> On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 2:23 PM, Eric Beck<ersatzdog at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>> Short sweet and IMHO the best attempt to explain the anarchist no demand case:
> By the way, I think OWS presents as much of a challenge to, or at
> least complication of, recent anarchistic ways of doing things as it
> confirms them.
I agree with this.
I also have to say that despite our recent disagreement over this question as an abstract issue, in this specific case I think it's absolutely right to eschew specific demands. The last thing you'd want is to draw up a list of 7 policy proposals to "fix" Wall Street -- even though I'd probably support the proposals and would consider their enactment a victory for the movement.
The problem as I see it isn't the lack of coherent demands, it's the lack of coherent ideological rhetoric. It would be bad to say "here's 7 specific things related to Wall St. that we're protesting for." But it would be good to say "here's three general things about American society that we're protesting against" -- and to have those things be chosen to maximize mass appeal, not a laundry list of hippie grievances.
I'll also use this opportunity to make amends for making what was in retrospect a snide comment about OWS' disinterest in turning out labor a week or two ago. Obviously I was wrong. I think the reason I was wrong is that I underestimated the core organizers' tenacity in staying in the park.
SA