I agree that we should aim to “developing work that builds cadre, that tries to shatter the stability of existing channels of struggle, and utilizes a methodology that constantly pushes against capitalism and the state rather than attempting to integrate into it.” I think it’d be good to spin out more examples of work that has done this or come close, in part in order to get at how to prioritize. It may well be that the best cadre-development activities are not the most system destabilizing in the short term, for instance.

take care,
Nate

I just read this. I like it. (And the one on militancy too, great work.) A few thoughts here.

“In the destruction of previous arrangements, new protagonists are created which not only question dispossession, but also question the whole class and hierarchical scaffolding upon which all the benefits, privileges, and parsing out of life’s joys and woes are built.”

I agree thought I’d want to make this much more strongly stated as a potential. More on this in a moment.

“What is often called recuperation or cooptation of struggles comes to this: what is the relationship of struggles, autonomous or self-governed struggles, of the exploited to existing means of settling disputes? To what extent are popular struggles able to be accommodated within the boundaries of existing institutionalized forms of power and their ability to resolve disputes (peacefully, ideologically, or by force)?”

That’s eloquent and clarifying. But I think it’s not just the existing means of disputes, it’s also potential new disputes. I’d say, in response to this, that co-optation is being channeled into a dispute resolution mechanism, whether an old one, an old that used to not work but has been re-enlivened by struggles, or a new one. I expect that you agree (you mention a moment later “the ability of the system to widen the scope of possible legitimate struggles”). I think the difference of emphasis is somewhat important, though, because moments of crisis tend to be times of experimentation with repression and reform (whether reforms that redistribute wealth or reforms that provide some measure of conciliatory redress for grievances, or a combination of the two).

“Militant social democracy has a real cost, and to bear that cost you need to be able to impose your position on those that stand to lose.” I agree, but it’s not clear what kind of cost we’re talking about – aggregate or localized. That is, this kind of thing always costs SOMEONE but it may actually be better for the capitalist economy as a whole. (I think Marx suggests such a thing about limits on work hours in chapter 10 of Capital, and I think there are several possible healthcare systems that could be set up in the US that would be both more humane and better for US capitalism.)

About what’s happened in Wisconsin and in Occupy, my hunch is that particularly in times of dispossession there’s an initial response that is basically like “this new change is unacceptable!” I think dispossession sorts of struggles lead to this especially because it’s when the rules change and the other side are visibly breaking deals and breaking their own laws. I think that helps create more militant struggles, and ones that are initially mostly just like “no! not that new negative change!” Their proposed future is a version of the recent past or something close to it. I think that this vision of the future could be linked to quite dramatic actions but still be largely a struggle for the world we live in now.

Thinking of it now, I wonder about the link between this post and your post on militancy. I wonder if a short definition of militancy, in the terms you use here, could be just “pushing beyond dispute resolution mechanisms”? So, something is more militant the more it goes beyond dispute mechanisms? If that’s right, then I think this means that your criticism of overemphasis on militancy also applies in some ways to going beyond dispute resolution. And I think this also implies that there may be a bit (just a bit!) more political importance to militancy, though I’m less sure about this second point.

take care,
Nate