[lbo-talk] not my revolution, so i'm taking my marbles and i'm going home now. kthxbai!

[Eric Beck]

Dean seems to be making it up as she goes along. As she's been
flogging her communist horizon stuff, she keeps saying, like a New
York Times wit might, that anarchists can't organize. Of course anyone
who's been paying attention, anyone who gets their politics from
watching the world rather than from reading Zizek, knows, this isn't
true, but OWS has presented indisputable evidence she's horribly
wrong. So then she changes tacks. On a comment Doug posted to FB, she
admits that anarchists are pretty good at the initial burst of energy
but that at some point they may become impediments to the struggle.
She doesn't exactly say what to do about that impediment, especially
if the anarchists won't go quietly (though I bet she could get some
good ideas from her beloved Leninist party). Now she seems to be
saying that even though it's a revolution and she's been calling for
it, she won't participate if it doesn't suit her exactly. I wonder
what the next development will be.

Shag's right: her analysis is very childish. And confused. She
complains that there are not any institutions, but while people are
still building them, she declares them stupid and not for her. She
talks about communism but doesn't seem to be doing by herself. Etc.

I like the point about free spaces. If nothing else, occupations
create new space, almost ex nihilo, as Judith Butler talks a bit about
here: <http://eipcp.net/transversal/1011/butler/en>