***
On another topic, I feel like a lot of discussion that's focused on questioning the value of sustained critique of this movement underestimates the movement itself. There's a deeply ideological core here. The structure, the tactics, it's of a certain breed of anarchism. And it's alright to defend this ideology. But let's not imagine that this is some natural form of consciousness that sprang out of nothing. That's quite insulting to the hard-work of our ultra-leftist comrades.
But why does the movement have* broader* resonance beyond this tiny core? It seems to have been basically a Rorschach test. People are sympathetic to it, because it's anti-austerity. In this context, I'm not sure why Doug's critique of Malcolm's "reading room in prison" spiel, etc. warrants criticism.
Between Malcolm and Doug: one of their arguments seems elitist. One of them seems out of touch with wider society and the aspirations of many people actually at the site (I can't speak as much of an authority, but I spent a total of 5 or 6 days down there).... There seems to be this idea that any attempt to interject *political* debate into the movement is an attempt to "impose" from the outside. But what makes an anarchist like Malcolm a more authentic representative of the movement than Doug? Because he's written less books and knows a lot less about finance capital?
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 10:28 PM, SA <s11131978 at gmail.com> wrote:
> The weird thing is, if you ask any Stalinist, Maoist, whatever, how the
> state can be physically overthrown, they'll tell you the exact same thing:
> there has to come a time when the cops drop their guns and join the
> opposition.