User loginAnarchist LibraryAnarchist Events
|
Five Axioms for Action at UC Davis
Dialogue & Conversation We have learned to respond almost automatically to the virtue of "dialogue" and "conversation," as if each of us had a magnet inside that was inevitably drawn to such things, exactly as if they were things and not tactics. It is similar to how we are trained to respond to “democracy,” as if “democracy” as it really exists in our lives was an unquestionable good. But as someone remarked ruefully in the paddy wagon on November 19th, “this is what democracy looks like, too.” Trapped in the quicksand of Chancellor’s talks and Commission meetings, we remember that this is what dialogue and conversation look like, too. They are tactics and they are words — they are always capable of being double agents, of working for either side. One should be thoughtful about how these words and tactics work in our specific situation. "Dialogue" and "conversation," I mean to say, do not have internal characteristics. They are tools, and they often serve those in power. In the last couple weeks we have seen this most clearly. We call for an apology; we are offered a review. We call for charges to be dropped; we are told that somebody will talk to somebody else. We call for an end to the privatization programs; we are offered some sort of forum where all questions will be answered — as if the problem for a laid-off groundskeeper, or a family priced out of education, is that certain questions haven’t been answered. As if there was an explaining problem here, and not a problem of privatization, indifference, and greed. The administration's calls for dialogue and conversation have only meant the following: At the same time it has become clear that the only form of communication that we have at our disposal that the administration will hear is action itself. So the deferral of action is a kind of silencing. And if talk substitutes for or defers action, it has to be understood in those terms. That is the most basic code of this particular situation, and I think it can be distilled down to this first axiom: EVERY OFFER OF DIALOGUE AND DISCUSSION FROM THE ADMINISTRATION IS A STRATEGY FOR SILENCING US, AND SHOULD BE RECOGNIZED AS SUCH. Demands & Negotiations Last Tuesday in Mrak Hall we made demands, and negotiated, and I think this was important. We stood up for folks who had risked and endured arrest, and this is a crucial form of solidarity. We should be proud of that. But it was a small victory on treacherous terrain. The terrain of demands and negotiations is one that they prefer. It divides us, because we do not all have the same demands. It gets us in the habit of making concessions, when we should be forming the habit of taking what is rightfully ours. It sucks the energy from political life with the vampiric quality that is always the nature of power, power which must exploit the energy of workers and students to perpetuate itself. It is hard to blame them for pursuing this most obvious strategy. We must look to ourselves on this score. We have no right to chant “Whose university? Our university!” if we don’t mean it. You can’t really say “Whose house? Our house! Can I have a cookie?” If it’s your house, it’s your cookie. If we really mean that it is "our university," we should not be asking and we should not be negotiating. If we accept the idea that we can only win concessions, special and temporary dispensations, then we are accepting that it is their university; that any gains are given, and may be taken back. I guarantee this: if you win a 32% fee rollback but don’t free the university from its program of privatization, the fees will go up double that by the time your brothers and sisters graduate. If you gain a budget increase from Sacramento and don't take control of the University's direction, that budget increase will be spent on privatizing more, not less. If we believe it is our university, we should be asking for nothing, and taking nothing less than the university itself. But I also understand that people feel like there is no coherence and no legitimacy without demands. I’m just a poet, so I’m not sure what’s so great about coherence and legitimacy. But let's discuss this seriously as a strategic matter. I do not think we can make thirty demands at once. I do not think we can make three demands at once. Emphasis on at once. Here’s why: because, as we learned last week, if you make three demands at once, they will disappear; cops in tactical gear will hide themselves in a stairwell, and they will come back and offer some version of “we’ll offer you half of number one, three-sevenths of number two, and some weird fucked up version of number three, plus let’s have a nice dialogue next week.” And then you find yourself saying “um, should we ask for three-quarters of one, five-sevenths of two, and what was number three again?” and there are the cops in tactical gear helping you decide. This process is demoralizing, it pits us against one another, it renders the struggle as a matter of individual interests rather than collective rightness. And perhaps most important at a strategic level, it forces us to give up certain things we don’t want or need to give up, half of this for a third of that for two-elevenths of that and suddenly a bunch of stuff has been let go. So again I think I can distill this down to a basic strategic axiom. But first let me be clear about what I am not saying. I’m not saying we can’t have three demands, or thirty. I’m saying it doesn’t work to make them all at once. My axiom is very simple, and I hope it will make sense: ONE ACTION, ONE DEMAND. This avoids the problem of trying to represent a bunch of disparate interests in a messy bunch, and avoids being in a situation where you have to choose between someone’s demands and someone else. ONE