destruction.  They are more interested in the abstract discussion of morality than they are in the concrete discussion of movement building and serving the community.  They are more interested in secretive discussions behind closed doors, and rewarding their friends  than they are in a transparent  process that rewards everyone

Ironically, they have replicated the very conditions that led to the financial crisis.

At its best Occupy Oakland has served the people and stood for transparency and mass participation; and it is those things that allowed us to shake the world.

Occupy Oakland Media Collective embraces transparency  and mass participation; we seek to serve the citizens of Oakland and build a better tomorrow.   In the weeks to come we will be releasing a variety of projects to do just that, starting with an ebook, A People’s History of Occupy Oakland.  We will tell the stories that have not been told.

 

  • Alan Kurtz

    “Occupy Oakland Media Collective embraces transparency,” Tim Fong tells us. Yet nowhere in his rant does he dare to name names. This is “transparency” Occupy style. Mr. Fong knows very well who belongs to what he calls “the shadow clique.” But he won’t tell us because he’s afraid. The shadow clique’s intimidation has worked. In abiding by Occupy Oakland’s Principle of Solidarity, Fong perpetuates the conspiracy of silence.

    • http://twitter.com/tyfong919 Timothy Y. Fong
      • Alan Kurtz

         That’s quite a snappy rejoinder there, Mr. Fong. One of us is clearly out of his intellectual depth.

        • http://profile.yahoo.com/ZUASPYLSKE4O2W6L6S3E3BREME Griddle

          Alan Kurtz… you’re the supertroll in the link he posted, right?  Or are you not?

          • Alan Kurtz

             I am not.

    • http://twitter.com/blackalaureate blackalaureate

      you’ve been wanting to crack the occupy oakland story for a long while now.  i think you are envious that this theory is a new one for you, and you are frustrated to know who these “cabal” members are.  if you actually came and did work in committees, attended actions, or at least visited the anemic GA, you would have some clue of what’s going on in occupy.  all you do is read twitter and mainstream media in order to draw your half-realized conclusions.

      • Alan Kurtz

        There’s nothing new about Mr. Fong’s “theory”—it would only be new if he had the courage to name names.

        • http://twitter.com/blackalaureate blackalaureate

          i know it’s not a new theory.  i said that it was new for YOU.  that’s why you are trying to goad him into giving you the dirt you want.  since he doesn’t have the so called courage to name names, get involved and find out for yourself.

        • http://www.hellaoccupyoakland.org/ wiseoldsnail

          it’s not about having or not having ‘the courage to name names.’  interesting that you use the buzzphrase ‘witch hunt,’ then call for a witch hunt.  we have zero interest in a witch hunt, and are showing here our interest in getting people to decide for themselves whom they trust by reading what people publish and finding out what people have been doing.  maybe you should ask the authors of the articles published in bay of rage and their little booklet to identify themselves.  some already have.  some never will.  

          weren’t you one of the many crying foul when a name was named?  calling that a witch hunt?  yet here you are, changing the definition of the phrase.  

          • Alan Kurtz

            This, I submit, is another case of mistaken identify. You seem to have a gift for that. I was not “one of the many crying foul when a name was named” nor did I call what was done to Omar a witch hunt. Indeed, the reason was precisely because Cami, Ben, Shake, et al. NAMED the accused. In doing so, they demonstrated the courage that Mr. Fong so sorely lacks.

  • Rocky Waschbär

    Total crap.

    You can ramble all you want about the Oakland Commune being “intellectual masturbation” and “academic theorizing” without actually interacting or disputing any of the ideas and tactics they espouse. Frankly, I don’t see how populism and mass participation are necessarily inherently good strategies to pursue for their own sake – trying to build a unified popular front of people and groups that have conflicting goals and interests just leads to squabbles over which particular faction represents the “real” face of organizing, as opposed to some presumed outside usurpers.

    Except it seems like that’s already happening, so.

    “We disagree, because these tactics have alienated the vast majority
    of citizens of Oakland.  We disagree because we believe these tactics
    will not allow us to build the better world that we want.”

    So now you’re speaking as a representative of the vast majority of citizens of Oakland? Did you hold an opinion poll? Why, again, the emphasis on appealing to populism and “the mainstream”? Is it necessary for you to attack the organizing efforts and tactics of people acting on their own autonomy? If you do feel it’s necessary, can you explain why?

    “The shadow clique is white dominated, while Oakland is not.”

    I’d like to see your proof that the entirety or vast majority of the Oakland Commune is dominated by white people, and I’d like to hear how this “criticism” plays out for the people of color who take part in the Oakland Commune. Are they irrelevant? And why, oh why, does this fucking buzzphrase “shadow clique” keep coming up? I realize it must be a great propaganda move to make your enemies sound like some kind of undercover Bolshevik vanguard, but it honestly seems like this phrase is completely disconnected from reality.

    “The shadow clique is disrespectful of women and elders, unconcerned
    for the safety of children and appears to be willing to sacrifice the
    people of Oakland in pursuit of their larger goals.”

    Who gets to define “the people of Oakland” as separate from “the shadow clique”? How is it that you know that there are no women and elders present in “the shadow clique”, or if you realize that there are, why do they not factor into your analysis? How do you conclude that “the shadow clique” is disrespectful to these social groupings?

    • http://twitter.com/tyfong919 Timothy Y. Fong

      Wow, I see you have mastered the use of the question mark.  Congratulations!

