my recent experience confirms what he says here:
"To see this we need to think about the sociological changes between the origins of these techniques and these more recent movements which only began in earnest with Tahrir Square. The former involved small groups of self-identified radicals who largely agreed ideologically, the latter is a mass movement of ideologically diverse (and often incoherent) people who can be described as "indignants" (which should not be taken derogatorily). This change also marks, for me, the dividing line between the first wave of occupations in response to the crisis, on campuses in NYC and California, and this new wave that began with Tahrir. The best evidence of this is comparing my opening video with the one immediately above. The general assembly method serves three purposes peculiar to this new context.
First, it gives indignants a space to voice their grievances. This was the purpose of "the people's microphone" in the Capitol in Wisconsin and will likely be evident if you attend a general assembly meeting (an occupation is probably coming to a town near you!). The collective voice of a meeting will often resemble a person with Tourrette's syndrome whereby a clear line of debate is interrupted by a spirited denunciation of bankers or politicians that is only barely related. People who have spent the years since Lehman on their couch becoming increasingly exasperated with the direction of society finally find a receptive and sympathetic audience. The result is often cathartic and enthusiastic glee.
The second purpose of the general assembly is to give each new indignant that shows up an easy way to feel a sense of ownership and control of the protest as well as a straightforward way to get more involved. In contrast to the social movement left, led by non-profit industrial behemoths like MoveOn.org and Greenpeace, professionalized organizations that value expertise and activist-cred, the general assembly technique has no barriers of credibility and is resistant to forms of expertise. This causes some obvious problems but it does prevent people from feeling out of place and leaving with a feeling that protesting isn't for them. More than this, when someone interjects a specific thought or expresses enthusiasm for one aspect of the protests, other people in the assembly can easily direct them to the appropriate working group or leaders to help out in this regard. This can lead to feelings of glee and helps folks feel at home enough to literally set up camp.
Third the inability to have ideological discussions actually seems to help keep the movement going. There are so few people involved with clear ideological positions that any attempt to form blocks would be sectarian and splinter the group. On a deeper level, as we've already discussed here at permanent crisis, the Left has no viable politics that respond to the current crisis. Without this, any attempt to achieve that, through whatever method, would only stifle the energy of those involved."
http://permanentcrisis.blogspot.com/2011/10/occupy.html
> [...]
>
> Even the much ballyhooed bias in favor of productive capital
> (“actually making something”) over finance capital (“making money off
> of having money”) could have its uses. Frank is absolutely right that
> this misunderstands the nature of finance under capitalism. But there
> is also a valid insight here: under late neoliberal conditions,
> finance has become completely dysfunctional and actually is mainly
> making money off of money – that is, speculation – rather than
> coordinating the distribution of capital among producers (I made the
> argument in detail here). To address the crisis, the excesses of
> finance will have to be choked off – preferably, I think, by
> nationalizing the banks – and the anti-finance sentiment of the
> occupations could be a powerful force helping to achieve this.
>
> Hurling critiques at the protesters, most of which they don’t even
> have the theoretical background to understand (abstract labor, eg, is
> a non-starter), is not a productive political response to the
> possibilities presented by Occupy Wall Street. If the occupations
> actually do amount to something, there’s still plenty of time to raise
> awareness within the movement of the complex nature of the crisis. But
> there’s a long way to go and many battles to be won before that will
> even become an issue. We have to work with the forces that are
> available, and I think Occupy Wall Street gives us something that, for
> the first time in the crisis, we can work with.
>
> [see article for links:
> http://permanentcrisis.blogspot.com/2011/10/is-occupy-wall-street-progressive.html
> ]
>
> ___________________________________
> 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)