Question: How Many Deadbeats Does It Take To Staff A ‘Working Group’?

Posted on | October 31, 2011 | 12 Comments

by Smitty

Allahpundit catches us up on the deterioration of #OccupyWallStreet, but misses the obvious question posed in the title.

So says Time magazine. Meanwhile, thanks to the nasty weather, there were reportedly between 50 and “just over a hundred” protesters in the park this weekend, which means on some days the ratio of “Occupy” oversight committees to actual occupiers is roughly 1:1. No surprise, and not just because a proto-utopia founded by leftists would naturally have lots and lots of redundant government. The more I read about the movement, the more subordinate their political grievances seem to be to the underlying experiment in communal living.

How can people who don’t work form a ‘working group’, I would like to know.

There are some who see dark possibilities for #OWS. When it was pitched down there in the bunker, the decision maker may have heard tales of how these shock troops were going to be the heralds of the revolution that would make the world safe for Social Democracy. A healthy, non-paranoid eye on things with that in mind is perfectly sane.

Not unlikely, however, is that, as #OWS gets a hot blast of climate change over the next few months, it peters out.

‘Working group’. Hah!

Category: #Occupy, Uncategorized

Comments

12 Responses to “Question: How Many Deadbeats Does It Take To Staff A ‘Working Group’?”

Anonymous
October 31st, 2011 @ 10:42 pm

Howbout, “working groupthink?”

My (so far) favorite look at the OWS folks features an awful lot of “repeat what the leader says” kind of moments.

Reminds me of first grade.

Nice to see that some ~~anarchists~~ people still respond well to absolute authority over their lives.
Anonymous
October 31st, 2011 @ 11:05 pm

As this site pointed out (yesterday?) the Donner Party wants global collectivism, collective everything. As Allahpundit points out the Donner Party is ignored at our peril.
Here’s why I support ending deductions for charitable giving every single one of them.
From Michael Goodwin at the NYP.

“a radical group called the Alliance for Global Justice is legally sponsoring the protest. By lending its tax-exempt status — for a 7 percent cut! — the global-justice group allows donors to deduct their contributions from federal taxes and gives its own board control over the money.”
Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/lord_of_flies_in_zuccotti_park_Ce6a6psjtBX8Tgly0u0PbL#ixzz1cQ1T941z
Adjoran
November 1st, 2011 @ 12:41 am

Answer: It doesn’t matter how many “working groups” you have. If the group requires “consensus” before action, nothing will be done anyway.
Anonymous
November 1st, 2011 @ 1:57 am

A near 1:1 ratio wouldn’t be unusual in a group that attempts to practice “consensus” or “direct democracy.”

I decided to cut the remainder of my comment, which had to do with the hubris of assuming that even if that can be made functional on a small scale in an environment relying on extensive non-participant support (hint: that Fiji water and falafel didn’t bottle/prepare itself while the workers were off arguing about whose turn it was to hold the talking stick and speak in support of recognizing the rights of Orcas), that it can be made to serve as a viable framework for perpetual global Woodstock.
Joe
November 1st, 2011 @ 3:40 am

Oh you are talking about OWS…

I though this was about Politico.
Anonymous
November 1st, 2011 @ 6:11 am

MIC CHECK
Adjoran
November 1st, 2011 @ 7:03 am

Then those who like to garden will just grow Fiji water and falafel, and hand them out to the spirits floating by on gossamer wings as they await the True Harmonic Convergence to reveal its truth to the Appropriate Working Group.

Duh!
Adjoran
November 1st, 2011 @ 7:07 am

Always wondered what the point of that was with the Human Megaphone or whatever they call it – did they expect the wave to come back from the outer rows: “No, we can’t hear you!” or something?
Anonymous
November 1st, 2011 @ 7:17 am

Watching that Atlanta video, it seemed like a way to fight over control of the group. I remember one guy trying to speak up at one point, and then the dad from Family Ties started in with the mic check thing, which drowned out the unsanctioned threat to consensus.

It kinda makes sense in context, since you don’t want more than one person speaking at a time. Ideally, none of them would speak, of course.
Bob Belvedere
November 1st, 2011 @ 9:35 am

Mark me: they will be back next Spring and Summer, and better organized under the control of the Alinsky / Cloward-Piven Left.
Anonymous
November 1st, 2011 @ 10:44 am

It’s almost as bad as public-sector “goonions.”
Paul Joslin
November 1st, 2011 @ 3:06 pm

The obvious question is why they need so many working groups. The obvious answer is that chairing a working group brings status and perks, like being first in line for organic beet salad, and impressing working group members of the appropriate gender.