I mean, I'm thinking this. I have a goal. I want to win a war, battle for planet Earth. I pull out my big guns, I squash all enemies and in the process of doing so make Earth Hell on Earth: destroying nearly everything. Huh. I guess I mean that I wanted to win Battle for Planet Earth and end up winning and inhabitable planet Earth.
What everyone here is saying is that we must all sit downa dnt hink things through, make a plan, come up with a way to recruit an army, yadda yadda, train the army so that they are organized and disciplined, figure out logistics, etc. etc. They're worried that, if there's no planning like this, then we could end up with uninhabitable planet Earth.
And I'm all like, so go ahead and do that then. What the fuck is stopping anyone? I'm having fun with this, b/c it's so hilarious, yeah. But I'm serious as a heart attack when I say, Why worry about OWS then. The important thing would be to find a place for the retreat Jodi was talking about, Get Bhaskar in the room with his knowledge of the history of organizing, Doug in there with his ability to write succinctly, etc.
I mean, if you need a project manager, call me. I'm good at that shit. I'll show you how to come up with a project plan, milestones, you name it. I MIGHT even consider some sort of agile approach with self-organizing teams an' all. I hope Ravi is laughing his ass off now.
Because carrol is talking about the difference between waterfall and agile. It's slaying me!
Here's what I don't understand
At 04:53 PM 10/28/2011, Carrol Cox wrote:
>On 10/28/2011 2:56 PM, shag carpet bomb wrote:
>
>>what is strategy?
>
>:-)
>
>Actually I've discussed this in those posts in which I referred to the
>Remagen Bridge episode. That demonstrated two opposing conceptions of
>"Strategy." One, those staff officers who opoosed using the Bridge, sees
>strategy as existing in the Manuals, an abstract theory which directly
>controls practice. Such strategy, as Michael S notes, offer no room for
>contingency. Following that model, it would be a disaster were the
>carefully laid plans for crossing the Rhine shoved aide as Patton's army
>rushed to cross that bridge before it collapsed. (What if Walmar customers
>are offended. I bet 30 people debating with each other over the tactic
>would never in this world thik of that unless they had read all the
>economic analysis of the last 40 years about Walmar customers. Not ever.
>People planning to do something are always by definition Know-Nothings who
>can only think of the next 24 hours.) Eisenhower, however, had a more
>general and fluid conception of strategy; it did call for crossing the
>Rhine for the fina push into Germany. But it allowed for contingency in
>its implementation. Hence he ordered the use of the Bridge, and countless
>lies were saved. We can (or could) profitably discuss general strategy for
>the overthrow of capitalism or the unsettling of the state if not the
>overthrow on this list. That's what you (shag) have been trying to do in a
>properly provisional manner, beginning with a discussion of capitalist
>time and space. That led to your suggestion of focusing an attack on
>Walmart. Michael picked up on that and came up with a hypothetical set of
>tactics (still, being hypothetical, somewhat abstract); I picked up on
>that and began, in a clumsy way, to sketch out a hypothetical framework in
>which such a suggestion would be debated, twisted and turned around,
>considered in the context of concrete conditions, looked at from the
>perspective of ongoing strategic considerations, and so on. I wasn't
>spinning a theory but merely describing what always happens. The way that
>theory and thought and empirical knowledge become an inseparable complex
>in actual practice. And I'm still a bit baffled by how this effort at
>constructing how political thought moves in practice generated such
>bizarre responsesd as (for example) Andy's idea that we were against
>strategic thought.
>
>As a friend said some time ago about such resistance to dealing with
>concrete conditions: Fucking Hell -- do these people like losing.
>
>Carrol
>
>___________________________________
>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)