[lbo-talk] Boots Riley on Occupy the Hood

Jordan Carroll jordanscarroll at gmail.com
Sun Dec 18 10:01:55 PST 2011

The second point (a stable, formal institutional structure of Occupy) was what I thought would be the sticking point.

I find communization theory interesting, but I'm still not sure on the specifics. Other than the fact that it's new, cool, and more overtly antagonistic to capitalism, how does this strand of communization differ from traditional communalism? And how does it avoid communes' age-old problem -- i.e., their vulnerability and dependence upon the capitalist outside? Nobody has demonstrated that communizationist communes are able to provide their own adequate healthcare (bonesetting aside) or fend off the police.

It's one thing to say that we can escape all repercussions because communism is waiting for us tomorrow, but there's little concrete evidence that we've reached the end of capitalism or even the flourishing of a large-scale movement to withdraw from it. Organizing workers is going to take years of work and telling Wal-Mart workers, "Hey, fuck it, if you illegally strike and lose your job, you can come sleep on a cot on my farm" is not going to endear many.

shag carpet bomb wrote:

well, that's the point of Communization to begin with.

The idea is to create a feasible alternative way to live for exactly these reasons. Why not bail on your debt? Who gives a shit if you default on your loans if you create a small society where you can live and not suffer the repercussions bankruptcy supposedly puts on you? (this was in a piece Eric forwarded here written by one of the communard anarchists who is part of Occupy Oakland). Following, why not strike? If the repercussions are no way to live, communization is a way to live.

Out of curiosity, why would it be verboten to discussion pooling resources and donations for this purpose?

More information about the lbo-talk mailing list