The 99%Spring Training for Trainers and the Plot to Coopt #Occupy

by The North Star on March 28, 2012

Reprinted with permission from the author, Charles Lechner. First published here.

This past weekend I attended the Training for Trainers (T4T) of the 99% Spring. This is being organized by a very large and powerful coalition in which MoveOn is one of the larger partners, as is the AFL-CIO. The 99% Spring action plan is fairly straightforward: train 100,000 people in non-violent direct action (NVDA).

On the one hand, this is obviously a progressive agenda that most occupiers would agree with. On the other, occupiers have struggled with the fear of cooptation to an exhausting degree. I’ve participated in online and in person conversations about the 99%Spring, and the critiques fall into three main arguments:

  1. MoveOn and the DC based labor movement bureaucracy can’t be trusted as they are committed to working within the system and for Democratic candidates.
  2. The 99%Spring uses occupy inspired themes and memes (“the 99%”) but without doing the hard work of actually working with Occupy Wall Street.
  3. The overall effort seems utterly disconnected from the nationwide May First plans that many (most?) occupiers are actively working towards, which are also referenced with “spring” language.
  4. This isn’t it’s own thing, but rather me making fun of how the nervous nellies respond to larger forces in the political world: “Halp! We’re being coopted! The Democratic Party is both capable and interested in implementing a well thought out plan to make us serve their interests!

Speaking as an occupier most active in the Tech Ops Working Group of the NYC General Assembly, my first response to the 99%Spring was envy. Why aren’t we initiating, leading or participating in this kind of serious coalition work? But that’s unfair. We are working on May First actions, which in New York include a march carried out together with labor and the immigrants’ rights movements. What we aren’t doing is training 100,000 activists and organizers in nonviolent direct action. So why not welcome an effort that is doing that?

The T4T Training
I’m just back from two days of training for trainers, and this is my verdict: the Training for Trainers was fantastic. Hundreds of people in attended the same training as me in New York, and thousands more took part across the country.

The folks attending the training represented a cross section of our country’s progressive, 99% movement. I met community organizers, peace activists, union members, occupiers, and many more. The group was inter-generational, racially diverse, gender balanced, and included folks from all NYC boroughs, Long Island, CT, NJ, and upstate. My impression is that most are experienced organizers, but from many different traditions and organizational homes.

The curriculum had three parts:

  1. The first is your basic Marshall Ganz story of self/us. This is training delivered for years now at countless political and organizational homes, including my old synagogue. For those who don’t know, Ganz started his career at the United Farm Workers, working with Cesar Chavez.
  2. The second is your basic nonviolent direct action training, with roots in Gene Sharp, Training for Change, and the Direct Action Group that emerged post-Seattle in the anti-globalization movement. It wasn’t out of step with anything that say, Starhawk or Lisa Fithian or the Ruckus society would have done.
  3. The third part was the story of the 1% vs. the 99%. It’s basic training in understanding the economic crisis and our collective crisis as a country. This is more or less the kind of training being used by unions and community organizing groups around the country for the last 2-3 years.

There was zero, none, nada discussion of the Obama campaign, electoral politics, the Democratic Party, or MoveOn. To sum up then, the critiques against the 99%Spring are false. Those who lobbed uninformed critiques are now in a position of having to apologize and take back their words or lose a certain amount of credibility. The ‘proved’ that MoveOn provided real support for an amazing, collaborative effort resting on principles and teachings widely used inside and outside the Occupy movement.

The Larger Context
Questions might still be asked about the ultimate purpose of MoveOn, unions, and the long list of community organizing groups that make up the 99%Spring effort. One of the most important is: Where is this coming from? What might it be going?

The information I have is based in part on conversations with folks who know better than me. Sorry about no sources, but here goes:

