I wrote my summary of one situationist exposition of the strategy behind occupations, pointing out that their goal was to eventually fuck with the system with occupations at the point of production, but right now, when we are outnumbered and there's not yet a movement, you begin by occupying public spaces.
Not that i disagree with what you said, per se. Just that it's important not to let this bet get by because this entire discussion is dominated by a repeated claim: there's no strategy, oh the humanity! blah fucking blah blah. as if repeating it a gogangajillion times makes it true.
At 11:30 PM 10/28/2011, 123hop at comcast.net wrote:
>I think one of the most important things OWS is doing is reclaiming shared
>social space, a space whose significance derives entirely from that fact
>that it is shared, and it is public, and it is consensually held. So the
>strategy would be to expand that space in every direction.
>
>Therefore, before looking at the issue of occupying private places (like
>Walmart), we ought to look at occupying other spaces whose nature is that
>they are naturally common and shared. For example schools that are
>supported by public money. That's the next logical topos both as a shared
>physical space and as a shared space of social knowledge and, in that
>sense, social wealth. Start with the universities and high schools.
>"Occupying" would mean restoring authority to the teachers to teach as
>they see fit, rejecting standardized testing, and rejecting police
>presence in schools.
>
>Following that would be the occupation of other things that should by
>rights be common: utilities, transport, banks....
>
>
>Joanna
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Carrol Cox" <cbcox at ilstu.edu>
>To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
>Sent: Friday, October 28, 2011 7:57:55 PM
>Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] occupying retail
>
>No one of course is going to occupy Walmart or X or Y tomorrow. Any
>discussion of such an occupation is of two kinds:
>
>a) Politically Serious: It begins with some consideration of what kind
>of social changes and what kind of political activity and change would
>have to occur before such an occupation becomes an actual proposal for
>action.
>
>b) Politically Frivolous: It discusses such an occupation as though it
>were being planned for implementation without such changes having first
>occurred.
>
>That limits very much the considrations that are relevant.
>
>There are no local or national organizations at the present time that
>could or would plan or implement such an occupation. It could only be
>proposed under political conditions that do not at present exist. In
>picking up Michael's idea earlier today I was envisaging an exploratory
>conversation which moved back and forth between a consideration of the
>kind of process mass political groups go through in deciding on actions
>and an exploration of the political development which would have to o
>ccur for such an idea to be seriously debated within a political group.
> Oh well. Perhaps mail lists are not the proper forum for such
>exploratons of the complex relationships between fundamental theory and
>political activity.
>
>Carrol
>___________________________________
>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)