> it seems to me
> that what you are actually meaning to say is that the BB's actions,
> while apparently counterproductive, are actually for the good of the
> Occupy movement.
Not exactly. What I'm trying to say is that all the hair-tearing on the subject is misplaced; and the intensity of the response, as well as the discouragingly conventional and unexamined character of the categories deployed ('violence', 'vandalism') cries out for some serious self-analysis.
> I think that an outright argument in defense of the
> BB's actions in Oakland would help make this whole discussion more
> productive.
It would. But I'm not the one to make it. It's not clear to me that the BB's actions are a Good Thing in any strategic sense -- apart from occupying an unoccupied building, which I really do think is a Good Thing.
But it's also not clear to me that these actions are such a very Bad Thing either. We should certainly reject the backlash argument, which we've seen deployed all our lives to cripple social movements.
What is clearly a Bad Thing -- I think -- is the Pharisaical horror of 'vandalism' and 'violence' exhibited by some of our lefty comrades. When it comes to vandalism, the Oakland desperadoes aren't even a patch on Cromwell's soldiery, or the French revolutionaries who smashed off the noses of the carved kings at St Denis. And as for violence...!
-- --
Michael J. Smith mjs at smithbowen.net
http://stopmebeforeivoteagain.org http://www.cars-suck.org http://fakesprogress.blogspot.com
"I think the American people want a solemn ass as a President, and I think I will go along with them."
-- Barack Obama
(Okay, okay, it was really Calvin Coolidge.)