  • Liz Butler of the Movement Strategy Center is one of the prime movers and shakers of this effort.
  • The overall strategy seems to be similar or based on what Stephen Lerner (formerly of SEIU) was articulating in a series of talks about “creating a crisis for the rich.” In a nutshell, it proposes mass direct action aimed broadly at the 1% in order to force them to make concessions.
  • When we talk about ‘demands’ or ‘goals’ there are laundry lists galore. Winning strikes, raising taxes, winning elections, targeting specific corporations, etc. But behind all those disparate goals lies a framework: increasing the share of wealth that flows to the 99% and reducing the portion controlled by the 1%. That’s the prize. And large parts of the power structure (i.e., Democrats and even some corporations) think it’s a good thing too.
  • Getting MoveOn to be part of this coalition isn’t as simple as it looks. MoveOn is large enough to do whatever it wants without local partners, and for a long time that’s what it did. But the last few years have seen greater efforts to partner, with Van Jones’ Rebuild the Dream as the shining example But the 99%Spring is an example of a large powerful organization placing resources in the service of a pretty radical agenda and allowing others to take the lead.
  • Others that include Domestic Workers United, a labor rights organization representing working class women of color. One of their staff members, Harmony Goldberg, was a lead trainer this weekend. If you think Goldberg is a MoveOn/DemParty dupe, please shoot yourself right now. Whew! You’re still here! Thank god.

Where Does That Leave Us?
Based on my experiences this weekend, all I can say is – sign up for the trainings to take place on April 9-16. Help organize more trainings. Invite as many occupiers to attend as possible. Consider the advantage of influencing all those moderate, not radical enough people likely to attend and how our superior political praxis will surely attract them to let go of their electoral illusions.

And then, after considering such a vision, let it go, because it’s bullshit. The training is quite good. Go because it’s great to be on the same page for a moment with eager, enthusiastic 99 percenters who want to make this great land of ours a better one. Drop your defenses (if you have any) and rest assured no one is talking about elections. Let’s focus on the original OWS vision: mass, creative, effective direct action against the banks, Wall Streeters and political forces that drove our economy off a cliff and want to charge us for getting back on the precipice again.

  • Manuel Barrera

    I would say that the one of the original questions you pose is still unanswered: where is this NVDA training going? In contrast to the “no demands” Occupy movement, this no demands NVDA training has no true apparent motive except its own existence. But then, perhaps, is the intent; to find something “interesting” for organizers and potential recruits to the lesser-evil campaigns to do. I believe the seeds of “contrast” between this MoveOn/Democratic Party effort (make no mistake, it is such an effort albeit most likely the most radical wing of the Democrats) and the effort to build a truly significant mobilization on May Day lie precisely in the pretend-political focus of NVDA “TFT” and the actual political and struggle focus of the Occupy movement.

    Nature abhors a vacuum, so, an effort at “mass direct action aimed broadly at the 1% in order to force them to make concessions” is truly a double-edged sword. Wouldn’t electing Obama be considered a way to “force concessions” on the 1%? Wouldn’t NVDA be “really great” if it could be used to pressure the Democratic Party to adopt a more radical party platform at the 2012 convention in August as well as to provide media grist by doing similar but “outsider” actions at the Republican convention? So, why is this NVDA TFT for direct action NOT being focused on the OWS to mobilize workers and communities of color, women and immigrants, and all sectors of society at May Day? Why is THIS Democratic Party-inspired (if not DP direct participation) being contrasted to THAT work? It’s not like May Day is such a long way off that this “broader” effort could not be focused into using May Day as an exemplar of its guiding philosophy. I believe that you have been hoodwinked at best. Indeed, I do agree that engagement in this “left wing” of the Democratic Party organizer training is not a really for “nfluencing all those moderate, not radical enough people likely to attend and how our superior political praxis will surely attract them to let go of their electoral illusions”. But the “bullshit” is the belief that there is no tacit outcome to contrasting the REAL need to mobilize against the 1% at May Day to the PERCEIVED “need” for training in how to “wrest concessions” from the class who is IMPERVIOUS to such cajoling. I would encourage you to reflect on the class nature of the intentions of liberals (Peter Camejo’s excellent explanation in “Liberalism, ultraleftism, and mass action” at http://www.marxists.org/archive/camejo/1970/ultraleftismormassaction.htm).

    I hope you will reconsider.
    Manuel

  • http://rarara.blogspot.eu rara

    That increasing numbers of people get involved in increasing numbers of actions taken to disrupt business as usual and to shift the balance of power is a good thing. But the short-sightedness and superficial analysis is a real weakness. The last line says it all: “action against the banks, Wall Streeters and political forces that drove our economy off a cliff”. The material crises experienced by huge sections of the population were only exacerbated by the financial meltdown of 2008. Real wages have been dropping for 3 decades! We don’t want to turn back the clock. We want to change the system!

