1. a list of demands that they have to know won't be approved 2. the insistence that you are going to hold a constitutional convention in philly regardless 3. that you expect all three branches of government to approve the "will of the people" 4. a threat: if they don't, then they will start running third party candidates for congress.
sounds like a fucking strategy to me and, personally, with a beautifully coherent set of tactics that force the enemy into ideological knots.
They're going to stop a constitutional convention? In philly? Really now.
I mean, the whole thing is just exactly what Doug has argued he wants when it comes to third parties: focus on the local level. They've figured out the kind of tactical deeds and hot buttons they need to push in the population to get money flowing at them, and now they are channeling it into a program. They've figured out how to create, ahem, study groups in the mini occupies all over the country who will now be footsoldiers for the creation of those third parties and who will now have some of the organizing skills needed to get campaigns off the ground.
Yeah, it's 1776 all over again. Or perhaps more accurately, one of those series of events that led to the consolidation of the two party duopoly, only in this case, it's the fissure that splits open giving birth to a third party.
Anyone say something about incremental change and taking over the state here?
Anyone?
No?
and if that platform was for real, if that's what they've been discussing, talk about having to catch up with the people!
like I said: it's not revolution but for those of you who've professed that you're not interested in reovlution so much as in social democracy, what the fuck are you whining about already. maybe the kids at zucotti park can't run the third party, but people like John Halle can, people like the green partiers on the list can, etc. So step right up folks, put your gold star on make a party - mmmmkay?
> On Oct 20, 2011, at 11:01 AM, Joseph Catron wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 6:41 AM, Carrol Cox <cbcox at ilstu.edu> wrote:
>>
>>> You don't know what to do yourself and you are nagging OWS (who are
>>> not
>>> listening) to do it for you. They won't.
>>>
>>
>> Who is this mysterious "they," and why do "they" care so little for
>> the
>> perspectives of others? :-D
>>
>> Seriously, after organizing alongside many OWS participants for
>> years, I'd
>> be pretty miffed if I imagined they were really so indifferent to my
>> opinions!
>
>
> The “you” above was not you, Joe Catron, but SA and his collaborators.
> The “they” above is those occupying Wall St. This differentiation was
> not introduced by Carrol. It was introduced at the start of this
> thread by contrasting the debate in the panel and the lack of it
> (debate, strategic discussion, etc) in Zuccotti Park.
>
> Having been to Zuccotti and talked to the people there, and judging by
> their response to Stiglitz and others, I would say that they are quite
> open, not indifferent, to the opinions of anyone who is interested in
> coming and talking to them.
>
> —ravi
>
>
>
> ___________________________________
> 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)