Posted by brooks on March 12, 2019, 9:59 pm, in reply to "Re: organisation"
I agree that organisation is necessary for progressive social change, but it's a hollow, alienated agreement because it's still outside of my experience and (probably) class outlook.
But one's outlook doesn't have to be circumscribed by one's class. In this case, the agreement would accurately reflect the history of social struggle, so it's not hollow at all. As to the Yellow Vests, no offense, but your position is incoherent and self-defeating, almost bourgeois. When you say "they don't appear to have coalesced into a movement with specific demands and levers of power to actually get what they want and make it stick" in the context of an argument against organizing, you're basically saying, "they're not organized enough, and haven't taken power yet, so organizing is pointless". It almost looks like a desperate rationalization for non-involvement: Why bother unless those who are taking to the streets can show they hold "the levers of power" and can "make it stick". How can a developing and nascent social movement meet such criteria? As to specific demands they have a long list of them. And if they're not specific enough, it means people who understand the need for such specificity must join them. Your argument is actually a call for more organizing.