The ‘Occupy’ movement

[alanjjohnstone]

I make no excuse for opening my big mouth and posting long messages so many times on this thread. I happen to think it is an important issue that we have to discuss and discover where we agree and where we differ with ourselves and with those outside the party.I came across this post by a professional activist – yes, there are actually career activists out there – read his bio/resume at the end of the article. 14 Rules for Revolthttp://www.alternet.org/activism/155739/14_rules_for_revolt_–_or_what_i_learned_from_the_front_lines_of_the_1960s/?page=entire I don’t think i have read such a contradictory list. Italics is my emphasis Rule 10  “YOUR MISSION IS TO DESTABILIZE SOCIETY. Only in times of crisis will those with power relinquish some of it to forestall losing all of it. You need to create these crises. Since transformational reform cannot be achieved by working inside government, a mass movement must first destabilize the political and economic status quo. The demands made by that movement must be based on common sense, so average Americans can support them, but they must also be unattainable within the status quo. That’s what makes for a crisis.” Rules 7 and 8  “BE NICE TO DEMOCRATS. Democrats are not your allies or even your friends. But you need them. Like Republicans, they depend on big money for campaign contributions, so even if they take complete control of government, they will never enact transformational change on their own. But a popular movement can develop enough power to force elected Democrats to support reform. In the future, you will need elected Democrats to pass your reforms just as the civil rights movement needed them to pass the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts. DON’T GET SO UPSET ABOUT VOTING FOR DEMOCRATS. Hold your nose and do it. It’s necessary. Republican governments do far more damage than Democratic governments, both to people in poverty and to the rest of us. They spread false consciousness and make it more difficult for us to organize. Stop fussing about Democratic flaws. They are who they are. Real change will only be driven by citizen activism, not elections. So, when an opportunity comes along to put a Democrat into office instead of a Republican, take it, and then go back to movement building.” Hmmm. lets pause there and re-cap, we should make destabilizing demands that are impossible to implement so to create a crisis, then vote Democrat to pass those reforms which are supposed to be unattainable because a Republican administration will be more damaging if they were in power ie Republican extremism would destabilize and foster crises. Duh! Rules 3 and 4  DON’T BASH BIG GOVERNMENT. It’s a Republican trap. In the years after the sixties, conservatives made exaggerated complaints about government waste and inefficiency. These distortions undermined public confidence in Washinton, which then allowed the Republicans to dismantle government regulations on finance put in place after the Great Depression. That deregulation brought on the Great Recession of 2008. Remember, it is unchecked bureaucracy that is wasteful and inefficient, not government in and of itself.  GOVERNMENT SHOULD BE OUR TOOL, NOT THEIRS. Without stronger financial regulation than was previously in place, our standard of living will decline further. Americans now face the iron law of unregulated capitalism: the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Government is the only means by which working Americans can protect themselves on a capitalist playing field heavily tilted toward the wealthy, the only means by which the 1% can be forced to pay their fair share, the only way to break the power of the oil companies and create a clean energy future. So according to the above rules 3 and 4 we are to convince workers that the state is useful tool for workers for our protection and encourage them to vote Democrat and according to rules 5 and 6 below, because capitalism requires regulation since that is the fundamental problem, not capitalism, itself we are to let politicians formulate their policies and our role is simply one of over-seeing, not participation, simply a veto power over proposals.However Rule 4 is actually growing closer to our own position, that to enforce the will of the working class we require political power and the capture of control of the state by a socialist party. But if we go back to Rule 1 “Resist the temptation to institutionalize yourselves by becoming an organization or prematurely launching a political party.” and leave it to unspecified “Other progressive organizations are available to play this role.” – presumably the Democrats if we stick to rules 7 and 8. Once more it extols the subordination of  the movement to a passive role of protest fodder. Rules 5 and 6 UNREGULATED CAPITALISM IS THE FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEM. A compelling vision of a progressive society will emerge in the course of the struggles still ahead. Meanwhile, you are stuck with market capitalism and you should focus on bringing its worst aspects under control. Occupy Wall Street helped put financial regulation at the center of political debate. Keep it there. If financial regulation remains a central demand of the 99%, you can keep your focus on extreme income differences and effectively isolate the 1%. BE THE OWNER, NOT THE REPAIRMAN. Apologists for the 1% will put you on the defensive by insisting that you tell them exactly how to regulate Wall Street or secure the healthcare system. Don’t respond. You own the national house. If they built it for you without beds for everyone or a kitchen big enough to feed all the people, they’ve got to come up with a plan to fix it. Your job is to approve the plan and supervise the construction, not draw up the blueprints. Not everybody may agree within the WSM but i think in every neighbourhood and every community, every factory and every work-place, at local regional national and international levels that blueprints will be drawn up and the question for all of us is how we do approve and supervise the plans and construction. That question is unaswered but i am sure as the article author does emphasis “Real change will only be driven by citizen activism, not elections.” in Rule 8  Yet his Rule 9 declares that ” Most progressive goals can only be achieved with the power of government (taxing the rich, neutralizing the oil companies, etc.), but these goals will not be achieved until rebellious activists force government to accept them.”  I think we can safely say that the only threat to governments which is treated seriously by them is not a million or more marching in protest (we have seen how those are ignored) but ultimately the result of the ballot-box vote at elections In his final Rule 14,  he recommends similar strategy as he was previously involved in , i am guessing,  “the congressional lobbying done by the Indochina Peace Campaign” And no doubt influenced by the field of his present occupation, no, not occupier, occupation – professional political consultancy for hire, Zimmerman & Markman, Inc. Am i being too dismissive of a well-intentioned activist. Or identifying elements within the Occupy Movement who seek to steer the Occupy Movements direction and whose ideas are contrary to our own but,  more importantly , would be detrimental to the future of the  Occupy Movement as a revolutionary organisation and as such deserves to be be criticised . My observations about this article may be viewed as jaundiced by some. Or my interpretation of the Occupy Movements content and potential maybe in error. If so, correct me if i am wrong. But lets keep talking about it.  