  • Pingback: Darwiniana » The 99%Spring Training for Trainers and the Plot to Coopt #Occupy

  • David Berger

    This is a reply to the document above. I want to analyze this document point by point as it present a unique and definite challenge and danger to the Occupy Movement, a challenge and danger that is, moreover, extremely sophisticated. I want to add that I am an active member of the Occupy Wall Street Labor Outreach Committee. – David Berger

    Reportback: The 99%Spring Training for Trainers and the Plot to Coopt #Occupy

    http://tech.nycga.net/2012/03/25/reportback-the-99spring-training-for-trainers-and-the-plot-to-coopt-occupy/

    Charles Lenchner: This past weekend I attended the Training for Trainers (T4T) of the 99% Spring. This is being organized by a very large and powerful coalition in which MoveOn is one of the larger partners, as is the AFL-CIO. The 99% Spring action plan is fairly straightforward: train 100,000 people in non-violent direct action (NVDA).

    David Berger: Actually, the action plan is not straightforward at all. The question still remains: Why has such a “very large and powerful coalition” emerged in the first place, and what is its relationship to the Occupy Movement? Neither of those questions are ever addressed. In my opinion, this constitutes a serious omission.

    Charles: On the one hand, this is obviously a progressive agenda that most occupiers would agree with. On the other, occupiers have struggled with the fear of cooptation to an exhausting degree.

    David: I suggest that people read both these links above. None of the arguments against 99%Spring that they present are answered. The evidence is overwhelming that this is a MoveOn front for the Democratic Party.

    Charles: I’ve participated in online and in person conversations about the 99%Spring, and the critiques fall into three main arguments:

    1. MoveOn and the DC based labor movement bureaucracy can’t be trusted as they are committed to working within the system and for Democratic candidates.

    2. The 99%Spring uses occupy inspired themes and memes (“the 99%”) but without doing the hard work of actually working with Occupy Wall Street.

    3. The overall effort seems utterly disconnected from the nationwide May First plans that many (most?) occupiers are actively working towards, which are also referenced with “spring” language.

    4. This isn’t it’s own thing, but rather me making fun of how the nervous nellies respond to larger forces in the political world: “Halp! We’re being coopted! The Democratic Party is both capable and interested in implementing a well thought out plan to make us serve their interests!“

    David: Notice that none of these four points against 99%Spring, which are accurate, are answered here or below.

    Charles: Speaking as an occupier most active in the Tech Ops Working Group of the NYC General Assembly, my first response to the 99%Spring was envy.

    David: That’s an interesting response. An active member of a nation-wide radical social movement is envious of another movement, one, moreover, with a clear liberal, as opposed to a radical, let alone revolutionary, program.

    Charles: Why aren’t we initiating, leading or participating in this kind of serious coalition work?
    David: On our own basis, which is very different from the basis of 99%Spring, we are building such a coalition.
    Charles: But that’s unfair.
    David: Fucking A right it’s unfair.
    Charles: We are working on May First actions, which in New York include a march carried out together with labor and the immigrants’ rights movements.

    David: True, to which you can add elements of the Left, which are absent from the 99%Spring coalition.

    Charles: What we aren’t doing is training 100,000 activists and organizers in nonviolent direct action.

    David: Neither are they doing it. This is their goal, not their reality. And let me add a point, which I’ll reinforce later. As a member of the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s, I participated in training in nonviolent direct action. I, along with thousands of others, was “trained” by people such as Bayard Rustin, who brought nonviolence to the USA after studying with disciples of Gandhi in India. The training described in the link below has little relationship to this training.

    http://moveon.org/event/events/index.html?action_id=268&rc=99HP

    Charles: So why not welcome an effort that is doing that?

    David: Because their movement ain’t our movement in terms of its goals or methods

    The T4T Training

    Charles: I’m just back from two days of training for trainers, and this is my verdict: the Training for Trainers was fantastic. Hundreds of people in attended the same training as me in New York, and thousands more took part across the country.

    David: We’ll see how “fantastic” it was. And as to your claim of “thousands,” some documentation would be nice.

    Charles: The folks attending the training represented a cross section of our country’s progressive, 99% movement. I met community organizers, peace activists, union members, occupiers, and many more. The group was inter-generational, racially diverse, gender balanced, and included folks from all NYC boroughs, Long Island, CT, NJ, and upstate. My impression is that most are experienced organizers, but from many different traditions and organizational homes.