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100003667888286 Deva Garimo

    Rebuilding mass participation. Sound great, but seems like maybe there’s a listing of who to exclude.
    Will ID’s be checked? Maybe keep out those “kids” from Santa Cruz now that they’ve been identified as OO’s problem.

    • http://www.hellaoccupyoakland.org/ wiseoldsnail

      it’s not about keeping people out.  that’s actually been their game.  rebuilding mass participation will only be possible if we, as members of our own communities, get the word out that we recognize that the vast majority of oakland residents who supported our early actions will not support the random destruction of property.  of course some of us who see the need to state and honor this as policy have mixed feelings or are not in agreement with those who are against all uses of destructive tactics.  the point is that targeting locally owned business and personal property is childish and destructive to any positive relations with local residents, from whom we need support to succeed.  it’s destructive to the movement.

      people are aligning themselves.  there can be no ‘enforcement’ of who is and is not allowed to participate, but there can be public statements made by organizers about what types of tactics are supported at each event.  in that case, when some come to smash at an explicitly non-smashy action. at least we can honestly claim that we tried.  

      i don’t want people locked up.  i don’t think, for instance, that we should be reporting … ‘snitching’ or throwing people to the wolves … but using these tactics in the presence of, say a disable person who cannot run from police, is throwing that disabled person to the wolves.

      also, some folks in this movement have lost legal support for arrests related to absolutely non-violent peaceful action, while some who have purposefully offended the general public by these untargeted random attacks are using up the energy of our tiny bank of volunteer attorneys.  

      and again, while i lament the truth, the truth is that people still depend on tv news for their information, no matter how many times they’ve been shown that corporate reporters lie.  people are still asleep at the wheel.  we have alot of work to do around this.

  • http://www.hellaoccupyoakland.org/ wiseoldsnail

    the folks calling themselves ‘the oakland commune’ in publication already stated that ‘occupy oakland is dead.’  since they believe that, it will be interesting to see if they insist on participating in future oo planning and activities.  sadly, i fully expect some folks to intentionally disrupt peaceful protest to undermine oo attempts to regain popular support.  they act badly, the rest of us get the public black eye.  

    i in no way am or ever have been suggesting that smashing gives opd an excuse to be violent, btw.  i am, however, acknowledging the truth that corporate press are succeeding in turning people away from supporting oo by taking advantage of the reality that most folks still do watch the news on tv, and do not put any effort into finding the truth.  we need to deliver the truth.  until then, we need to refrain from feeding into their successful duping of the general public.

    some of us have turned that corner, spending much more time and energy working with community organizers and activists who have not or are no longer identified with occupy oakland.  this was actually a resolution passed by the general assembly ::: to reach out for public support by learning what the people of oakland have to say.  having done so, we are learning directly from those people why they have rescinded their support.  

    we all see this differently, but oo could be bolstered by a return to the concepts of mutual respect.  lately, there has been no respect for our policy of separation of time and space when it comes to certain tactics that may put others in danger they are not willing to risk.  a call for no smashing at an action should be respected.  having recently made a call for no smashing on an upcoming action, i once again received argument instead of respect.  the argument for the use of smashing has been ‘the organizers of the event did not request no smashing.’  when the organizers of an event DO request no smashing, we are called ‘divisive’ and otherwise ignored.  that, in itself, is a divisive tactic : to ostracize and alienate anyone who speaks out against certain actions by a very tiny minority.  
    while our agreements include separation of time and space, their tactic of ostracizing and alienating anyone who actually speaks out regarding this is what is dividing us. 

    again, i am not saying that opd violence is condoned because of ‘a few broken windows’ or that said broken windows are somehow comparable to the destruction of war in afghanistan.  i’m saying the use of those tactics, especially against locally owned targets, is destructive to a popular movement, because the people of the town do not understand, and are still being easily confused by the corporate news reports and dishonest press statements made by the official mouthpieces of the city.  whether we like it or not, opd is using the tossing of a water bottle as an excuse to shoot at and gas people, and the public at home watching the news is still falling for it.

    the crux of this is that there is a small cadre of people who have now publicly stated that they are not concerned with building a popular movement, who actually scoff at the idea.  they see themselves as a vanguard, as the anointed ones.  

    unfortunately, that put all of us in the position of having to choose sides of a coin.  one side believes it’s important to learn about and support the desires, needs and wishes of the people of this town, the other thinks that is not important.

    all in all, it’s bizarre that so many people’s reactions to these statements by oomedia and by individuals are erroneously calling the decisions by some of us to align ourselves with the communities in which we live and against random destruction ‘divisive.’  they’re the ones who published these statements revealing their agenda.  we’ve accepted their self-description and chosen to clarify publicly that that is not our self-description or agenda.  they drew a line in the sand with their publications.  we’re choosing to accept the division because there is actually no way to prevent it.  
    while we all will always have differences of opinions and differences in what we consider the most important issues, in what we deem acceptable tactics, most of us have found ways to work together toward the larger goal of ushering in a new world in which the basics : food, shelter, air, water, clothing, health care, education … are accessible to all.  most of us seemingly agree that there is no place for big money in politics; we are accepting that we have much work to do to iron out our differences, but are united about these basics.  what we’re not united about is the tactical approach toward these goals.  some of us believe the biggest part of our tactical approach is waking and informing as many people as possible as to the real state of the union.  we believe, and recent history has proved, that when people are finally exposed to the truth, whether by study or personal experience, they step up to fight for justice.

  • Pingback: Occupy Oakland Says “No” To the Violence and Vandalism of Fringe Black Bloc Group | Systemic Capital.com