[lbo-talk] LBO-Talk's Message to the Masses

[Eric Beck]

I'm conflicted about OWS (sorry, I won't use the fucking hashtag):
Like Carrol, I think the sneering tone and desire to dictate the
political articulations of the occupation, on this list and elsewhere,
evinces a sort of leftist purism and not-quiet quietism, but I also
agree with Julio that ruthless criticisms are a way to make movement,
ah, move; the fact that it was called for by AdBusters gives me pause,
but the structure and politics of the occupation so far seem pretty
open-ended and have not closed off the possibility of its moving in a
communist-ish direction; I think there is lots of value in Michael
P.'s diagnosis that the occupation is trying to craft direct democracy
(though I hate that term), but I agree with SA that the failure to
target Wall Street nullifies any sort of antagonism and puts it in
danger of becoming completely narcissistic, a patchouli-smelling
mutual-admiration society; I don't really like petit bourgeois
("small", "sustainable") or populist ("people power") impulses, but I
tend to think of them less as the perfect expression of political
programs and more as the vague expression of the possibility of
something else existing, some other forms of life; etc.

Oh, one thing I'm not conflicted about: If you don't understand the
reasons there haven't been any demands, if you want to cackle at the
politics you think that lack represents, that's your problem, not the
occupation's. Interrogating the politics of demanding--and the refusal
to demand--has been, imho, one of the great innovations of occupation
movements in the last few years, from the New School to the actions in
California, not to mention Greece and elsewhere. The lack of demands
is intentional and there are lots of good reasons behind it. If you
don't understand those reasons, you should probably educate yourself a
little bit, not just engage in cheap irony.