ACTION, ONE DEMAND. You walk into a building, and the people who go in demand that there be no furloughs for any Bracket One workers — that’s under 40,000/year. You don’t demand a conversation. Conversation is silencing. ONE ACTION, ONE DEMAND; one demand that must be met by action from the administration. The Police For this process to be carried out in good faith, it cannot be a situation of threat. These negotiations cannot be carried out in the presence of armed cops: not visible and not hidden, not at five yards and not at 150 yards. The police lines that were set up at Mrak on November 19th, the barricades that were set up at Berkeley the next day, were perfectly descriptive of a far more longstanding situation. Two weeks ago I spoke of an us and a them — I tried to clarify that for all the nuance of this situation, there truly was a basic antagonism between those who wished to privatize our education and our lives, and those who refused this. This is the line for our struggle: private and enclosed, public and open. And the police line is the exact same line. Cops may not wish to be there any more than you wish to be participating in this struggle, but they are being paid to make sure that what is private stays private, to make sure that the line stays there, and that you can’t challenge it, that you are always under threat. The administration will talk until everyone passes out from boredom, but if you say just once NO, we won’t leave this building, it’s ours and not yours — even if you pose no threat, are unarmed, peaceful, well-mannered and polite — then you get a police line. Because the police aren’t there to keep the peace; nobody doubts that police add violence and danger to protests. Police are there to make sure that the distinction between ours and theirs remains clear and impassable. So when you challenge that line, you get a police line. You get arrests. You get a 90-pound woman thrown down by four cops on the hood of a car. You get a militarized campus with seven police forces and batons and guns and dogs and a motherfucking helicopter. You get 30,000 more troops being sent Afghanistan while your fees go up 32% and they lay off workers. Privatization and militarization are two sides of a single sheet of paper, and that paper is the contract that wants to buy and sell you, and to intimidate you into putting up with it. So that brings me to the third axiom: the police line and the line of privatization that excludes you are the same line. One is an image of the other. If you want to fight privatization — if you want to even preserve that as a possibility — it begins with the non-negotiable demand: COPS OFF CAMPUS. If it were up to me to choose the first demand going forward from today, my own proposal for its one demand would be that: COPS OFF CAMPUS. No dialogue or conversation before that happens; it’s a precondition. COPS OFF CAMPUS. Otherwise there is no point in making other demands, as we will be threatened and harassed and beaten before we can achieve them. COPS OFF CAMPUS or we are already silenced. The Role of Faculty It’s tempting to say, faculty off campus too! In their own way — see notes on dialogue and conversation, above — faculty have effectively been silencing students: by talking at them, by trying to take them gently by the shoulder and lead them to sweet reason, away from the action that is manifestly necessary. It is disappointing to see faculty refusing to commit to action, deflecting the struggle to Sacramento — anywhere but my campus, please! — to see them misrecognizing the principle of solidarity. I see three possible roles for the faculty, and none of them involves telling students how they should comport themselves, none of them involves derailing the momentum of this movement even with the best intentions. I think faculty can stand with the students and other workers and when I say “stand,” I mean sit with them and link arms when necessary, out of a commitment to solidarity — out of shared struggle, and as comrades, not as bosses. I think faculty can use their privilege to push as hard as they can against the administration and their cops, can tell them how to comport themselves, and thus try to create as much space as possible for students and workers to organize themselves autonomously. Or they can not interfere, if they can’t see that this struggle is their own and that it will be fought by acting, rather than saying stuff. You have figured this out before the faculty, which is greatly to your credit. A fourth axiom, to my colleagues: FACULTY: STAND WITH STUDENTS, PUSH BACK AGAINST THE ADMINISTRATION, OR GET THE HELL OUT OF THE WAY. Who Speaks? The last matter, which in certain ways includes all the previous matters, is the one of speech, of who speaks. We have been invited to speak repeatedly, this last week and the week before and the month before. Every Regents’ meeting invites you to speak. Every Chancellor, every Commission. The evidence, and there is a huge amount of evidence, tells us that among the possible outcomes when people speak at these invited events, the least likely outcome is a reversal of fee hikes, layoffs, privatization. This outcome is considerably less likely than getting arrested or tazered, a conclusion based on actual evidence. And of course the more likely outcome still, by far, is that you will be condescendingly ignored. There is no free speech with cops there, there is no free speech when it is predecided that no one will listen, and what you can and can’t say. You are not really allowed to speak, except for that speech which is a form of silence, the speech that agrees not to take action. That is presented as the only option, but it is not in fact the situation. The situation is this: you do not need a place and time dictated to you, and require no invitation. You can say NO, we have