CB wrote: "Romanticizing aside, pitting the 89% of the 99% against its leading and most organized sector is very much against the material and political interests of that unorganized 89%. It is very much doing the work of the 1%."
FM: Yes, or pitting the 10% against the 79%. But I don't think that's happening either in the Oakland Commune or within the wider occupy and anarchist groupings although there are certainly real tensions here that will only increase if they aren't examined in good faith as I believe the Oakland Commune article is doing:
"This is not to malign the actions of the workers themselves or their participation in such struggles – one can no more choose to participate in a fight for one’s survival than one can choose to breathe, and sometimes such actions can become explosive trigger points that ignite a generalized antagonism. But we should be honest about the limits of these fights, and seek to push beyond them where possible. Too often, it seems as if we rely on a sentimental workerism, acting as if our alliance with port workers will restore to us some lost authenticity."
A question is being asked about who is the revolutionary subject. A question I remember we were asking on this list a while back during Jodi Dean's lectures. It's still a relevant question especially now that there is some actual militant data to draw on since the Arab Spring, Wisconsin and Occupy showed up.