A few months ago, I posted something Doug wrote about the % of chinese goods in the typical u.s. home. A friend posted to my wall, skeptical of what Doug wrote but also not quite understanding the figures - wasn't his forte. Doug scolded him for not bothering to read his article, claiming he was just another facebook kid who had opinions out the wazoo but never read anything they had opinions about.
Yeah. That.
Thus, I don't expect people to read everything. BUt if you're going to bother to have an opinion about an article someone posts, then you should probably read it or look like an idiot.
there are ways to tag on to a conversation about something you don't want to read, simply by saying what everone else here says, "I didn't read the article, but if you are talking about X, then I think Y...."
<> I haven't read the article either; but I suspect that in this case, <> after <> various confusions are cleared away (such as the meaning of <> "vanguard") You <> and Doug may not be so far apart. It is confusing to use the <> dictionary <> meaning of "vanguard" in a political context, but granting that, Doug <> does <> see OWS as 'merely' the first step in a long battle, as in the quote <> in your <> third point. In the usual political sense of "vanguard," as you say, <> OWS is <> definitely anti-vanguard. <> <> You've been trying, as I see it, to theorize OWS, and that certainly <> needs <> to be done. (My argument for years on this list has been that "theory" <> arises from action rather than dictates it in advance. Well, we've had <> action now, but I think our attempts at theorization of it can be only <> fumbling. For one thing, OWS is obviously changing all along, but when <> that <> internal change will make it "something different" can't be prdictec. <> <> Everybody can't read everything others want them to read. It's part of <> the <> wisdom overload of modern culture. (There is a lot of discussion of <> information overload, but I don't think that is really a problem. <> Knowledge <> or even wisdom overload does constitute a problem.) <> <> Carrol <> <> P.S. All the 'revolutions' in literary criticism and theory over the <> last <> two+ centuries have been responses (sometimes conscious) to the <> overload of <> books that "everyone" should read. That was certainly the case with <> Arnold's <> "high seriousness" <> (a way of excluding a lot of stuff from the "truly great' which <> everyone <> 'must' read). And both the New Criticism and "Theory" attempted in <> various <> ways to substitute "reading competence" for "much reading." <> <> -----Original Message----- <> From: lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org <> [mailto:lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org] <> On Behalf Of shag carpet bomb <> Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2011 3:00 PM <> To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org <> Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] dreaming in public <> <> you should try reading the article. I'll make two points, and probably <> spend more time on this than you bothered to put in. <> <> 1. dreaming in public is the name of the article. hence, i'm guessing <> he means something by utopia that you fail to grasp, though you do <> know better given recent criticisms of claims about cookshops of the <> future. <> <> 2. similarly, he is clearly using vanguard in a specific way as in: <> vanguard strategy to insert organzation into an existing uprising in <> order to radicalize it because the idea is the yokels are too stupid <> to be able to get radical on their own. <> <> 3. oh what the hell, here's a third point, I'll quote the article: <> "And the truth of the matter is that occupation will not eliminate the <> crime and social rifts that are innate to a population made radically <> unequal, indebted, and divided against resentful abstractions of <> itself. A series of tents is not going to end downtown blight, quell <> gun violence, or end the targeted criminalization and deportation of <> "extranjeros." " <> <> <> goshes, I think the author might not have said what you attribute to <> him. shocker. <> <> <> <> <> <> On Dec 8, 2011, at 12:57 PM, shag carpet bomb wrote: <> <> <> <>> bady's kicking ass lately: <> <>> <> <>> What I saw was the best of a generation, not because they took <> <>> themselves as representative of some vanguard, utopian future, but <> <>> as <> <>> an integral part of the long, slow, and brutal work of remaking <> <>> spaces <> <>> for democratic process. <> <> <> <> I'm tired of this disavowal of vanguard and utopia. It's not <> honest. <> <> Occupiers are leading the way, and hoping others will join them. <> And <> <> they're doing so with a utopia in mind. You can't write all this <> stuff <> <> about reclaiming public space without having some notion of what a <> <> better public space would look like - some approximation, that is, <> of <> <> utopia. It's like you have to say these things out of some 90s-ish, <> <> anti-totalizing, anticommunist reflex. <> <> <> <> Also I don't buy his argument about how targeting Wall Street is <> <> somehow less radical - or more "liberal" - than this reclamation of <> <> public space. Wall Street is a symbol, or personification in some <> <> sense, of the nature of financial and political power, exercised <> via <> <> the financial markets. It's about ownership and control. It's at <> the <> <> core of politics. That's why OWS has had such resonance with the <> <> broader society - it's extremely clear and accurate. It has a lot <> to <> <> do with why Oakland is the way it is. It has a lot to do with why <> <> people are being foreclosed upon. Challenging foreclosure and <> moving <> <> homeless people into vacant properties is an attack on Wall <> Street's <> <> power that also makes the mechanism of that power very clear and <> <> concrete. Putting a tent where a cop tells you not to is related to <> <> that power, but at several removes. I'm kind of skeptical that the <> <> Reclaim the City rhetoric has the same resonance with the broad <> public <> <> that it does with graduate students in geog! <> <> raphy. <> <> <> <> Doug <> <> ___________________________________ <> <> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk <> <> <> <> <> -- <> http://cleandraws.com <> Wear Clean Draws <> ('coz there's 5 million ways to kill a CEO) <> <> <> ___________________________________ <> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk <> <> ___________________________________ <> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk <>
-- http://cleandraws.com Wear Clean Draws ('coz there's 5 million ways to kill a CEO)