other things on our agenda today. You can speak with your actions. You can choose where you wish to speak from, and make them come to you. We have learned that they will. The President speaks, the Commission speaks, and the Chancellor speaks, and they will say petty and dishonest things wrapped in the language of democracy and hope, dialogue and necessity. And when you challenge this story with real facts and real necessity on your side, you will be ignored. And when you challenge it with action, you will be told about rules and regulations. Unless you say Yes to showing up at an appointed place and time, with an invitation, you will be silenced. But history speaks too. History speaks from Montgomery, Alabama, in 1955. History speaks from the Stonewall Inn in 1969. History speaks from Argentina in 2001, when workers occupied factories that increasingly exploited them, and made them their own, deprivatized them. There were rules and regulations in each of these places. Each situation had its Chancellors and Commissions for the Future and its Linda Katehi and Janet Gong and its cops. History spoke anyway. Or, rather, people spoke and made their own history, even in conditions designed to dissuade them from intervening in it. They said NO. In the face of this I say, and this is my last axiom, HISTORY IS MADE BY THOSE WHO SAY NO. We spoke, we began to speak, when we linked arms at Mrak Hall. We began to say NO. We were not the first, not here at UC Davis or elsewhere, and we certainly won’t be the last. But, you will say, is it not outrageous to compare a campus struggle to the Civil Rights movement, to the Gay Rights movement, to the Worker’s Occupation movement? Maybe so. But I looked around Mrak Hall a couple times, and I saw many people of color, many queer folks, many folks who work. We share a life with those movements, and we share an obligation to them. I believe that obligation is to recognize that our struggle is continuous with theirs, and to act on that recognition. To know that we are not just about fee hikes, or tax codes. Those matter. But if they are our entire concern, I don't think we have a right to invoke such histories of struggle, even as they speak to us. Our obligation, if we wish to be in dialogue with those traditions — for is that not the only dialogue we really want? — is to act so as to change the most basic structures, the ones that thrive on our division, that thrive on parceling out a little bit here and a little bit there just to take it back next week or next year. Our obligation is to act so as to change the most basic structures, the ones that like to make lines of exclusion, police lines, lines of privatization. It is these to which we must say NO, and we must do this together. This is our minimum obligation to other struggles against a dominated life, and our minimum obligation to ourselves. I think it is time for all of us to speak now, in the kind of speech that can be heard, that doesn’t require an invitation, that doesn’t go to them but insists they come to us, if they would like to be part of the history we are making. I invite them to do so, to be on the right side of history, the right side of the police line. They are many. We are many more. |
PollNews commentsRecent blog posts
SearchCheck out the monthly Anarchist News Digest. |
College students, who are by
College students, who are by definition already reasonably privileged, and whose reason for attending is to advance up the capitalist ladder and become even more privileged, making demands from authority, while simultaneously stating that they won't accept concessions....
There's a supreme irony in all this (several layers of it, actually). Rather than entering institutions which represent everything you claim to oppose, in order to take them over, why not reject them from the outset and create your own institutions? Because you recognize that they hold the keys to the upper-class lifestyle you secretly want? Yes, but you want to pretend you stood for something better, so you can look back after settling into suburbia and say you earned it.
What a bunch of nonsense.
I think the institutions are
I think the institutions are vulnerable, and people want to destroy society.
Also, whats wrong with wanting cool stuff that rich people have?
this kind of overly
this kind of overly moralistic rhetoric is what leads to people dropping out and becoming hermits. to assume that the battlefield is as simplistic as this is utterly ridiculous.
antiocharrow
51% of Americans go to
51% of Americans go to College, futhermore, the UC system currently has nearly 200,000 studetns enrolled. It is one of the largest public university systems in the world. If you include the CSU's then you have perhaps the most massive body of students anywhere. It is one of the great creations of the welfare state. I state this not out of any concern to "save UC" but to demonstrate its great capacity for social disruption. California is failing, it may indeed become the first failed modern state. It's economy, once America's largest and most dynamic, is going into freefall. The mandate that every California high school graduate be guaranteed an education at an affordable state school is being dismantled. This is not simply an instance of an already privileged sector of society demanding more concessions but rather a hug populous of the middle-class suddenly realizing that the economy has failed them, that the promise of capitalism is looking too bright and they're mad. This can be called proletarianization. Those of us invested in this struggle (many of us aren't even students!) have recognized this tension and are attempting to exploit it, to make the connection between the failure of the welfare state, and its guarantees, to the global crisis of capital and its further imposition of austerity programs.
