They decided not to make demands. I mean, you and I and others here knew this already, but I thought you'd like to know that your arguments, not only confirmed in our experience already, were certainly confirmed by OWS's first few days.
> ----- 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
>
-- http://cleandraws.com Wear Clean Draws ('coz there's 5 million ways to kill a CEO)