In my last blog one poster made the assertion that GA would produce a strong statement condemning and repudiating violence.  Yet I found this report from James Vann on the Friday session, which began:

At the general assembly of Occupy Oakland last night (Friday, Nov 4), a task presented from the earlier facilitators' meeting was open discussion by the assembly -- in small groupings -- on the question:  "How to Grow Occupy Oakland into a Long-Term Sustainable Movement."

Later in the report:

During the report-back session, few small groups made what I considered positive or doable suggestions ("take over city hall;" "make city pay for meals and housing;" "displace the city council," etc).  However, in what appeared an orchestrated tactic, each time a small group recommended "taking over vacant buildings," it drew the loudest applause.  Alternately, when there was any criticism of violence, or mention of non-violent actions, the dissident members, and their compatriots dispersed throughout, yelled out almost in unison, "diversity of tactics, diversity of tactics."  It is clear that the dissident anarchist group of some 150 or so is deeply embedded within Occupy Oakland.  (The morning's news programs gave the police breakdown of Wednesday's arrestees as about 31 percent Oakland residents, approximately 10% out-of-state, and the majority from other cities and communities.)

His blog concludes:

Clearly, the present situation poses an extremely serious problem for Occupy Oakland.  Moreover, a wide disconnect exists between #Occupy goals and anarchists' objectives.  The anarchists see #Occupy as a "resistance movement" requiring a vanguard to wage war against oppressive forces (the police).  Alternately, #Occupy's basic objective is to expose the greed, corruption, and attendant policies of Wall Street investors, bankers, and mega-corporations that extract more and more the wealth of the country, while the 99% and the needs of the many increasingly suffer with less and less -- and to cause policy and program changes to restore equitable wealth and resource distribution. 
 
During the dissident actions on "General Strike Day," non-violent OO members who attempted to halt acts of property destruction being perpetrated by the anarchist group, had their own safety threatened with claw hammers.  The dissident anarchist faction is deeply embedded throughout and has strongly expressed its integration and inclusion as a legitimate part of OO.
 
Given the open nature of OO; its consensus decision structure; and the lack of endorsed "leaders," it is unclear how OO will deal with the internal situation of a faction that is structurally committed to an agenda of "resistance," inherently contradictory to the aims of the #Occupy movement.  Unaddressed, this dilemma threatens the existence of at least Occupy Oakland itself.  Clearly, #Occupy, and specifically Occupy Oakland, is faced with a dilemma moving on incompatible paths that at present seems only likely to continue diverging.

There are those who want to make everyone involved in the Occupy movement as the next Rosa Parks in order to sustain their narrative regarding the Oakland Police.  There are those who want to ignore certain elements within the movement because they believe in the larger goals of the movement.  But these factions which would Rosa Parks would not agree with in my opinion need to be acknowledged and addressed.  Otherwise it undermines the whole movement.