I understand your skepticism, but, in regards to this particular struggle, I think it's wrong-headed. The opportunity we have before us now to realize a radical and militant element within a growing mass American social movement. Where else in the US is this now true?
Of course, are many traits present withing this movement repulsive? Certainly. Liberalism, leftism, trotskyism, poor critiques of capital, calls to rebuild the welfare state, and power-mad politicking are all there. But statements such as the one above and others (read "the Bricks we throw at police...") have consistently demonstrated a cogent analysis and an insurgent spirit and show the potential in this struggle.
One last thing, this recent student/worker movement is less california-centric than it would appear. The crisis of the UC is actually a crisis of public education across the developed world and many of these students realize this. Connections and networks have been formed between Santa Cruz and Vienna, Berkeley and Greece, New School and France, Japan and Italy etc... Does it not now seem an appropriate moment of social rupture to you?
*51% of Americans go to
*51% of Americans go to College, furthermore, the UC system currently has nearly 200,000 students enrolled. It is one of the largest public university systems in the world. If you include the CSU's then you have perhaps the most massive body of students anywhere. It is one of the great creations of the welfare state. I state this not out of any concern to "save UC" but to demonstrate its great capacity for social disruption. California is failing, it may indeed become the first failed modern state. It's economy, once America's largest and most dynamic, is going into free-fall. The mandate that every California high school graduate be guaranteed an education at an affordable state school is being dismantled. This is not simply an instance of an already privileged sector of society demanding more concessions but rather a huge populous of the middle-class suddenly realizing that the economy has failed them, that the promise of capitalism is not looking too bright and they're mad. This can be called proletarianization. Those of us invested in this struggle (many of us aren't even students!) have recognized this tension and are attempting to exploit it, to make the connection between the failure of the welfare state, and its guarantees, to the global crisis of capital and its further imposition of austerity programs.
I understand your skepticism, but, in regards to this particular struggle, I think it's wrong-headed. The opportunity we have before us now to realize a radical and militant element within a growing mass American social movement. Where else in the US is this now true?
Of course, are many traits present withing this movement repulsive? Certainly. Liberalism, leftism, trotskyism, poor critiques of capital, calls to rebuild the welfare state, and power-mad politicking are all there. But statements such as the one above and others (read "the Bricks we throw at police...") have consistently demonstrated a cogent analysis and an insurgent spirit and show the potential in this struggle.
One last thing, this recent student/worker movement is less california-centric than it would appear. The crisis of the UC is actually a crisis of public education across the developed world and many of these students realize this. Connections and networks have been formed between Santa Cruz and Vienna, Berkeley and Greece, New School and France, Japan and Italy etc... Does it not now seem an appropriate moment of social rupture to you?*
"This is not simply an
"This is not simply an instance of an already privileged sector of society ... but rather a huge populous of the middle-class...."
This is self-contradictory.
I don't side with the privileged middle class, who are happy to be bought off with the superprofits exploited from the global south. I side first and foremost with those being exploited to prop up the middle-classes of the global north, and secondarily with the north's own working class.
The middle class doesn't give a flying fuck about the working class. Oh, sure, they play the game sometimes. But when the shit hits the fan, they fall back to the suburbs, batten down the hatches, and revert to xenophobia. Fuck the middle class; they have no more right to exist (as a class) than the ruling class does. Classlessness, remember? Oh wait, I forgot, this is Anarchist News, a "post-left" cesspool of festering irrelevancy.
how does the middle class
how does the middle class relate to the means of production?
so let's talk about class:
so let's talk about class: many students, especially in the csu, are working class and/or from working class families. that is, they are wage slaves existing at a high level of exploitation with incomes that place them in the bottom fifth of income earners. the middle class, the professoriate, with their 50, 60, 70 k salaries are the solidly middle and upper middle class. deans and above, making more than 150k are in the top 5% of the income spectrum. presidents, at 300k (csu), are in the top 1%, and uc presidents and chancellors with their millions (uc) exist in the stratosphere of the upper 1/10 of one percent of income earners. that's something like a class breakdown, income-wise, for the university.
