I have been re-reading a lot of Occupy Writing. Some of which is interesting, but a lot of it is naive and even sloppy. So I an instead of merely ranting in a vague and inchoate matter, I have decided to present my this systematically in a series of caricatures of myself and my positions.
“Varn as Ghost of Adorno”: There can be no positive vision for Occupy, all it can do is point out the contradictions between the actionism of my liberal activists in the so-called progressive movement of the Democratic party and the manic actions of those effectively engaged in a Black Bloc, which is the bourgeois manifestation of their own privilege warping into Barrack’s Socialism. Indeed, the best occupy can do is show us dialectic between two negative positions. In short it enables us see what not to do.
“Varn as Anarchist”: Smash the system.
“Varn as Critic of Anarcho-liberalism”: Look, only an anarcho-liberal can advocate for Keynesianism and a “new” New Deal while using Black Bloc tactics. This is incoherent.
“Varn as High Academic Marxist”: Don’t you see that the Occupy movement has not changed the base of society yet, and thus cannot change the superstructure by living in tents in a public park.
“Varn as Vulgar Marxist”: The Oakland commune is a reincarnation of the 1917 Soviets.
“Varn in 2012”: The spirit of Occupy will be defined by failure, but it is HOW it fails that matters.
“Varn in late 2012”: This seems to have been just asking for one more bribe.
“Varn in 2013”: Occupy was not the beginning of something but the exposure of something dying, ending. Perhaps it deserved its death but the fact that there is nothing worthy to replace it is a serious problem.
“Varn in 2014”: What the hell was I writing about again?