Coming out of the battle over public education in California, I can tell you that the demand nothing tactic was a contentious one within the movement itself. There were moments that it produced some good results, but most of the times that it did, the demands were implicit in the action.... aka such as occupying the library in order to demand longer hours and a couple other actions. At other times, its advocates seemed to be far more focused on producing yet another document and let the action slip. If those folks understood anything, it was the power of the image, and they created some interesting images, but far too often they left a huge mess for other folks to clean up (both figuratively and literally) robert wood
And I really hate communique from an absent future.
> A sampling:
>
> http://wewanteverything.wordpress.com/2009/09/24/communique-from-an-absent-future/
>
> http://anticapitalprojects.wordpress.com/2009/11/19/anti-capital-projects/
>
> http://uclaresists.blogspot.com/2009/11/communique-from-ucla-occupation.html
>
> http://anarchistnews.org/?q=node/11570
>
> http://occupyuci.wordpress.com/2010/01/14/new-flier-occupy-everything-demand-nothing/
>
> By the way, because I don't think I was clear, I don't mean to say
> that it's wrong to criticize the strategy of not having demands; I
> meant to say that you can't criticize them for not having demands
> because that is the strategy.
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
>