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

Sat May 5 03:40:21 UTC 2012

A variation on "if ya can't lick 'em, join 'em" seems
to be "if they oppose you, co-opt and pervert them".

It's something like the deflect and redirect tactic used in Judo
/"In short, resisting a more powerful opponent will result in your defeat,
whilst adjusting to and evading your opponent's attack will cause him to 
lose his balance,
his power will be reduced, and you will defeat him. This can apply 
whatever the relative values of power,
thus making it possible for weaker opponents to beat significantly 
stronger ones."/

This tactic worked well for the anti-war movement, the tea party, and 
now occupy.

The people in masse cannot be allowed to realize that there is a single 
enemy,
and that one's fellows who belong to some seemingly competing ideology 
actually
agree with you on many things.

It seems likely that the Republicans will nominate Romney, although the 
RNC in Florida
may be somewhat interesting.

That will definitely ensure a second term for Obama.  Romney is broadly 
despised
by many traditional Republican voters.  They will stay home rather than 
vote for any Obamney.

Hard-core Ron Paulers will never vote for any Obamney even if Ron Paul 
gets GOP platform
concessions from the RNC.  Platforms are generally meaningless and 
ignored after elections.

The Obamites are undeterred.  Their dedication to the great man is 
unfailing,
and they have a patch for each and every fault, whether it be shilling 
for the 1%,
warmongering, imperializing, baby-killing, San Andreas or New Madrid.

That's pronounced Mad Rid, not muh-DRID.

On 5/5/2012 6:37 AM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
> Mike--
>
> Glad to hear you're not voting for Obama - not that it matters much, 
> here in Illinois:
>
> there really will have been a sea-change if Obama loses the electoral 
> votes of our fair state!
>
> In those unlikely circumstances, we all should do a serious re-think; 
> meanwhile, don't vote for imperialist murder.
>
> But the fact is that Obama and his Democratic epigoni have done more 
> to destroy the anti-war movement - and now Occupy - than any political 
> tendency in the last 50 years.
>
> (You know - but few others do, because of the media monopoly - that 
> it's the 50th anniversary of Kennedy's invasion of South Vietnam - and 
> incidentally the 42nd of the government's murder of college students 
> in Ohio. Those anniversaries are not recalled in part because of 
> Obama's conscious attempt "to put them behind us," as he says in The 
> Audacity of Hope.)
>
> Obama's political career is based on the co-option of the antiwar 
> movement, then and now. And he hasn't blundered into it: he's proud 
> enough of his perspicacity to set it out in that book.
>
> What we see now is a conscious attempt on the part of this agent of 
> the 1% to turn his successful tactic to the evisceration of the Occupy 
> movement, and I wouldn't bet against his succeeding.
>
> As to what you or I or the SF list is doing, my spiritual guide is the 
> late Humphrey Bogart, who observed appositely in Casablanca (1942),
>
> "...it doesn't take much to see that the problems of three little 
> people don't amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world ... Here's 
> looking at you, kid."
>
> --CGE
>
>
> On May 4, 2012, at 2:24 PM, Mike Lehman wrote:
>
>> 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.
>>
>> __._,_.___
>> Reply to sender 
>> <mailto:rebelmike at earthlink.net?subject=Re%3A%20%5Bsf-core%5D%20Notes%20on%20co-opting%20Occupy> 
>> | Reply to group 
>> <mailto:sf-core at yahoogroups.com?subject=Re%3A%20%5Bsf-core%5D%20Notes%20on%20co-opting%20Occupy> 
>> | Reply via web post 
>> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sf-core/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJwb3YwMzhkBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzc4OTI2NjMEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDYwMzc1BG1zZ0lkAzM2OTYEc2VjA2Z0cgRzbGsDcnBseQRzdGltZQMxMzM2MTU5NDY2?act=reply&messageNum=3696> 
>> | Start a New Topic 
>> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sf-core/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJlY3A2cGtuBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzc4OTI2NjMEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDYwMzc1BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA250cGMEc3RpbWUDMTMzNjE1OTQ2Ng--> 
>>
>> Messages in this topic 
>> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sf-core/message/3690;_ylc=X3oDMTM0M2FpZjNzBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzc4OTI2NjMEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDYwMzc1BG1zZ0lkAzM2OTYEc2VjA2Z0cgRzbGsDdnRwYwRzdGltZQMxMzM2MTU5NDY2BHRwY0lkAzM2OTA-> 
>> (5)
>> Recent Activity:
>>
>> Visit Your Group 
>> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sf-core;_ylc=X3oDMTJlMmlja28yBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzc4OTI2NjMEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDYwMzc1BHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA3ZnaHAEc3RpbWUDMTMzNjE1OTQ2Ng--> 
>>
>> Yahoo! Groups 
>> <http://groups.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTJkZ2tiMG9uBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzc4OTI2NjMEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDYwMzc1BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2dmcARzdGltZQMxMzM2MTU5NDY2> 
>>
>> Switch to: Text-Only 
>> <mailto:sf-core-traditional at yahoogroups.com?subject=Change%20Delivery%20Format:%20Traditional>, 
>> Daily Digest 
>> <mailto:sf-core-digest at yahoogroups.com?subject=Email%20Delivery:%20Digest> 
>> • Unsubscribe 
>> <mailto:sf-core-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe> • 
>> Terms of Use <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>
>> .
>> Web Bug from 
>> http://geo.yahoo.com/serv?s=97359714/grpId=7892663/grpspId=1705060375/msgId=3696/stime=1336159466/nc1=3848627/nc2=5191952/nc3=4836040 
>>
>> __,_._,___
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
>    

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20120505/48fb31cc/attachment-0001.html>