[lbo-talk] More on BB antics and their defenders

Julio Huato juliohuato at gmail.com
Sat Feb 11 06:54:12 PST 2012


Carrol wrote:


> Julio apparently thinks there are binding principles even if
> others have not agreed to them. They drop from the sky or
> something.

Not binding principles, but *needs*. People *need* to fight and they fight. And they need to fight effectively. And when people fight, they necessarily start with a purpose or idea or design or anticipated outcome. This is inherent to what Marx called the "labor process," which broadly understood is the process by which people make history.

You are saying, people fight and, well, no wonder, they've been fragmented and oppressed, etc.; so, naturally, they are all over the place, make mistakes, etc. But that's the starting point. Allow people to learn by doing. Indeed. No qualm with that. That is much but much better than not fighting. If anybody uses those mistakes to insinuate that people should stop fighting, then I'll protest and emphasize that, hey, people are fighting and that is much better than not fighting.

However, the argument here is about whether it is *better* to fight with a group of people undertaking more "militant" tactical actions without sanctioning their approaches through or at least by sensible reference to the needs of the broader crowds involved. And the answer is No. That is definitely not better. And it's not a good idea to rationalize their actions, because (1) their actions may end up benefiting the movement, (2) the people undertaking them have helped to get the movement off the ground, (3) unknown to others, the intentions of these people are very well-intentioned, (4) they are "confronting the cops" and doing other things for our benefit, and (worse) (5) if these people are not allowed to do whatever the hell they want to do, then they may do even worse things, and then we're really going to regret it. As far as I can tell, all items (1)-(5) may be perfectly factual, but neither of them individually nor all of them collectively amount to a good argument in defense of their tactic. That is my point.

We can do better than the status quo of the movement. And that doesn't mean that I don't see the status quo of the movement as superior to whatever the hell preceded it. I'm very hopeful and happy that people are taking action.



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list