I would agree with Jim in general, but a Manifesto such as that under discussion is _not_ in any sense a personal declaration, & there is no reason for it to be signed by any individual. In fact that would have been disruptive. So, incidentally, is Chuck's desire for better style and/or content. The initiators of OWS had only a couple months to work in. They had to have something which people of quite different convictions could more or less accept as a basis for action. These criticisms being made have the same fault as the early objections to a lack of specific "demands." They show no understanding of or even interest in the politics of OWS, which would have been disrupted by either a specific program or naming the 'authors' -- those authors being obviously everyone who showed up in the park that day, even if they had never seen the Manifesto.
Now personally, I enjoy reading and writing literary criticism. I also like (and prefer) well written left documents, which is one of the reasons I was angered by the 'firing' of Ellen Meiksins Wood as an editor of MR -- she's a better writer as well as political theorist than the current editor. BUT there has to be some sense of context -- literary criticism that ignores context here is not only bad politics but bad literary criticism. The decorum of the "Manifesto" required precisely the features which are being squawked about here. Carrol P.S. I didn't read the early posts in this thread, nor have I seen AC's article, so I have no opinion on his "spitball," whatever it was. ----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Sabri Oncu Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2012 1:48 PM To: pen-l Subject: Re: [Pen-l] Alexander Cockburn throws a spitball at Occupy-and misses Jim: > about anonymous statements: I hate to act like an old man, waxing > nostalgic. But here goes. Back when I was a college frosh (at Yale), > the campus workers went on strike. I posted a statement in a prominent > place in the dorm, asking others to support the union. Soon, I > discovered that my statement had been replaced by a petulant screed, > which basically treated the workers like servants, who of course > should never go on strike. A key difference was that the other guy > _didn't sign his statement_. So even people who didn't agree with me > told me how much they respected my opinion, because I was willing to > take responsibility for it. But, Jim, that manifesto was signed. It was signed "Occupy Wall Street". We are all "Occupy Wall Street", wherever we are, are we not? I would not think a second to sign that manifesto, if I were given a chance. What difference does it make if my name appears under it explicitly, or not? Best, Sabri _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