    David: I think we need a little more than enthusiastic impressions. Also, I would like to know what percentage of these people were affiliated with MoveOn or the Democratic Party. Also, you are saying there were hundreds there. Considering that this training was drawing from the New York area, with maybe 20 million people, with the resources these people have, that’s hardly overwhelming. I’ve been at three-hour GAs in the rain in Zuccotti Park with 300 people.

    Charles: The curriculum had three parts:

    1. The first is your basic Marshall Ganz story of self/us. This is training delivered for years now at countless political and organizational homes, including my old synagogue. For those who don’t know, Ganz started his career at the United Farm Workers, working with Cesar Chavez.

    David: I urge people look at the link to this training. It represents an almost idiotically simplistic form of liberal training. It is person-centered rather than movement-centered. It is virtually devoid of meaningful politics. It’s kind of like a Tony Robbins seminar without the self-help.
    The point of the Occupy Movement is that we have presented a new methodology that has challenged not only the 1% but also the movements that have grown up during the long conservative period of the past 30 years. Our methodology of risky physical occupation where possible, combined with a decentralized action and command structure, has mobilized millions as opposed to what is presented by 99%Spring, which strikes me as warmed-over Saul Alinsky.

    Charles: 2. The second is your basic nonviolent direct action training, with roots in Gene Sharp, Training for Change, and the Direct Action Group that emerged post-Seattle in the anti-globalization movement. It wasn’t out of step with anything that say, Starhawk or Lisa Fithian or the Ruckus society would have done.

    Charles: As I said above, the concept of nonviolent training described seems to have little to do with such training and action as I experienced it. I think that the sum total of this kind of notion is expressed in the link below. This is politics, and I will say that on the basis of my own set of politics, revolutionary socialism, this is bullshit. Read it for yourself.

    http://www.trainingforchange.org/manifesto_for_nv_revolution

    Charles: 3. The third part was the story of the 1% vs. the 99%. It’s basic training in understanding the economic crisis and our collective crisis as a country. This is more or less the kind of training being used by unions and community organizing groups around the country for the last 2-3 years.

    David: I can’t comment without any specific references. But I find the fact that there is no mention of the role of the Occupy Movement is disconcerting.

    Charles: There was zero, none, nada discussion of the Obama campaign, electoral politics, the Democratic Party, or MoveOn.

    David: How about any discussion of the Occupy Movement? I mean, not to get into conspiracy theories, but if I were working for a front for the Democratic Party, I wouldn’t mention it either.

    Charles: To sum up then, the critiques against the 99%Spring are false.

    David: Bullshit. Here are the four objections that Charles himself raised. Let’s see if he answered them.

    Charles: 1. MoveOn and the DC based labor movement bureaucracy can’t be trusted as they are committed to working within the system and for Democratic candidates.

    David: This remains true. It hasn’t been answered, nor has the presence of MoveOn and the labor bureaucracy been discussed. This presence has been evaded.

    Charles: 2. The 99%Spring uses occupy inspired themes and memes (“the 99%”) but without doing the hard work of actually working with Occupy Wall Street.

    David: This remains true. The question still arises: Why didn’t this movement avail itself of the Occupy Movement, which is truly national and either work within it or form an alliance? The answer seems obvious: 99%Spring is an attempt to circumvent the Occupy Movement.

    Charles: 3. The overall effort seems utterly disconnected from the nationwide May First plans that many (most?) occupiers are actively working towards, which are also referenced with “spring” language.

    David: This is wholly true, and Charles has made no effort to refute it. The timing of this movement, in the crucial weeks leading up to May Day, is both unfortunate and deliberate.

    Charles: 4. This isn’t it’s own thing, but rather me making fun of how the nervous nellies respond to larger forces in the political world: “Halp! We’re being coopted! The Democratic Party is both capable and interested in implementing a well thought out plan to make us serve their interests!“

    David: It sure as shit is “capable and interested” in coopting the Occupy Movement and, wittingly or unwittingly, you’re a part of that effort.

    Charles: Those who lobbed uninformed critiques are now in a position of having to apologize and take back their words or lose a certain amount of credibility.

    David: Actually, it’s of those who are fronting for 99%Spring who are losing credibility. You have completely failed to make your case that this is a benevolent development that the Occupy Movement should participate in. It is, in fact, a genuine effort to coopt.

    Charles: The[y] ‘proved’ that MoveOn provided real support for an amazing, collaborative effort resting on principles and teachings widely used inside and outside the Occupy movement.

