Sunday, September 12, 2004
Strategy and Tactics
The crosslink of the day is an excellent article about protest in the world of today. It echoes my personal feelings about it, and one of the reasons why I've never been interested in that whole scene.
One word. Ineffectual.
I won't try to paraphrase the linked article above; I'll just state that I am in near-complete agreement with it, and let you read it. I say 'near,' however, because his conclusions are not necessarily mine. Taibbi closes with something perilously close to a call to direct action, which to me is a mirage, a myth of the counterculture just as insidious as (say) supply-side economics. Sounds good on paper, shite in practice.
I'm not sure that Taibbi's conclusion is warranted. Certainly his logic 'skips' like a scratched CD, right at that point in the essay. So let me assert that he may have allowed a legitimate train of arguments to end in a manufactured call - probably the result of prejudice internalized. I'd be interested to debate the author directly. Lacking an immediate opportunity for that, I'll ask it here.
Posit as true that "mass protest", in its present implementation, is worth the paper it's written on. That frankly the mobilization of police, the Miami model and all the rest of it, is a red herring, whose fishy bite is as likely to be felt by the Man as by its nominal victims. Even if the police sat back and did nothing - which in this day and age they won't - it would make no difference, because the protesters are simply performing an expected skit, a cute passion play for the viewing public after which they can return to their self-absorption.
Assuming this, what follows? What strategy, for those who would enact change? What tactical oeuvres d'main, for those who would steer between the rocks of direct action and the cliffs of inconsequence? Otherwise put, how do we argue smarter, not harder?
This is an open question to my readers. I have a couple of answers in mind, but I think I shall save them until I've seen some responses, if anybody has thoughts to offer. The tools which should be considered available are exactly the ones we're talking about setting up - an hour a week's effort, from 5-20 intelligent people.
Bones?
One word. Ineffectual.
I won't try to paraphrase the linked article above; I'll just state that I am in near-complete agreement with it, and let you read it. I say 'near,' however, because his conclusions are not necessarily mine. Taibbi closes with something perilously close to a call to direct action, which to me is a mirage, a myth of the counterculture just as insidious as (say) supply-side economics. Sounds good on paper, shite in practice.
I'm not sure that Taibbi's conclusion is warranted. Certainly his logic 'skips' like a scratched CD, right at that point in the essay. So let me assert that he may have allowed a legitimate train of arguments to end in a manufactured call - probably the result of prejudice internalized. I'd be interested to debate the author directly. Lacking an immediate opportunity for that, I'll ask it here.
Posit as true that "mass protest", in its present implementation, is worth the paper it's written on. That frankly the mobilization of police, the Miami model and all the rest of it, is a red herring, whose fishy bite is as likely to be felt by the Man as by its nominal victims. Even if the police sat back and did nothing - which in this day and age they won't - it would make no difference, because the protesters are simply performing an expected skit, a cute passion play for the viewing public after which they can return to their self-absorption.
Assuming this, what follows? What strategy, for those who would enact change? What tactical oeuvres d'main, for those who would steer between the rocks of direct action and the cliffs of inconsequence? Otherwise put, how do we argue smarter, not harder?
This is an open question to my readers. I have a couple of answers in mind, but I think I shall save them until I've seen some responses, if anybody has thoughts to offer. The tools which should be considered available are exactly the ones we're talking about setting up - an hour a week's effort, from 5-20 intelligent people.
Bones?
<< Home