> So one side is defending the trends in the movement and the other side is
> offering a critique, a "minority position." That's about accurate.
>
> What's wrong with that? If it's a question of one side seeming to be not
> actually involved, just slinging platitudes from the sidelines, I'd
> dispute
> that. I think Chris Maisano is the most involved out of anyone on the
> panel.
>
> What the video might not have shown is that Doug and company's arguments
> were received *much *better by the audience and like I said before, I'm
> pretty sure free CUNY will have wider resonance in the general public
> than pioneering new and creative ways to fuck.
>
I took me forever to figure out how to get OWS Jacobin panel video and listen to it:
http://jacobinmag.com/blog/?p=1937?type=9
I am listening now and it divides much as Doug explains, of a tactic of occupation v. a stategy with a program.
A question was asked what do we want, and someone suggested free college. A good answer to begin. But there is more, like open to all?
To acheive this goal, sit-ins and occupations work pretty well but they require support from students and faculty, especially faculty because they are employed there. The point to mentioning faculty is their power within the institution which needs to be the lever on the administration. Then there has to be the follow up of a general student strike sufficiently large enough to see its effects in the nearly empty classrooms
Toward the end, someone said the OWS had morphed into the concept of occupy everything. Earlier someone suggested there were a lot of banks around here---meaning that particular neighborhood.
BTW it was a very successful meeting. It's well worth spending the nearly two hours watching it.
CG