Welcome to Occupy.net Ideas, where you can ask questions and receive answers from other members of the community.
Occupy Ideas is built and maintained by Occupy Tech.

What would you consider to be a fair model for fundraising in OWS?

+6 votes
One which incorporates our values of transparency, accountability and horizontalism, and which doesn't empower some people over others.

asked 3 years ago in Economics by torn

4 Answers

+2 votes
To answer my own question I like the idea of something like a "Y Combinator" for Occupy - the Startup Incubator model, where you have a council of elders (successful entrepreneurs and organizers) who would provide startup funding and guidance for projects, and have a staff on hand to take care of any of the regulatory business that my stymie inexperienced organizers (City regulations, legal compliance, whatever).  

However, project selection should happen through a separate, an open process - like you would propose your project at a GA to be included under this program, and if the GA approved, then you could access the resources of this "project incubator" - but their input would be non-binding.  You could take or leave their advice.

This model works in the startup community because it's usually a small cash investment for the team doing the incubating (a few tens of thousands of dollars) and they take a share of profits from successful ventures.  

For OWS the payback would be in growing the movement.
answered 3 years ago by torn
I am opposed to voting for projects through the GA.  They vote for any silly thing without doing any research.  Direct democracy sounds good on paper, but in reality, it is a dysfunctional way to run a movement.  Not all well-meaning people are capable of forming a workable plan and not all voters are able to identify a workable plan.  Using direct democracy in this instance is very inefficient.
+2 votes
Gandhi never took money from the community to sustain himself. This eleviated him of many power imbalences and influences that might have caused him to feel obligated to violate his principles.

   Five of us in Tulsa found a ran into the ground home and got a 10 year, 15 grand responsibility to housing under one persons name who was trusted by the group who deemed the hassle of having all perminant occupants on the note was too much. Living cost for all us has sunk drastically. We live minimally as all get out. We share and pool our resources, maximizing the resources we can dedicate to the movement. We can help people repair their homes in the community at very, very low rates and are completely self sustainable (considering help and resources of GA to be part of self) to this point. No outside influence due to money or goods. 4 of us lived with only a generator through most of the winter but are now up and going high speed. We have found alternatives to running water. This is a good model. We wake up and go pass out six hundred flyers. Brainstorm about stuff all the time. Self sustainability and sacrifice. If we ain't really about it are we worthy of peoples money.

I say people should contribute to supplies or money to moderately specific usages. I understand this is hindering but I believe this is a very worthy cause to sacrifice things we have been convinced we need. I believe there are ways to fund the movement from within the movement.
answered 3 years ago by oneofthe99
edited 3 years ago by oneofthe99
Some other members of the GA here just did a similar thing. They rented a nicer house in a different section of town. We hope to have them all over town.
+1 vote
One which allows for funds to be allocated in a way that is in alignment with organizational goals; or do it with your own organization.
answered 3 years ago by alg0rhythm
–1 vote
I agree.  Now if only those holding the OWS funds hostage believed the same!
answered 3 years ago by Monica

Related questions