Forum Post: Should Occupy incorporate itself in order to become more democratic?
Posted 11 years ago on Sept. 25, 2012, 9:02 a.m. EST by hazencage
(58)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Shareholders would be allowed to vote on the articles of incorporations, their particular clauses, and finally would be able nominate and vote for or against spoke council leaders/working group committees to serve on the board. This board would be held liable to the articles of incorporation, that could be changed and modified by the shareholders. Thus, not only would this structure would allow for some clear, and obvious democratic goals that would be based on consensus, but it would also convey a sense that their are some real guidelines through the articles of incorporation.
Secondly it would also be important to point out that the elected board could simply be nothing more then simply a device used to raise funds by floating corporate bonds(i.e charitable bonds). In this case Occupy would have an entity that would be able to gather resources for the movement, while at the same time by law they would have to spend the money in a responsible manner( I.e they would have to account for where the money went, and therefore eliminate the problem that the financial committees of occupy originally had). In short not only would the board be able to raise funds, and use better accounting methods, but this money would also be held to the interests of the working committees/spoke councils/share holders.
Moreover, Occupy as a corporation would operate in a fully democratic manner, and therefore would fulfill the symbolic need to push for more shareholder rights. For example in America legislation in the 1950s was passed to ensure that shareholders would have a equal say in a corporation. Unfortunately most corporations in America have used loopholes to suppress shareholder rights. For example it is common place for many corporations to allow their shareholders to vote for an incumbent, but at the same time they are not allowed to vote against incumbent candidates.
On another note it would also be important to point out that many individuals do not have the time to attend GA, and therefore as a shareholder they could simply stay home and receive updates by emails, communicate through forums, and would only have to occasionally show up to vote(or it could be done online). Thus the shareholder method would create a system that would allow for more people to stay involved and keep in contact with occupy.
Thus not only would occupy send a message to the corporate world by incorporating themselves, but they would also create a system that is more democratic and would allow for more individuals to stay involve and participate. Finally it would also give occupy the ability to float charitable bonds, and fund direct actions on a larger scale than it could previously.
Its also important to point out that of the occupy movements were co-opted by various non-profit corporations, and eventually their numbers were used to support those 5013c's causes. For example occupy Philly was sponsored by jobs with justice and as a result many of the individuals were simply on board in order to support a anti- mayor nutter campaign Finally, it should also be noted that ad busters which pretty much started occupy is a corporate entity that successfully marketed itself by prompting this crowd sourcing method. Henceforth the question should also be " Should occupy incorporate itself, or continue to be a tool of other non-profit business entities?"