From:   Doug Singsen <dougsingsen@gmail.com>
Sent time:   Thursday, October 06, 2011 6:42:10 PM
To:   september17@googlegroups.com
Subject:   Re: [september17discuss] Re: American Jobs Act
 

+1

On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 8:25 PM, Gabriel Johnson <gabjoh2@gmail.com> wrote:
"By all means, let's not tie ourselves down too much. It's important to
separate ourselves from the dominant narrative and build a counter-
narrative. However, we need *some* leverage in the public debate if
we're going to gain momentum. Personally, I think it would be great to
say "We want this this and this, and we're not leaving. However, once
we get those things, we're STILL not leaving because there's still so
much to be done and we will continue forward.""

This, this, a million times this.

--glj

On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 8:15 PM, Charles <chcreinhardt@gmail.com> wrote:
Hey guys,

Thanks for the responses. I understand that there are some serious
issues with the AJA, including its formal endorsement of quasi-
internship programs, when those should be illegal.

I also understand the desire not to play or overplay our hand, and
hold off.

The comparisons to the German unemployment or "short work" system does
not render it disreputable in my eyes. Germany is not perfect, but
there is an enviable level of worker control in German factories and
great labor protections there, and adapting or experimenting with
ideas from Northern Europe would probably be a good idea at this
point. I think greater collaboration between the state and business to
boost employment would be a wonderful thing, if the business class in
North America weren't so nihilistic.

That said, I do understand that the business community in North
America *is* nihilistic, and has utterly abandoned the entire concept
of "home bias" that classical capitalists fantasized about .

However, I would remind you all of Alain Badiou's famous thesis about
the three ways a revolution fails. The first is by being physically or
effectively destroyed or foiled. The second is by co-opting or being
co-opted by the agenda of the enemy, rendering itself pointless. I
understand that all of us are extremely concerned about these first
two possibilities. The third, however, is more pernicious: in an
effort to avoid the first two forms of failure, the revolution
retreats into "ultra-leftism" and becomes obsessed with purity. That
can lead to nihilism.

By all means, let's not tie ourselves down too much. It's important to
separate ourselves from the dominant narrative and build a counter-
narrative. However, we need *some* leverage in the public debate if
we're going to gain momentum. Personally, I think it would be great to
say "We want this this and this, and we're not leaving. However, once
we get those things, we're STILL not leaving because there's still so
much to be done and we will continue forward."

Thanks for listening.

On Oct 6, 6:15 pm, jemcgl...@verizon.net wrote:
> I am not against baby steps, but the fact that Obama's big selling poit on the jobs act started with the fact that Republicans have supported most of the provisions was a good clue of how effective it would be in creating jobs.
>
>  
>
>  
>
>
>
> On 10/06/11,Robert Christ<rjc53@cornell.edu>wrote:The moment we endorse any politician, or any piece of legislation, the media will latch on to that as our one demand.  At that point, they will have no need to cover us specifically, whatsoever, and can spend their time discrediting our movement by filming their talking heads "discussing" whatever or whomever we endorse.
> No Demands.
> No Endorsements.
> Not Yet.On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 12:01 PM, David DeGraw<David@ampedstatus.com>wrote:please, please do not endorse the Jobs Act.  Highly problematic legislation. plus we cannot be seen as supporting Obama or partisan in any way, we facture the whole 99% concept in my opinion.
> the Press con Obama's is giving right now is the best one I seen in years.  Lots of OWS questions.  They asked why he never prosecuted WS execs.  Lots of talk about the American people having every right to be pissed off.
> CONGRATS EVERYONE!!!  WINNING! ;-)
>
>
> On 10/6/2011 11:56 AM,bf0189@gmail.comwrote:It strikes me as a heavy bastardization of German's unemployment system (and will be more bastardized once it reaches Obama to sign and finalize)
> Putting a small band-aid over a wound won't fix anything. We need real reform.
> On , Charles <chcreinhardt@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hey guys,
> >
> >
> >
> > A thought just occurred to me. I haven't heard much about this yet,
> >
> > but do you think that OWS might do itself a service by endorsing, at
> >
> > least as one of many goals, the passage of the American Jobs Act in
> >
> > its entirety, or even an expansion of its policies (and perhaps a
> >
> > reduction in the ratio of tax cuts composing it)? It has been accepted
> >
> > as a foregone conclusion by the entire American mainstream
> >
> > commentariat that Obama's jobs bill will be absolutely eviscerated or
> >
> > at least highly attenuated by the corrupt legislatures in this
> >
> > country.
> >
> >
> >
> > What if we tried to draw more attention to the legislative battle of
> >
> > the AJA as a pillar of our emerging program (in addition to legal and
> >
> > anti-trust action against the banks and tax reform, etc)? That way the
> >
> > movement can shed light on the very obstacles to the bill's passage or
> >
> > enhancement, which will serve to illuminate the architecture of
> >
> > corruption in our legislative process. That way, the bought off
> >
> > Democrats and Republicans can be named and shamed with the enhanced
> >
> > lens of this movement. Furthermore, the limited scope of the bill
> >
> > itself can serve as grounds for further criticism of the White House
> >
> > approach.
> >
> >
> >
> > I'm sure this has been suggested before, and I understand that there
> >
> > are caveats to our involvement in the political process but I want to
> >
> > know what the status of the current dialogue is about this course of
> >
> > action or line of thinking.
> >
> >
> >
> > Sincerely,
> >
> >
> >
> > Charles Reinhardt


< PREV INDEX SEARCH NEXT >