> On Sep 18, 2011, at 7:03 PM, Carrol Cox wrote:
>
>> Probably, from descriptions on this list, it had more analysis, more definite goals, more organization than is usually the case this early in the development of a movement. All of those come later. To sneer at sloppy beginnings is to give up on anything better ever coming along. And analysis of what? All this fuss about just one event is bizarre.
> Did you actually read anything that went before? I can understand if you didn't, given your eyesight, but they specifically said they had no goals. These would come clear via some magical process of spontaneous discovery. I spoke with one of the organizers five days ago and she made it clear that it was barely organized. The analysis goes no deeper than "bad shit is happening." And it's not one event - this is a chronic situation of the American "left" today.
On its own terms, the demo looks like a success to me. The literature made it clear that the organizers were trying to appeal specifically to a demographic that belongs to or personally identifies with a sort of nose-pierced style of twenty-year-old anarchism. And if you'd asked me beforehand, I would have guessed that such a demographic could probably turn out several hundred people in NYC. So, success, right? I mean, it's not like they were trying to bring out the membership of Pipefitters Local 107.
SA