[Sdalliance] committee meeting time/place - Mission Statement?

[Bo Elder]

Thanks for this Monty, I think you've highlighted some of the key issues we
should discuss in our 2/26 meeting.  I can see pros and cons to both and
will look forward to hearing others' ideas!

in solidarity,

Bo

On Sat, Feb 4, 2017 at 12:47 PM, Monty Kroopkin <mkroopkin at juno.com> wrote:

> Are we going to do a Doodle poll for this?
>
> ---------- Original Message ----------
>
> From: "Monty Kroopkin" mkroopkin at juno.com
> Date: Sat, 4 Feb 2017 20:21:46 GMT
> To: SDalliance at lists.resist.ca
>
>
>
>
> Angela, thanks.
>
> So it is not my proposal to amend this part:
>
> �� *Proposed change 2 *: rework sentence 3 → Saying “we welcome all who
> want to fight
> oppression” contradicts our points of unity; more accurately we welcome
> all who want to
> fight oppression and accept our points of unity.
>
> I think 'we welcome all who want to fight exploitation and oppression' is
> true to the FIRST version of our structure document, which proposed truly
> open campaign committees, where people who might not agree with all of the
> principles of the coalition could still work with us on specific issues
> they did agree on.
>
> Of course, this question of whether our open committees will be open only
> to people who agree with our points of unity is a remaining structure
> question we hope to resolve at the new general assembly.
>
> We seem to have two basic pathways ahead on this question.
>
> 1) We limit participation in our committees to people who agree with our
> points of unity. This would include individuals unaffiliated with any
> organization, and people affiliated with organizations which are not part
> of the coalition, and of course people in orgs that are part of our
> Collective Resistance San Diego coalition.
>
> This pathway would mean, in terms of likely numerical strength, that our
> coalition could have hundreds or at best a few thousand members in San
> Diego. The anti-capitalist left, even if we include the larger number of
> Sandersnistas, does not come close to what one would call a "mass " at this
> stage of the struggle in this country.
>
> In favor of this pathway is the greater chances of our being able to
> articulate a variety of unified Left positions and proposals and to build a
> coherent Left voice in our region. We know we will have challenges in
> finding that unified voice on some subjects. Not having liberals included
> in our internal discussions could make it easier for us to find agreements
> to share with the public.
>
> In disfavor of this pathway is that we will have a harder time getting
> larger numbers out for demonstrations, et cetera.
>
>
> 2) We limit participation in our committees to people who agree with some
> of our points of unity, but not necessarily all of these. This would again
> include individuals unaffiliated with any organization, and people
> affiliated with organizations which are not part of the coalition, but
> would not shut out liberals who do not agree with an anti-capitalist
> position. Which other parts of the points of unity we could waive would
> need to be well thought out. We would not want to waive anti-racist, for
> example.
>
> In favor of this pathway is the likely ability to involve larger numbers
> of people into the umbrella of our coalition, and the greater chance of us
> being a substantial factor in building the mass movement we all know we
> need now.
>
> In disfavor of this pathway is the complications it could present for
> building a coherent and unified Left voice in our region. It would
> especially be a problem, I think, if the individuals sent to the delegates
> council by the open campaign committees ended up being a lot of liberals.
> One safeguard we might adopt against that possibility would be to decide
> that ALL committees that are set up by our coalition have a
> coordinator/chairperson (or co-chairs) chosen by the coalition (through our
> decision process) and that those coordinators are also the delegate council
> reps for the committees.
>
>
> I do not have a strong preference for either of the 2 above pathways. I do
> think that if we choose the first one, that we will then need to think
> about trying to affiliate Collective Resistance San Diego with one or more
> larger organizations that are more immediately capable of mobilizing the
> numbers of people we need to build a mass movement. Even if we go with the
> second pathway, we might still want to look at affiliations with groups
> that remain outside our coalition (especially on the larger regional,
> national and international levels).
>
> To conclude then about the wording of 'welcome all....' I think we have to
> first decide how open we want our campaign committees to be, and then see
> which 'welcome all...' wording fits that.
>
> mk
>
>
>
>
>
> Please note: forwarded message attached
>
>
>
>
> From: Angela Risi <ang.mar.ris at gmail.com>
> Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2017 12:11:36 -0800
> To: SDalliance at lists.resist.ca
> Subject: [Sdalliance] Request for feedback on Mission Statement
>
> Comrades,
>
> Attached is the Mission Statement that was voted on to work with at the
> 1/29/17 meeting. Included in the document are notes from the discussion
> that followed.
>
> Please review this document and send feedback you have for the Mission
> Statement Committee.
>
> In solidarity,
>
> Angela
>
> _______________________________________________
> Sdalliance mailing list
> Sdalliance at lists.resist.ca
> http://lists.resist.ca/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sdalliance
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.resist.ca/pipermail/sdalliance/attachments/20170204/407f89ca/attachment.html>