    David: The principles, teachings and methods of the Occupy Movement are, in fact, antithetical to this movement. The Occupy Movement represents a physical presence and an ongoing struggle against the power of the 99% and the system that they run for their own purpose. This new movement presents a set of toothless methods that will prove of little help to our work.

    The Larger Context

    Charles: Questions might still be asked about the ultimate purpose of MoveOn, unions, and the long list of community organizing groups that make up the 99%Spring effort.

    David: They sure can be asked. Let’s see what your answers are.

    Charles: One of the most important is: Where is this coming from? What might it be going?

    David: Yeah. Indeed.

    Charles: The information I have is based in part on conversations with folks who know better than me. Sorry about no sources, but here goes:

    David: That’s ridiculous. If you are going to make assertions about people’s and group’s motivations, sources are crucial. This negates your entire effort. You are asking us to trust both you and your informants with no proof.

    Charles: Liz Butler of the Movement Strategy Center is one of the prime movers and shakers of this effort.

    Charles: Are you sure, Charles, that Liz Butler is an ally you want? In a recent article posted on the National Journal website, the following two sentences appear:

    “Now, Butler, director of the Network Organizing Project at the Movement Strategy Center, and Cushman, organizing director for the New Organizing Institute, are harnessing the momentum from Occupy and bringing organizations together to train 100,000 activists to participate in the “99 Percent Spring” planned to start next month. … Progressive groups like Cushman’s and Butler’s have capitalized on Occupy and are continuing to play a strong coordinating role in the 99 Percent Spring movement.”

    http://www.nationaljournal.com/daily/occupy-s-new-mantra-99-percent-spring–20120313

    Note these terms: “harnessing the momentum” and “have capitalized on.” There’s a political synonym for these: “cooptation.”

    Charles: The overall strategy seems to be similar or based on what Stephen Lerner (formerly of SEIU) was articulating in a series of talks about “creating a crisis for the rich.” In a nutshell, it proposes mass direct action aimed broadly at the 1% in order to force them to make concessions.
    David: Well, I would be kind of careful before I use Stephen Lerner as some kind of guide to action. One the one hand, Lerner has said in the most recent issue of The Nation:

    “Emerging movements are complicated, exciting, messy, confusing and wonderful things to be a part of. When the passion, fearlessness and vision of Occupy intersects with the resources and membership of community groups and unions, we’ll find the sweet spot that makes it possible to force the richest to negotiate with the rest of us. It is where these two worlds meet—horizontal and vertical—united around common issues and enemies, that we create the potential to start winning together.”

    http://www.thenation.com/article/166817/horizontal-meets-vertical-occupy-meets-establishment

    Some of this is cool. But are we really interested in “forc[ing] the richest to negotiate with the rest of us?

    And in the very same article, while Lerner talks about things like debt strikes and resisting evictions, there is no mention whatsoever of the Occupy Movement’s plans for May Day mobilization, nor is there any mention of industrial action: strikes, boycotts, etc. It is striking that Lerner, as a union man, completely ignores the most conspicuous victory of progressive forces in the past few months: the alliance between the West Coast longshore union and the Occupy Movement, which helped to win a major victory for labor.

    Charles: When we talk about ‘demands’ or ‘goals’ there are laundry lists galore. Winning strikes, raising taxes, winning elections, targeting specific corporations, etc. But behind all those disparate goals lies a framework: increasing the share of wealth that flows to the 99% and reducing the portion controlled by the 1%. That’s the prize. And large parts of the power structure (i.e., Democrats and even some corporations) think it’s a good thing too.

    David: And here we have it: the essence of the liberal agenda: “increasing the share of wealth that flows to the 99% and reducing the portion controlled by the 1%.” No Charles, that’s not the primary agenda of the Occupy Movement. The agenda of the movement is the elimination of the 1%. Now you and Stephen Lerner and Liz Butler may want to adjust the tax rates and all that, to which no rational person can object. However, that is not our goal.

    Charles: Getting MoveOn to be part of this coalition isn’t as simple as it looks.

    David: Note the sneaky shift of ground here. We began by questioning the propriety of having MoveOn, which is a Democratic Party front, in any coalition that the Occupy Movement is involved in. And now, instead of a question and a problem, we have a victory! Well, lemme ask ya: easy or simple why should the Occupy Movement be in a de facto coalition with the Democrats?

    Charles: MoveOn is large enough to do whatever it wants without local partners, and for a long time that’s what it did.

