[Peace-discuss] [sf-core] Notes on co-opting Occupy

[Mike Lehman]

Carl,
I didn't breathe a word about voting for Obama. Maybe that's your first 
assumption about people, but I thankfully never voted for him, Clinton 
or any Democrat for president as far as I can recall.

Yes, I have worked with Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Greens, 
anarchists and, yes, even socialists to get good things done.

I generally found it counterproductive to engage in a stream of us vs 
them rhetoric in getting anything done.

Yes, I agree institutions are problematic and possibly compromising to 
work with unless one keeps ones wits about them.

And I certainly favor the building of alternative institutions, having 
put the greatest part of the efforts of my life into doing just that, 
mostly without having to engage too fine a filter about who I was 
willing to work with.

I guess I'm just weary of listening to the barrage of commentary that 
seems to presume the SF list is an arm of Obama 2012. That's sad 
commentary, if it were true, but I think actually reflects your 
assumptions about others far more than it does those I know. Not sure 
what David thinks, but sometimes I know we'd all just like to kick 
someone's car door and go home. Makes one feel better, but doesn't 
change much.

Not that I'm trying to make you "them" vs our "us" or anything. Not at 
all, exactly the opposite. But I think it's a tune I've personally found 
to be grating, oblivious, and self-congratulatory more than it is 
informative or liable to start a fruitful discussion. You're welcome to 
still be you and care so deeply about the things you do, but just don't 
assume by the silence that you're somehow doing more to help things than 
you otherwise might. This is especially so among those who share most of 
your concerns if you were to take a more circumspect line, because it 
appears what you do actually acts to subvert a productive conversation 
on these matters by your tone, undermining  your often eloquent evidence 
and argument.

Are we all obligated to achieve perfection before we do anything productive?

Is the Good really the enemy of the Perfect?

I'd like to hope that change is possible, but realize those, too, have 
become widely discredited principles in recent decades.
Mike

On 5/4/2012 11:54 AM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
> I think the Obama people are counting on this to get re-elected, just 
> as they counted on co-opting (and betraying) the anti-war movement to 
> get elected in 2008.
>
> In order not to acquiesce in the administration's murder and looting - 
> its foreign wars and Wall St. bailouts - this president will have to 
> be driven from office as Johnson and Nixon were.
>
> His successor will take a lesson, or then be driven from office in 
> turn (again like, Johnson and Nixon).
>
> We're not looking for an autocratic revolution, but a popular one, 
> which will move toward freedom and democracy. That can take place only 
> if a mass of the population is implementing it, carrying it out and 
> solving problems. They're not going to undertake that commitment, 
> understandably, unless they have discovered for themselves that there 
> are limits to reform.
>
> A sensible revolutionary will try to push reform to the limits, for 
> two good reasons. First, because the reforms can be valuable in 
> themselves. People should have an eight-hour day rather than a 
> twelve-hour day. And in general, we should want to act in accord with 
> decent ethical values.
>
> Secondly, on strategic grounds, you have to show that there are limits 
> to reform. Perhaps sometimes the system will accommodate to needed 
> reforms. If so, well and good. But if it won't, then new questions 
> arise. Perhaps that is a moment when resistance is necessary, steps to 
> overcome the barriers to justified changes. Perhaps the time has come 
> to resort to coercive measures in defense of rights and justice, a 
> form of self-defense. Unless the general population recognizes such 
> measures to be a form of self-defense, they're not going to take part 
> in them, at least they shouldn't.
>
> If you get to a point where the existing institutions will not bend to 
> the popular will, you have to eliminate the institutions, not form 
> 'sophisticated ... alliances' with them.
>
> On May 4, 2012, at 8:35 AM, Mike Lehman wrote:
>
>> I certainly do share y'alls dissatisfaction with venerable institutions
>> selling out those they represent...
>>
>> On the other hand, if we're trying to build a majority to overturn the
>> present system, I'd strongly suggest a more sophisticated approach to
>> building alliances. Those revolutions that focus on the need to purge
>> our way to utopia in themselves often turn out to be not much of a
>> revolution at all.
>>
>> Just saying.
>> Mike Lehman
>>
>> On 5/3/2012 5:06 PM, David Johnson wrote:
>>> Carl,
>>>
>>> Great E-mail !
>>>
>>> Yes, the UAW bureaucrats are very much involved in the 99 % Spring 
>>> thing.
>>> When I went to their pathetic training in Chicago in March, the head 
>>> of the
>>> UAW Northern Ilinois Region was there.
>>> I saw the UAW logo on his polo shirt and  commented on it, and that 
>>> is when
>>> he introduced himself to me.
>>> I know Greg Shotwell who Louis ( original e-mail subject author ) 
>>> refers to
>>> and YES ! The UAW over the last 30-years has de-evolved into a 
>>> corporate
>>> collaborationist so called " union " from it's once proud militant 
>>> heritage
>>> and actions during the 1930's and 40's and even through the 70's.
>>> I said from the begining of the Occupy Movement that rank and file 
>>> Union
>>> members need an Occupy Movement within the Unions as well, 
>>> coordinated with
>>> the general Occupy Movement.
>>> Many liberals may feel uncomfortable about this topic, but they must
>>> understand that although the neo-liberal capitalists are the primary 
>>> enemy,
>>> the majority of the Union bureaucracy ( with the grand exception of the
>>> U.E. - United Electrical Workers ) are collaborators just as the French
>>> Vichy " government " were collaborators with the nazis, and hence we 
>>> need to
>>> support not the collaborators, but instead the REAL Resistance and REAL
>>> democracy !
>>> If anyone doubts my statements I would be more than happy to give 
>>> specific
>>> examples about the UAW 's track record alone, not to mention other 
>>> Union's
>>> malfeasence against the democratic will and the best interests of their
>>> members they are suppose to represent.