dagblog - Comments for "Nuances of the Movement"

Yes, I certainly agree the

Dan Kervick — Mon, 07 Nov 2011 14:22:28 +0000

In reply to That's a useful approach most

Yes, I certainly agree the movement would really benefit by adopting some plain vanilla democracy.

That's a useful approach most

Verified Atheist — Mon, 07 Nov 2011 13:53:04 +0000

In reply to The approach I am taking is

That's a useful approach most of the time, but it is unlikely to work for strong anarchists. One of my childhood friends falls into this category, and he "knows" that we're the "useful idiots", just like I "know" that they are. So, no, whining won't help, but I think what we're doing here is trying to educate them that requiring a consensus on important decisions such as whether violence will be denounced is not the best approach. Presumably, a two-thirds majority would agree that violence is not the best tactic, and shouldn't that be enough? If not two-thirds, what about three-fourths?

The approach I am taking is

Dan Kervick — Mon, 07 Nov 2011 13:15:41 +0000

In reply to Nuances of the Movement

The approach I am taking is to avoid whining about how ignorant and misguided some of the people in the movement are, and to try to find ways to educate them. Almost all of the occupations maintain online forums where you can post thoughts and information on whatever issues you think are important to stress. There are other avenues for participation as well.

This movement is now a well-established social presence and is a fact of life. It can end up as a force for good or for ill. If you want it to be a force for good, it is best to find some way of engaging with them.

It is absolutely possible,

Verified Atheist — Mon, 07 Nov 2011 11:03:01 +0000

In reply to Then again it may just be

It is absolutely possible, and in fact, more likely that it's organic (which doesn't mean they can't still be considered "useful idiots" by the right, although perhaps I'm stretching that term). After all, when the number reaches a hundred, keeping a conspiracy quiet (even if it's manipulative rather than direct) becomes that much harder.

My point was precisely what you wrote in your last paragraph. I.e., that because of the procedures (I don't blame the movement, but the procedures, although arguably it can be difficult to separate the two), a small contingent of people can disrupt the whole process.

Then again it may just be

Elusive Trope — Mon, 07 Nov 2011 03:02:55 +0000

In reply to On a variant of Poe's law,

Then again it may just be possible in a region with over 7 million people, there may be a couple hundred anarchists who are going to get involved in such an action and participate in the GA voting procedure.

And then what it can be said for a movement where a few hundred dupes can show up and alter the show?

On a variant of Poe's law,

Verified Atheist — Mon, 07 Nov 2011 01:08:49 +0000

In reply to Nuances of the Movement

On a variant of Poe's law, especially considering what we've read elsewhere and the very significant motive, I think one can't rule out the possibility of the anarchists being plants, although it's more likely (if it's not organic) they're dupes who don't know who's pulling their strings.

This is one of the problems of the "consensus"/Wikipedia-style decision making. On-line one at least has access to records to detect sock puppets and other forms of manipulation (although meat puppets are a whole 'nother thing). Off-line, the "consensus" approach of OWS, while admirable, seems like it's easy to abuse, like the Senate's filibuster, but on steroids.