Thanks for responding to all those points in one go - I've attempted to respond to each of your points in turn - where I've incompletely quoted it's to flag up which paragraph I was responding to rather than to misrepresent (I still contend that I haven't misprepresented any of your posts prior to the obvious blatant making up of quotes btw). If you think I've left anything important out that changes the meaning or makes my responses look like they're trying to twist meanings, just say.
So, taking your points in turn (not that fully, admittedly, but I'm a little short of time at the moment - you should get the gist, though):
Frederick Engels owned several factories and social movement like this have always drawn some from the ruling class who identify with the movement for intellectual or moral reasons.
I know people with wealth could be perfectly honestly on the side of this movement for their own reasons (Kropotkin being my usual example), but when talking about those from the 1% making favourable noises about the movement, showing up to chat etc. I was thinking more about examples like Barack Obama, whose betrayal this movement is to some extent a response to, I think. This is about trying to get some votes for his second term, despite everything he has done.
The likes of Fox news etc in the states are not patting anyone on the head, in fact by their reaction it appears they are quite uncomfortable with what is happening hence the pretty rabid smear campaign which I am sure is only going to get worse.
Fox News are pretty rabid about everything, though - I'm not sure their tantrums mean Corporate America is really rattled.
I entirely agree. In fact I have spent the last week arguing with many people whose views I completely disagree with, Nevertheless I think this movement is striking a chord with a wide section of people for reasons that I broadly agree and understand....
I broadly agree with the aims too, but I think this movement is very different at this stage to MLK's PPC and attempting to claim postcorporeal support at this stage is both premature and prone to backfiring.
Sure. I agree with you. Perhaps you could expand on what you mean and who you have in mind when you say "get people on side who are already on side."
I was partly thinking how my saying something that may have sounded vaguely like some of the standard right-wing dismissals got me roundly jumped on. I'm a little torn on the question of how broad and how narrow the focus should be, to be honest. Loads of people are 'on side' in terms of the basic aims of the movement but can be put off by many things that come with 'protester movements'. On the other hand, I think being too open to just about every bugbear anyone has can lead to the presence of conspiraloons in the movement who give an easy ride to those wishing to discredit it.
By the way, on the subject of my previous posts about 'incoherence' (I saw a 'statement of intent' that got released today (I saw it today, it was not necessarily released today), and aside from a confusing reference to corporations 'poisoning the food supply' I think I agreed with pretty much everything that was said. Pretty much.
It was very long, though, and I think at this stage a kind of focus of what the movement wants achieving first is important, while being careful not to deviate too far from the central message.
FWIW. I think there is a lot wrong with this movement. A lot that if it were my show I would perhaps do differently but, as I have said before, it is what it is, it is a genuine social movement and a sociological phenomenon and a powerful indication of the sorry state we are in. A movement that in some cases has proved to be very significant (spain, Italy for example). It has potential and as someone who broadly agrees with the feelings of those who are joining it, I have to give it my support. Where it will lead, if anywhere is yet to be seen.
So after all that Argy Bargy you have misgivings too? I agree that it has potential, but potential doesn't always go where you want it to.
It
does feel like it's perhaps 'the only game in town' at the moment, but there's a limit to what I'm willing to forgive on that basis alone.
For example, Tony Blair's first Labour government was 'the only game in town' when very early on it began to look like things were going somewhat awry. We were of course were continually reassured that all was on course and that certain 'anomalies' were really concession that were down to the demands of
realpolitik.
