> The occupation of Wall Street is an event, not a program, a policy,
> a "ine." It is profoundly wrong to "critrize an event. Events require
> explanation in some larger context, not correction.
Criticizing a particular political event is excellent, because without critic there's no learning and development and all that. The issue is -- as perhaps Carrol means -- "context." An easy way to think of this "context" thing is by reference to two items: (1) the extent to which those organizing the event wield social power in the broadest sense (wealth, political power, education, experience, skin color, sex appeal, age, all that) in the here and now and (2) the extent to which you can directly influence the decisions that shape up that event. Because you are taking sides and trying to help (or not). So, if you are on their side, then look for ways in which your opinion and wisdom can help most, encourage, strengthen the morale, etc.
> Some years ago in a brief exchange with Dout I pointed out that
> Lenin presupposed "spontaneous" activity; what he opposed was
> was _worship_ of spontaneity.
I think this is excellently said. I'll say more: Lenin or anybody else for that matter cannot be opposed to the "spontaneous" activity of people. Every human action is necessarily a mixture of spontaneity and conscious undertaking. We cannot anticipate all the consequences of our actions, but to the extent we remain humans we cannot but start with a certain (vague, murky, imprecise, and revisable) anticipation of outcome. Consciousness is always a work in progress. There's something called "uncertainty" or "ignorance" or what-have-you. Opposing spontaneity (or, as Carrol often does on the other end, opposing planning, envisioning a political party, envisioning a future society, etc.) is as as futile as opposing the rain. The real arguments are (1) on whether the share of spontaneity and consciousness should shift and (2), if yes, in which direction. I don't think many of us will disagree with the notion that we need more organization, more self-education, a sharper understanding of situation and goals, all that. The issue is then reduced to How to accomplish that, given that we're in this together?
Finally, let me address this question: Should this movement have a more pointed and precise goal? Yes, that would be great. But even if we have no consensus around exactly what we're for and against, can we envision broader criteria with which to judge the success or failure of this movement? I think the answer is yes. It is very important to break the first-entrant prisoner dilemma involved in undertaking collective action. And the service that Wisconsin and the Occupy movements are providing for this is immense. The more widespread, robust, and interconnected this movement proves to be, the more it will show people who are otherwise very tentative about engaging in protests to step forward, because there's a lot of discontent and anger out there. And that is crucial, because before any great qualitative leap happens, we need to grow quantitatively.
And this is not as vague as it seems. The big focal points are, of course, those issues that are wrecking people's lives massively -- unemployment and wars. People participating in the protests may be all dispersed in their slogans, but the ruling circles perceive these protests as caused mainly (in the most vulgar-Marxist kind of way) by the state of the economy -- joblessness. I don't mean that we don't need to worry about sharpening the goals of the movement, etc. I'm just saying that the *priority* is to get more people involved, seriously involved, and the main obstacle for their involvement at this point is not that the movement lacks clear goals, but rather the chicken-and-egg impression that protesting doesn't pay because it's a fringe thing, that protesting is a waste of time because it's something only a small group of hippies and privileged white kids do. I don't have time to go now and re-read Doug's article on "activistism." His concern in avoiding the waste of the political energy of the youth is well placed, I think. I'm just saying, let's not mark distance. Let's make this our movement, rather than a movement by some weirdos out there who have no clue.