On 2007-04-22 18:56:30 +0100 Chuck <chuck at mutualaid.org> wrote:
>> You have to keep in mind that the facts don't matter to workerists,
>> who see
> any kind of protest outside of workplace organizing as being petit
> bourgie
> and "lifestylist." You could run a mob of baseball bat-toting working
> class
> people involved in these campaigns at these workerists and they'd
> still diss
> and misrepresent the protesters.
>
> I don't take these wankers seriously who bitch and whine about
> creative
> protests. Their form of dissent never works, so why listen to people
> who
> can't produce results?
Let me make this perfectly clear: *I* do not have a 'form of dissent' and do not claim to. I do not represent anyone or anything. (I actually only came here to read about economics.)
As to the accusations of workerism, funny but you'd probably be better off dismissing me as a would-be petit bourgeois defeatist or whatever the nomenclature is today. For the record, I see exactly zero opening for left wing politics today, whether oriented toward union activity or whatever else. *That's* my problem. I think that dressing up failed left wing politics (such as workerism, if you like) in drag will do nothing to alter its irrelevance.
John Kozak wrote:
>> This isn't even slightly true: the two most prominent large scale
>> anti-road protests in England were Twyford Down and Wanstonia,
>> organised by (Twyford Down) greens and (Wanstonia) a mix of local
>> (East End of London) working-class residents and anarcho-squatters.
And greens and anarcho-squatters are related to the majority of people how exactly?
I'm sorry but even if they mean is, so what?
Do you not remeber the well-to-do residents bringing care packages to the crusties living in trees? They certainly has a class interest in stopping the roads...
Enough from me, I have work to do.
Yours, Jason.