Five liberal tendencies that plagued Occupy

[Cramulus]

I don't know anything about the parent website, but I thought this article was an interesting read. Would be curious to hear others reactions.

http://roarmag.org/2014/05/occupy-resisting-liberal-tendencies/


a sample

In Zuccotti Park in the fall of 2011 there were a lot of people who thought that if we could just articulate the Occupy idea to enough people they would just have to come around to it because of its sheer righteousness. But although the Occupy idea was broadcast far and wide, it was not enough on its own in the absence of strong and sustained connections with concrete struggles. Many liberals argue that all we need to do is come up the right ideas to "fix the world," but felled-forests-worth of visionary thought has been published for some time. We don't need another idea; we need the power to make it happen.

Although social media and 24-hour cable news rapidly accelerated the dissemination of Occupy across the country and around the world, it catapulted OWS into the spotlight before it had accomplished the organizing that needs to happen initially in order to develop the capacity to be able to incorporate thousands of new people. We were constantly playing catch-up and before we knew it the meteoric rise of OWS was followed by a correspondingly precipitous plunge once social media and cable news moved onto the next big thing.

In that way, OWS was like the pop sensation "Gangnam Style" by Korean singer Psy. For a brief window of time "everyone" sang the song and did the dance (often with an ironic detachment) just as they flooded parks and squares so they could tell their grandkids that they too had "Occupied." But anyone who was caught blasting "Gangnam Style" (or organizing an Occupy event) a few months after it went out of style was considered hopelessly passé. Therefore, one of our most pressing questions is how to build a solid social movement that can withstand the inevitable social media hangover.

[Cain]

I kinda agree with some of what they're saying, but it does seem this article is mostly intended as invective against the "liberal libertarians", a not very well thought out category IMO, and one that probably obscures more than it reveals.

I mean, if I was going to talk about liberal tendencies, I'd be focusing on the Democratic entryism, after months of criticising OWS.  But that's just me.