5 ms·
OWS seemed kind of lame to me. There were a lot of people there, but they didn’t seem especially clear on why they were there.
by b_tterc_p 7y ago
OWS seemed kind of lame to me. There were a lot of people there, but they didn’t seem especially clear on why they were there.
- mrfusion 7y agoThe media creates that impression on purpose by choosing who they interview.
- b_tterc_p 7y agoPerhaps. But was it wrong? Like, the women’s march when trump was elected. Many many people. Lots of them genuinely angry. Was it a serious protest... ehhh maybe?
- anarchodev 7y agoYes it was wrong, which will become clear if you spend any time with the people who were involved. Which you can very much still do, because the coalitions and communities formed during that movement are still active today, struggling against the rise of fascism in the US.
- sokoloff 7y agoIf that's the case, it would be wise for the leaders of OWS to correct that narrative.
- b_tterc_p 7y agoThe narrative I understood was that there were basically no leaders
- staticautomatic 7y agoTrue. David Graeber wrote about this in The Utopia of Rules, where he explained that OWS was essentially felled by bureaucratic demands that it could not satisfy without formally organizing. An interesting lesson in the practical realities of anarchism.