since OO is explicitly shaped by a very large contingent of anarchists and the west coast, more generally, is into communization as a specific approach to social change, it's a central strand of the arguments in all the occupy oakland GA's I watch. Thus, to understand whatever it is that OO is doing, you pretty much have to start there and educate yourself (not that you aren't, yourself is a generic "you") based on an extensive series of writings, some of which I've pointed out here. I haven't had time, myself. Only now just digging into Graeber's Direct Action, which is quite good for explaining why DAs tend not to deal with unions they see as undemocratic, etc.
At 01:01 PM 12/18/2011, Jordan Carroll wrote:
>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?
>___________________________________
>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)