I totally embrace the self-righteous bit because one of my complaints is about people failing to read. In this case, I think that Dean wilfully misreads much of what's she is seeing primarily out of plain old ignorance of any political experience where the bodies in the room do the work. I argued against that position awhile ago, reading her as having no political experience, but I really can't figure out any other reason for bizarre takes such as the claim that leaderlessness in the org is the expression of bourgeois individualism. I'm betting Bin Laden is wishing he had him somma that bougie individualism going on his old organization right now!
But here's another, among the other things I've already pointed out:
The way she titled the drumming post to uncritically reproduce the "end of OWS."
It's a simple matter of thinking things through innit?
If drummers take some really radical stand because, as some have insinuated, they wanted to make money in tips, what good is it going to do them to end the occupation over this? Or even if all they are doing is exercising expressive individualism and insisting that their opinion be heard, stroked, rattled, and rolled in order to get their egos stroked with some much needed appreciation.
Whoops, money kinda dries up dunnit? Whoops. No OWS, no appreciation for drummers! If they are really so interested in being the soul of the movement, they kinda have to keep the movement going to be the soul.
The fear Dean has expressed is that some small faction can completely hold the group hostage like this. But to think that is because you have no experience in a group - it doesn't even have to be "political" - where the bodies in the room are the ones who will do the work. And, to be sure, you don't have to be at OWS to get it. You don't even have to necessarily be an activist, simply interested in and an attentive reader of a literature as John Gulick argued. In this case, there's a vast set of texts anyone can read if they want to analyze what is going on. If you want to speak as an expert who knows your actions well enough to criticize them, then at least fucking give people the courtesy of a reach around and, you know, read them the same way you expect them to read your books.
At 07:28 PM 10/26/2011, Mike Beggs wrote:
>On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 2:43 PM, Tayssir John Gabbour <tjg at pentaside.org>
>wrote:
>
> > For those of us who don't know what ultra-leftism means, this is the
> > best explanation I've found:
> > http://www.anarchistblackcat.org/index.php?topic=8816.0
> >
> > One thing which stuck in my mind was how absurd it is to sound like
> > you're insulting someone for being even more leftist than you are.
> > (Not to mention the other reasons not to use that insult, even if the
> > person's philosophy deserves to be criticized.)
>
>Needless to say, I was using 'ultraleft' strictly in the technical
>sense and intended no moral judgment. :)
>
>It's one of those 'know one when you see one' categories, and the
>definition at Wikipedia gets the gist: "a position which is adopted
>without taking notice of the current situation or of the consequences
>which would result from following a proposed course—leftist positions
>that, for example, overstate the tempo of events, propose initiatives
>that overestimate the current level of militancy or which employ a
>highly militant tone in their propaganda."
>(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra_left)
>
>It's also characterised by a degree of cognitive dissonance, patching
>up the cracks between the belief that the organised left is holding
>back the spontaneous desire of the masses to throw off their chains,
>and the failure of the masses to display such militancy. Finally, it
>tends to be associated with self-righteousness, e.g. an ultraleftist
>is likely to take the term as a compliment because it implies that
>they are more left than everybody else.
>
>Mike
>
>___________________________________
>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)