> [I think this is a fairly (perhaps unfairly) tendentious account of
> what Chomsky said. Here's another. --CGE]
>
> ‎...The occupations are "remarkable" and "extremely important",
> [Chomsky] said, not least because of prominent youth involvement. But
> they nonetheless suffer from significant limitations, limitations that
> radical media ought to make it a priority to help them transcend.
> Reading from the Occupy Wall Street and Occupy Boston demands, as well
> as from the 'Occupied Wall Street Journal' produced by the former, he
> split the contents into two camps: moderate, even mainstream, demands;
> and demands that are so unrealistic and far off in the future that
> they pose no threat to any currently-existing forces. This helps
> explain the unusual level of mainstream support for the occupations,
> he argued. The task of a radical media is to conceive of the
> occupations as beginning of a long-term process of popular education,
> struggle and development of alternative institutions, and to highlight
> specific issues where popular energy should be focused. If media with
> radical priorities fails to fill this gap, there is a danger that the
> movements will set themselves up for disillusionment and decline (as
> happened with the surge in popular activism in the early 1970s, for
> instance). His advice to Occupy London, scheduled for next week, is to
> recognise that "you're not going to win tomorrow". The aim should be
> to launch a long-term process to develop the alternative structures
> that, over time, can make radical goals obtainable...
>
> From
> <http://www.newleftproject.org/index.php/site/blog_comments/rebellious_media
> >.]
>
> On Oct 10, 2011, at 12:23 PM, shag carpet bomb wrote:
>
>> i was confused at first, given Chomsky's instense defense of the tea
>> partiers and his attack on leftists who washed their hands of them..
>>
>> But then I see that he was speaking at the Rebellious Media
>> Conference, and not to the UK Uncut audience, so crafting his
>> message
>> to particular audiences. /When they're radicals, he says that the
>> OWS
>> movement is naive, but when asked about it a few days before that,
>> he
>> appeared to endorse OWS.
>>
>> I'm not sure I understand this strategy. Won't it backfire if OWS
>> people find out he's denouncing them?
>>
>>
>>
>>> http://ianbone.wordpress.com/2011/10/09/chomsky-sticks-boot-in-to-occupy-wall-street/
>>>
>>> Been at the Rebellious Media conference all weekend – more of
>>> which
>>> later. I caught the second half of Chomsky’s speech saturday
>>> morning –
>>> anout 1200 people there. I was impressed. Chomsky took no
>>> prisoners.
>>> He described the Occupy wall streeters as ‘ naive people who have
>>> no
>>> comprehension of the real world’. He then went on to look at the
>>> demands of the occupiers in both New York and Boston -and
>>> illustrate
>>> how they could easily be accomodated by the existing banking
>>> system.
>>> There was a class war going on said Chomsky repeatedly but only one
>>> side was currentlt waging it and it wasn’t us!! For the wall
>>> streeters read UK Uncut here who have similarly lame financial
>>> demands
>>> which are similarly easily accomodated. Theres an argument to be
>>> made
>>> that ‘anything is better than nothing’ but like Chomsky i dont
>>> think
>>> it is. ‘People will live an intense period of activism for
>>> months’said
>>> chomsky ‘then vanish from poltical activity forever because of
>>> the
>>> nature of their demands which pose no threat to the system’...
>>
>> ___________________________________
>> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
>
> ___________________________________
> 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)