but class, as it relates to the means of production, is about control. the vast majority of the professoriate quake in their boots at the mere approach of "the dean," "the provost," or (gasp and fall to their knees in worship) "the president." (the chancellor is god, lives remote from all in the heavens somewhere, and cannot be named or approached.) students are meant to learn how to quake in their boot at the thought of not getting their paper in on time and losing their chance at future middle class status. control is engendered by fear, and the setup at the university is to clearly convey the authoritarian corporate structure that all the students must accommodate themselves to if they are to work successfully in corporations in the future.
what universities produce, primarily, is the docility of the corporate functioning unit. this is ideological in terms of resigning oneself to the authoritarianism of everyday life in a corporation. it is also physiological and psychological; it is the conditioning or constituting of a self that performs at a high level of efficiency, especially in completing somewhat more abstract tasks. universities also do research work for corporations and provide entertainment venues and advertising, but this is minor, relatively speaking, compared to the university mission: instilling in young people the discipline of corporate life.
as a practical matter, for those faculty and students who, either by upbringing or self-serving compromise, operate primarily based on fear, they're can be no meaningful solidarity. a movement is fueled by defiance and rage and courage.
Excellent
Excellent summary!Graphically class stratum now resembles a tear drop.
"what universities
"what universities produce,primarily,is the docility of the corporate functioning unit. this is ideological in terms of resigning oneself to the authoritarianism of everyday life in a corporation. it is also physiological and psychological; it is the conditioning or constituting of a self that performs at a high level of efficiency, especially in completing somewhat more abstract tasks.,,,,instilling in young people the discipline of corporate life."
Yeah!!!!And ofcourse as you know,this ethic requires a docility to perpetuate itself,upbringing,selfish compromise,timidity,weakness of character,a lack of subjective autonomy,,,such brainwashed qualities of compromise from fear,as you so magnificently defined.Gunter
Funny you should describe
Funny you should describe the class makeup of the university this way. When did the university system develop? Wasn't it like 13th century France? Isn't it fair to say that the university is a VESTIGE OF FEUDALISM for fuck's sake? not even as egalitarian as capitalism, even...
So you are a third-worldist
So you are a third-worldist with a hard on for Chairman Mao??
And apparently you use the finance based class distinction promoted by the U.S. and Western European governments after WW II and not the Marxists definitions where class is determined by one's relation to the means of production, in which case much of the financial middle class are proletarians because they have no ownership of the means of production.
Ever heard of May '68?
you're 100% wrong. if we
you're 100% wrong.
if we "reject them from the outset and create your own institutions" WE HAVE NO RESOURCES WITH WHICH TO BUILD.
if we take over the machinery of capitalism, including the university, then we can create our own alternatives and they can grow and work because we will have the resources that capitalism used to have.
it's like telling the factory workers in Argentina who occupied their factories to "reject them from the outset and create your own factories". it's stupid nonsense.
Your analogy is 100%
Your analogy is 100% wrong.
The only "resources" you need in order to learn are willing teachers, and there are plenty.
The reason this doesn't appeal to you is that you won't be issued a sheepskin recognized as valid (and thus able to open doors for you) by the ruling class.
The answer to this is obvious: stop deferring/groveling to the ruling class for its approval. Create your own institutions -- not only of learning, but of making use of it afterward -- completely outside their purview.
This is anarchism 101. Build the new world inside the shell of the old. Live, to the extent possible, as though you were already free, as though the ruling class didn't exist.
jesus, are you fucking
jesus, are you fucking kidding me?
the people occupying want to DO AWAY with all diplomas you idiot. because they are anarchists.
if you just have some stupid hippy free school, the college professors won't teach there because they can get paid at the University. but if you take over the university, there is no way for them to get paid, so they become part of the group then needing to overthrow capitalism to carry on a decent university, just as the students (and poorer non-students) already find the need to do due to their precarious and replaceable position.
the occupiers want to take over the university and stop it's functioning as a place that hands out degrees that separate and sort people into different social classes based on how good of grades they get. how does your free school outside the university do away with that system of classification? it doesn't. and that is the difference. that is what is better about taking over the university than starting a free school in your backyard, taking over the university pushes for the end of Diplomas that sort people into different social strata, and when that sorting is negated, it equalizes people and demands the negation of capitalism because everyone is not longer fighting each other to get one more rung up the ladder.
