Glanced through it. Depressingly familiar. Actually, the California stuff is better. At least they offered some practical tips on how to lock down a building mixed in the sub-Debordian tedium. I don't see how this could help someone plan an actual building occupation. I don't mind manifestos, but a lot of this stuff feels obfuscatory.
Repetition is a part of planning. To use an example from Occupy DC, the first part of every meeting is used to review the community rules because the organizers understand that you're going to have new folks at every meeting, and therefore the act of repetition allows for a review of the social contract. I know the anti-process side of the debate is probably writhing in their seats right now, but it strikes me as a pretty good idea within the context of the contingency that exists in the actions right now.
robert wood
> you should probably read the entire document since it was written by
> people who were part of that planning. it wasn't a polemic against
> planning but a polemic against repetition. clearly, a group that puts
> out a DIY guide on how to plan your own occupation isn't opposed to
> planning.
>
> Poetry is stupid.
>
>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> ___________________________________
>> 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)
>
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
>