From:   J.A. Myerson <>
Sent time:   Tuesday, September 27, 2011 9:25:17 AM
Subject:   Re: [september17discuss] confusion about demand

I just pitched an article to In These Times in defense of demandlessness.

In May of '68, students (assisted later by workers) captured and held the city of Paris for a while, occupying the Sorbonne, renaming the Latin Quarter the Heroic Vietnam Quarter and erecting barricades against government backlash. Nowhere was a common manifesto decided or published (then, too, the protesters relied on General Assemblies to organize the participants politically), but that is not the reason for the eventual failure of les soixante huitards. Does anyone think that, had the students only prepared a 5 point program, de Gaulle's tanks would have shown them mercy? Nonsense.

The fact that there is no manifesto allows that a right-winger could show up at a general assemble, get on a stack, and rail about the desirable effects of abolishing the IRS or the Dept. of Education or whatever, because the real doctrinaire aspect of the protest is in its very perpetuation: the protest itself, as a place where people live and eat and occupy their time, serves as a model of a society so democratic that it is completely liberated from the constraints of capital. Anyone should be able to deduce a demand from that.


On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 11:22 AM, Justine <> wrote:
:sigh:  I just added another notice to the top (in addition to the on the bottom) that this is not an official list of demands.  I'm honestly starting to think that there's a coordinated media effort to discredit us on the demand nonsense.

On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 11:09 AM, Micah White <> wrote:
FYI, seems there is a lot of media confusion about the demands.  Many media are pointing to this article as the official list of demands:

For example, see this Guardian piece:

J.A. Myerson