alanjjohnstone wrote:SOYMB
I don’t remember anyone saying that the blog was too critical, but rather that it was too shit. But anyway, below are some comments I found that aren’t shit. (Sorry for not pasting a link, but could find no easy way to do this.) Occupy: Some Personal Comments Just what are we to make of the global Occupy movement? It is probably fair to conclude straight away that it raises more questions than it answers, at least from a communist point of view.Form and Content If we start with its strengths we can identify the form itself. Although Occupy is part of a highly visible global reaction to the global capitalist crisis, (and I will restrict most of my comments to the London based movement), we can make the following observations. Occupy is not passive, theoretical or armchair – it occupies space, and by so doing challenges basic notions of what constitutes public/private including the concept of private property itself. It is non-hierarchical and has democratic decision making (for example, general assembly’s), and allows people to contribute according to ability or commitment. It provides an open door policy to the public, and a space where ideas can be discussed on an ad hoc basis or in more detail if you prefer. It provides educational facilities including the use of “expert” guest speakers (often mavericks from the banking/corporate world itself), and offers the maxim “anyone can teach, anyone can learn”. This is thoroughly inspiring stuff by any standards, but what of the content?Banks would have to be prevented from the corrupt practice of creating money and debt from nothing, so the idea of currency reform was an overriding concern. Contempt for modern banking seemed to go hand-in-hand with empathy for industrial capital which was characterised as being fleeced by the financiers. The overall impression seemed to be that we do not live in a globalised system of capitalism, but a form of banking landlordism, and insofar as we have capitalism at all it is not proper free market capitalism, but a form of crony capitalism. As one Speaker said “Not the capitalism that Adam Smith fought for”. It is worth pointing out that this particular gentleman had previously published for the Adam Smith Institute and also rather gingerly paid homage to Frederick Von Hayek’s The Road to Serfdom. There were a few communist interventions which were well received by some people but the prevailing viewpoints were as described above.The interesting thing about the relationship between the form and content is that even though many libertarian communist boxes are ticked, such people appear trapped in a petit bourgeois worldview reminiscent of nineteenth century Proudhonism, and it was precisely this which I found most frustrating. This said and such apparent incoherence notwithstanding, it would be churlish to write off Occupy on this basis alone. This has been a common criticism from both left and right. For the latter, after accepting that there may actually be a few problems with the system that they usually support uncritically, often shout “What is your alternative? You don’t really have one do you”! For the left, failure to understand that “socialism” is the answer, or even worse, the “revolutionary party” potentially does not get to grips with what may actually be the beginnings of a revolutionary dynamic. Even if we believe that “socialism” or “libertarian communism” is the answer, we are still no further forward. Aspiration alone will not be enough to advance the revolutionary process, no matter how much we talk about class struggle, workers councils or even the SPGB’s revolutionary use of parliament. If we are indeed in the early stages of a revolutionary period, it would be arrogant in the extreme to claim we know exactly how things should be played out. Existing political theories and practices may well preserve knowledge from the moments that have gone before, but it is reasonable to assume in our modern age that new forms and practices will come into play. It is in the light of this that we should evaluate not just Occupy, but any future reactions to the crisis.This is what David Harvey refers to as a co- revolutionary politics in his book The Enigma of Capital: “The trick is to keep the political movement moving from one sphere of activity to another in mutually reinforcing ways” (p228).This means not getting fixated on a particular form and becoming static. We need to know when we have to try something else or even abandon an idea or practice if it ceases to serve our purpose, and confront capital at its most vulnerable point at any one time. This may involve packing the tents away forever. After many months of turning the steps of St Paul’s into a genuinely exciting throb of political activity, the inevitable happened and the authorities moved in and destroyed the camp. I do not believe that this should be lamented. If the tactic is still valid, there will be other occupations (as indeed there are), and if necessary, activists will have to come up with something else. As the great dialectical martial artist, Bruce Lee once put it: “Be formless, like water”….From Proletariat to Precariat? This raises the question as to the class nature of Occupy. Obviously, using a standard Marxian analysis one would conclude working class, and they do argue “we are the 99%” which is certainly a basis for a class analysis. However, use of such a generic (although valid) category does not necessarily allow us to grasp any subtle changes that have affected any (re)composition that may have occurred in recent years. According to the leftleaning BBC Journalist Paul Mason a new sociological category; the graduate with no future (armed with internet social networking), stands at the epicentre of many a recent global disturbance. How does this link to a wider section of the so-called middle class whose lives have seemingly become more “precarious” in recent years, and does this apply to Occupy activists? (See Occupy Everything Edited by Alessio Lunghi & Seth Wheeler for a fuller discussion on Mason’s ideas). I will leave this as an open question.Revolutionary Pluralism In any case, if we are to understand the dynamic nature of capitalism, and moreover the strategies of the ruling class in response to the crisis, we are going to need a plurality of responses ourselves.Dave FlynnThe Libertarian Communist newsletter, Issue 18