Update on the Update on the Rolling Jubilee

The initial update was that they haven’t updated. And the update is: Please await update. (“Although we haven’t announced the details of our most recent purchases yet, we are very proud that we have not just met this promise but exceeded it. We are currently gearing up to make our next announcement in mid-November.“)

---
---
---
---
---

4 Comments / Post A Comment

deepomega (#22)

I can’t think of any ulterior motives for waiting two months to say anything more specific, so cool! Thanks, Rolling Jubilee!

r&rkd (#1,657)

@deepomega
Preserving anonymity in negotiations with debt sellers who would not knowingly deal with Rolling Jubilee? That could be a partial explanation.

Rolling Jubilee (#4,901)

@deepomega I think the main thing that people don’t understand about the Rolling Jubilee is that it is a tactic designed to help build a debt resistance movement.

The Rolling Jubilee is cool and everything, but it is not a solution to our debt crisis. Hopefully it can help spark a mass movement that WILL be a real solution: http://www.thenation.com/article/171478/rolling-jubilee-spark-not-solution

So for each debt purchase we make we are planning a detailed media strategy and direct actions. This will be our biggest announcement of the whole project. We’ve only got once chance to announce it. We want to maximize it’s movement building potential.

I’m not sure if you’ve ever done any on the ground organizing but it is a ton of work and it takes time to do it right.

So what is our “ulterior motive”? Simple: we want to build a debtors’ movement.

The Rolling Jubilee will be a success if it can help kick start a movement. If that doesn’t happen that in my view it’s a failure even if it succeeds on the level of providing some mutual aid to people struggling with debt. We won’t be able to tell if it is a success or not for a few years. I’m optimistic though. People are HUNGRY to fight back.

r&rkd (#1,657)

Charmingly, they answered my questions on the earlier post! Apparently, “All Board members are authorized to individually sign checks up to $10,000,” just isn’t true? It’d be helpful to have some clarification of that, given the policies Smith links to.

It would be nice if they wouldn’t use the word “theoretical” as a sort of disparagement of the concern for possible misappropriation of funds. I don’t see anyone saying it’s happened yet, but it certainly could. Saying that it would be caught isn’t enough. Once money is spent on drugs, racehorses, or family member’s medical bills, you can’t get it back. Best to put in place technical barriers to limit the damage ahead of time.

Comments are closed!