Look, I know you're invested
Look, I know you're invested in this sort of "action" and are loathe to accept that it is completely ineffectual and little more than role playing for the bored children of the privileged classes, but taking over the school doesn't benefit those outside its gilded halls.
Free schools (derisive stance toward "hippies" noted; you're a hater of peace, love, embracing alternative lifestyles, dropping out of the rat race and creating egalitarian communities, etc.) would presumably be, you know, FREE.
How does "Have a seat over there and join us in the free exchange of knowledge" perpetuate the sorting of people into social strata based on the exclusivity of knowledge? It self-evidently does not.
Plonking your pudgy middle-class ass down in the halls of academia isn't going to accomplish your goal. It might lower your tuition, however. Good luck with that!
They explicitly state over
They explicitly state over and over that they are trying to make the university FREE, just like a free school, but bigger, and with the participation of all those who used to be part of the Capitalist University involved, because it is failing, and they are trying to transform the university into a free school instead of allowing it to go on as an exclusionary institution
they are not fighting to stop tuition increases. they are fighting against tuition. they are fighting for open enrollment by anyone who wants to learn. they are fighting against grading systems and diplomas. they are trying to TRANSFORM the university, not make it a little cheaper for themselves. this is why non-students have been joining in, those who are already excluded by the university....
How are you not understanding this?
and yes, i hate hippies. luckily, there are none where i live. only gangstas and rednecks around here!
1. "how does your free
1. "how does your free school outside the university do away with that system of classification? it doesn't."
2. "they are trying to make the university FREE, just like a free school, but bigger, and with the participation of all those who used to be part of the Capitalist University involved, because it is failing, and they are trying to transform the university into a free school instead of allowing it to go on as an exclusionary institution"
1. Free schools? LOL!
2. Free schools FTW!
Anyway, no, it won't be "bigger" than the free exchange of information among all those who seek it. That's as "big" as it gets.
The real difference seems to be coercion: rather than create new institutions, you want a student vanguard to force change on the existing ones -- for the benefit of the others, naturally! -- which is rather more Leninist than anarchist.
Bored, confused kids, eager to do something -- anything -- but afraid to think outside the box. "Everything should be made awesome, but remain safe and familiar!"
they are trying to turn the
they are trying to turn the university into a place to conduct "the free exchange of information among all those who seek it."
by demanding free universities, the end of degrees, etc...
how are you so dense?
look, if you hate university students, that's great. so do i. but i like the idea of universities becoming a place for the free exchange of information among all those who seek it....
Why do you hate hippies?
Why do you hate hippies? What's to hate?
inaction is
inaction is complicity.
non-violence is the allowance of violence of the state.
"By definition", our "reason
"By definition", our "reason for attending is to advance up the capitalist ladder"? That says much more about you than it does about us. I, personally, came to college to learn, to practice the academic, and to participate in an autonomous student movement. I have no illusions about advancing up any ladder, nor do I intend to do so.
And if you're paying any attention to the occupation movement, you'll see that our entire goal is to create our own institutions within the belly of the beast, where the capitalists have already done the work of filling our buildings with people eager to teach and people eager to learn. That these same capitalists built a profit machine around it, which is increasingly becoming the main, immediate focus of the endeavor, is our beef with the system in the first place; and our greatest opportunity to smash it is from within its halls, because the critical nature of academia means that we can take unique learning roles within it without pledging allegiance to its capital-accumulation goals. The public university is not just a tool of state and capital, it is a means for education, demanded by the greater public. Any public demand for education represents a wedge in the social order, however small. Filling the wedge and pushing it open wider from within is a means of direct conflict with the social order itself.
Still, if you want to sit on the sidelines and whine about it instead of taking action and standing in solidarity with those who act, well, I hear the Democrats are looking for new members.
suggestion to the occupiers.
suggestion to the occupiers. set up an announcement system and read over the previous budgets out loud, announcing all of the unforgivable mistakes they have made with our funds. this will not only humiliate the uncaring bastards, but it will gain support of many sides including the PS majors, as well as educating the unknowing on how it may affect them. establish solidarity in what is shared in common while keeping the differences separate.
great idea...now to find a
great idea...now to find a bullhorn