    David: Is that supposed to be a virtue? Remember that we are dealing with a Democratic Party front.

    Charles: But the last few years have seen greater efforts to partner, with Van Jones’ Rebuild the Dream as the shining example

    David: If you consider an organization that is, basically, a front for MoveOn and boasts that it provided a document, the Contract for the American Dream, which “became the basis of legislation that the Progressive Congressional Caucus introduced into Congress,” then you have a strange notion of that constitutes a “shining example.”

    http://www.rebuildthedream.com/about/index.php

    Charles: But the 99%Spring is an example of a large powerful organization placing resources in the service of a pretty radical agenda and allowing others to take the lead.

    David: That “large powerful organization” is, I presume, MoveOn. Again, we have slipped, subtly, into admiring a Democratic Party front. Interesting that at the beginning of your post, you referred to a “very large and powerful coalition.” Now, instead, we have a “large powerful organization.”

    Charles: Others that include Domestic Workers United, a labor rights organization representing working class women of color. One of their staff members, Harmony Goldberg, was a lead trainer this weekend. If you think Goldberg is a MoveOn/DemParty dupe, please shoot yourself right now. Whew! You’re still here! Thank god.

    David: As to Harmony Goldberg’s relationship to MoveOn and the Democrats, I can’t comment. As to MoveOn, all the sarcasm in the world won’t make it anything other than a DP front.

    Where Does That Leave Us?

    Charles: Based on my experiences this weekend, all I can say is – sign up for the trainings to take place on April 9-16. Help organize more trainings. Invite as many occupiers to attend as possible. Consider the advantage of influencing all those moderate, not radical enough people likely to attend and how our superior political praxis will surely attract them to let go of their electoral illusions.

    David: Fabulous that in the weeks prior to Occupy Wall Street’s most important effort in months, May Day, an effort which 99%Spring is studiously avoiding, you are advocating people taking a week off to hobnob with … . I’ll let people make their own decisions about what this is.

    Charles: And then, after considering such a vision, let it go, because it’s bullshit. The training is quite good. Go because it’s great to be on the same page for a moment with eager, enthusiastic 99 percenters who want to make this great land of ours a better one. Drop your defenses (if you have any) and rest assured no one is talking about elections. Let’s focus on the original OWS vision: mass, creative, effective direct action against the banks, Wall Streeters and political forces that drove our economy off a cliff and want to charge us for getting back on the precipice again.

    David: We are focused on the “original OWS vision.” It’s our May Day work. See you then at Union Square. 99$Spring, I think, won’t be there.

    • http://www.planetanarchy.net Pham Binh of Occupy Wall Street

      The socialist left’s failure to provide leadership in the post-eviction phase has allowed Moveon.org, insurrectionist anarchists, and others to fill the void. Lead and Occupy will follow.

  • http://thecahokian.blogspot.com/ ish
    • http://www.planetanarchy.net Pham Binh of Occupy Wall Street

      Great warning, but what is the radical counterpart of the 99%Spring initiative? Warnings are not leadership.

      • http://thecahokian.blogspot.com/ ish

        Oh I completely agree. And the Occupy movement is a field rich for putting forward more radical ideas and leadership.

        Are you going to this?

        http://springawakening2012.wordpress.com/

        • http://www.planetanarchy.net Pham Binh of Occupy Wall Street

          Unfortunately no.

  • Ben

    Got to agree with David here – nice rebuttal. I would be particularly interested in knowing more about the “basic training in understanding the economic crisis and our collective crisis as a country.” Let me guess, the Democratic groups frame the problem as one of neoliberalism/deregulation/”corporate greed”, instead of a crisis of capitalism? Let me guess, their solution is some sort of Keynesian band-aid, a “new New Deal”?

    • http://www.planetanarchy.net Pham Binh of Occupy Wall Street

      Even if David is 100% correct, what practical conclusions should we draw from his criticisms? Abstain from the training? This initiative has taken hold within Occupy even though it has come from liberals aligned with the Democratic Party because the radical (socialist) left has failed to launch any bold initiatives of its own.

  • http://thecahokian.blogspot.com/ ish

    Following up: this has some important perceptions I think.
    http://www.nomadnewyork.com/99spring-is-a-bust-at-co-opting-occupy-wall-street/

  • Pingback: cheap ray bans

  • Pingback: SEO Company

Previous post:

Next post: