[lbo-talk] Not about discipline, but clarity

James Heartfield Heartfield at blueyonder.co.uk
Mon Feb 13 08:02:12 PST 2012


Shag: ‘we can assume then, that what they don't want is to participate in the elections or debate over what to do about austerity measures. if that is not their intention, then blaming them for failing to achieve electoral impact or to turn around the austerity tide isn't internal criticism.’

‘Internal’ here meaning, acceptable, criticism that is unacceptable, Shag calls ‘external’. Are you saying that the only criticism allowed is within the established framework, but that it is not possible to challenge that framework? That would seem to a refusal of debate altogether, and unwillingness to reconsider.

They might not want to participate in elections, but some substantial part of the 99 per cent do. This movement is avoiding a large part the debate that is taking place about austerity. It has deliberately cut itself off. And are you really saying that the occupy movement does not want to debate over what to do about austerity measures?

Shag: ‘the only self-criticism that can possibly matter’ <in other words, submit your criticism in writing to the vetting committee before hand> is:

"If these are our goals, to create alternative institutions and to NOT participate in conventional politics, then is what we're doing achieving those goals?"

Translate: ‘if these are our goals, to wholly isolate ourselves from the rest of society, to be less than one per cent instead of anything approaching a majority, then of course we are wholly self-satisfied to put ourselves outside of the rest of society’.

See, it is useful to clarify.



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list