[lbo-talk] Lou Proyect responds...

shag carpet bomb shag at cleandraws.com
Thu Feb 9 07:01:06 PST 2012

<> On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 6:09 AM, shag carpet bomb <shag at cleandraws.com> <> wrote: <> <>> Basically, they're afraid that it won't be focused and coordinated; <>> less <>> impact. <> <> You are more generous than I am. I'd say the open-endedness and <> out-of-controlness itself produces anxieties, which informs their <> thinking as much as the worry about effectiveness. There's an unspoken <> conservatism at the foundation of these types of critiques, seen in, <> among other ways, Proyect's need to predict the occupations' <> ephemerality to show what's wrong with them.

ha! not generous at all. I see the critique, coming from people who are and remain uninvolved, as a way to be "for" something that's populare without having to actually get involved.

when I was interviewing lefties for that SAQ article some time ago, what I heard over and over was: I want to get involved, I want to do more, but I don't know where to start.

The person would then inevitably move into a critique of all that is wrong with current orgs today: a litany, one after the other, of evil enemy orgs whether it was radical feminists, ANSWER, Platypus, Direct Action, Uhuru, Sparts, SEIU, unions, whatever.

None of it was ever good enough. There was always something wrong with the people involved - trot out a bunch of caricatures and stereotypes of trots or feminists or whatever - to exemplify non-involvement.

Talk about waiting for a hero!

It's why I talked about failure in that article. People think that a social movement is one long stretch of successes building to a final crescendo: there! we've achieved an end of jim crow.

the idea that there are fuck ups and failures along the way seems intolerable.

Maybe it's the great man of history idea, that social movements are always led by great leaders - men - who always have a vision and plan and no what they are doing and we really just have to sit around and wait.

dunno... anyway, that's what I ended up calling the 'subject of history' problem and an identitarian position that the subject of history must emerge, nearly fully formed in its knowledge of the Truth of History.

<>> So, the lack of demands thing isn't so much an issue of how to <>> support and <>> sustain growth, but lack of demands means that it probably won't <>> grow into a <>> mechanism for expanding the state as state-leaning socialists and <>> welfare <>> liberals would like? <> <> Yes, I think that's right. It's a very strange view of politics <> though, pretty bloodless and technocratic. <> ___________________________________ <> 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)

More information about the lbo-talk mailing list