it's one thing if *you* are the one who had the leadership and time to take over and direct a group toward goals. feels really great. but when it's a fucking ron paulite doing the work, boy you become a democratic consensus proponent, totally into any hippie structurlessness you can grab on to to shut that fucker down.
lol
i laugh, but what i'm witnessing is really sad. this thing has some interesting potential because there are lots of very atypical people involved because the area is so heavily military.
we are having the usual crap debate about whether to work within the law or not with the usual batshit leftists out there insisting that single moms toting kids go get arrested at the first political demo they've ever attended. He's a food not bombs guy, but a real asshole. As I signed his legalize maryjane petition last year, clearly a proponent who knew all the arguments for it, who didn't need to be convinced, the guy was wound up in hostile aggressor mode to such a degree, he didn't know how to handle it when someone signed. that, or who couldn't handle it if someone signed without agreeing with every dot and every cross on the i's and t's of his ideological one sheeter for legalizing pot.
asshole.
> this piece was good, but this other one even better. he grounds,
historically, the reasons why this particular approach of democratic
consensus building is a tactic that makes sense at this historical
moment. I'm reminded that it is kind of a new, improved approach to
consciousness raising where women realized that they didn't have the
words to articulate the problem at first, out of that came a slew of
what became classic theoretical texts alongside the proliferation of
refinements to political practice.
> 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)
> ___________________________________
> 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)