Hi Bob, On 2015/01/21 01:10 PM, Robert Naiman wrote:
1. Oxfam thinks it's useful to highlight wealth inequality, and that highlighting a problem makes it more likely that people will take action on it. Does this make them "naive"?
PB: You missed my first sentence? What I think is naive, is optimism about substantive (not charitable) change-from-above, i.e. 'class suicide'. What I think is distracting, is Oxfam's leader broadcasting that naivety, so as to raise expectations amongst Oxfam's followers. (Disclosure: last year my centre received Oxfam funding - so I don't mind biting the hand that feeds, when I think it's useful to point out strategic shortcomings of this magnitude.)
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 12:14 AM, Patrick Bond <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: (Touching albeit distracting naivety from Oxfam's CEO: “/I am optimistic that there will be change. A few years ago the idea that extreme poverty was harmful was on the fringes of the economic and political debate. But having made the case we are now seeing an emerging consensus among business leaders, economic leaders, political leaders and even faith leaders/.”
Bob:
Was Occupy Wall Street "naive"? Didn't they also try to highlight income and wealth inequality, in the belief that highlighting a problem makes it more likely that the problem will be addressed?
PB: No, Occupiers weren't naive in making the case that wealth inequality cannot not be solved through civilized-society NGOs-in-suits-and-ties making persuasive arguments in the course of co-chairing major events like WEF, as is Oxfam's wont. In contrast, they physically took over public space and caused an uproar with direct action and radical analysis, which at one point was supported by 40% of the US population, in one poll I recall. The naivety came in the form of holding the space (without too much else going on to maintain organizing), which as I understand the critique from people within and close by Occupy, was due to the lack of a mass democratic organizational project and accompanying ideology. Burn out and the usual autonomist dispersion were the results, so in that sense, I hope next-gen Occupiers move towards ideology, organization and a long strategic march, not just the (impressive) weeks-long urban insurgencies.
Is there any record of Patrick Bond calling Occupy Wall Street "naive"?
PB: I hope not. Actually, in an article published in our main SA political science journal last month, my comrade China Ngubane argues how the idea was transposed to a Durban township (partly through Al-J doccies screened in the Umlazi Occupiers' tent): free download at http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/02589346.2014.975930 - "Occupying Umlazi: Hesitant Steps Towards Political Ideology in a Durban Township"
Bob:
A. It's not obvious why we should join the author in lamenting the lack of public trust in GMOs and fracking.
PB: The whole poll project is based on the elites' need for legitimation, so if they are morose, let us figure out whether it means we should be pleased. In this case, sure.
B. If the decline in trust is wonderful, what should we say about the financial services industry having higher trust?
PB: False consciousness? Bob:
In what universe is it a victory for socialism that people trust government less than CEOs and "industry experts"?
PB: What you and Edelman call "government" is what I consider to be the executive committee of the bourgeoisie - a particularly rancid financier-dependent ruling crew, at that. So in /my /universe, the rising disgust for South Africa's ANC government is a necessary precondition for socialism. Is your universe different, comrade?
_______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
