I agree with Carrol on this, and I also think we should avoid some of the nonsense that's been said about him. At the same time, it strikes me that there's no reason to think of the intervention that Doug and the Jacobin people as being radically opposed to that. Why not see it as an argument and a provocation amongst many? As a set of suggestions to produce that kind of energy and participation? Although I disagreed with everyone in the debate, I thought it was a useful conversation, even though I'm not sure that Seth was the right person to moderate it. (Nothing against Seth's position or interventions, but he was clearly a partisan in the debate.)
As a side note in relation to question of meetings in the 'radical liberal' polemic, unfortunately, if you want action, you're going to have to have some meetings. Sections of the Occupy CA folks liked to pretend that their actions were 'spontaneous', but that was largely untrue. The most successful occupations had months of planning. Or to put it into the noxious language of Crimethink, let's face it, your fantasies of spontaneity are largely ineffective and boring as fuck. I'm down for exciting actions and horizontal organizing, but that stuff takes time and a lot of planning.
robert wood
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Carrol Cox" <cbcox at ilstu.edu>
>
> If one operates from social
> analysis ("data"_ will lead you to a deeper understanding of what
> 'should' be or what is 'needed' to 'improve' conditions; but there is no
> necessary connection whatever between the 'goals' so selected and the
> slogans that will attract people to the fight -- that will not only
> attract them but will energize their participation. And it seems at
> present there is only _one_ 'demand' that will fulfill that purpose:
> Resist the Corporate Attack on Democracy. We can perhaps build a
> movement around that, and the energy unleashed within such a movement
> is the desire to know and to understand, AND THEN, but only then, can we
> begin to 'get back to' the demands "worth fighting for." In an ideal
> world the "demands needed" would coincide with the "demands worth
> fighting for," but if it were an ideal world we would not be in the
> business of trying to destroy it.
>
> ---------------
>
> Agreed.
>
> Joanna
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
>