[Anonymous]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

I make no excuse for opening my big mouth and posting long messages so many times on this thread. I happen to think it is an important issue that we have to discuss and discover where we agree and where we differ with ourselves and with those outside the party.

The trouble with long posts is that they are often counter-productive – many folk really can’t be bothered to plough through them.  Far better to cultivate the art of succintness.

[jondwhite]

Is Bill Maher succinct enough?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=skiWxrzXeJc

[alanjjohnstone]

SOYMB blog received criticism from a few members that it was too critical of the Occupy movement. Perhaps it can be conceded that the tone of some posts was too negative but others i maintain were written sympathetically. Alexander Cockburn of Counterpunch has a related article on Occupy.  Our fundamental message appears to be echoed by Alexander Cockburn.http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/07/06/biggest-financial-scandal-in-britains-history-not-a-single-occupy-sign-what-happened/”It was very hard not to be swept away by the Occupy movement which established itself in New York’s Zuccotti Park last September and soon spread to Oakland, Chicago, London and Madrid. And indeed most people didn’t resist its allure.Leninists threw aside their Marxist primers on party organisation and drained the full anarchist cocktail…Cynicism about Occupy was not a popular commodity.But new movements always need a measure of cynicism dumped on them. Questions of organization were obliterated by the strength of the basic message – we are 99 per cent, they are one per cent. It was probably the most successful slogan since ‘peace, land, bread’.The Occupy Wall Street assembly in Zuccotti Park soon developed its own cultural mores, drumming included. Like many onlookers, I asked myself, Where the hell’s the plan? But I held my tongue. I had no particular better idea and for a CounterPuncher of mature years to start laying down the program seemed cocky. But, deep down, I felt that Occupy, with all its fancy talk, all its endless speechifying, was riding for a fall……and I definitely didn’t like the enormous arrogance which prompted the Occupiers to claim that they were indeed the most important radical surge in living memory. Where was the knowledge of, let along the respect for the past? when one raised this history with someone from Occupy, I encountered total indifference.There also seemed to be a serious level of political naivety about the shape of the society they were seeking to change. They definitely thought that it could be reshaped – the notion that the whole system was unfixable did not get much of a hearing….People have written complicated pieces trying to prove it’s not over, but if ever I saw a dead movement, it is surely Occupy…Everything leftists predicted came true, just as everything hard-eyed analysts predicted about the likely but unwelcome course of ecstatic populism in Tahrir Square also came true. ·I do think it’s incumbent on those veteran radicals who wrote hundreds of articles more or proclaiming a religious conversion to Occupyism,  to give a proper account of themselves, otherwise it will  happen all over again.”Has Cockburn been a bit too premature with his obituary? I am not yet decided that it is all over, and that it is game, set and match to the ruling class. Nor am I convinced that it was not of value.  Nor do I accept the neo-conspiratorial interpretation repeated in the article – “Is it possible that the real purpose of Occupy Wall Street has little to do with either the 99 per cent or the one per cent, but rather everything to do with keeping the political left in America decentralised, widely dispersed, very busy, and completely impotent to deal with the collapse of the American empire…Occupiers are all occupied doing exactly what their handlers would have them be doing, namely, being fully occupied. In summary, Occupy Wall Street represents a huge distraction.” Or Cockburn’s ingenuous aside that “Was there perhaps a leader, a small leadership group, sequestered somewhere among the tents and clutter? It was impossible to say and at that point somewhat disloyal to pose the question.” Well, the WSM openly did pose the question and demanded a fully transparent structured democratic decision making structure for Occupy.What i do know is this, that SOYMB posts as were our magazine articles and discussion lists contributions were valid commentary and that the WSM should never hold its tongue. After all, much of what Cockburn said in his post-mortem shares much of our critique. Maybe we were not camped out in the tents, (too many of us suffer from the aches and pains of rheumatism!!) but we are fully legitimate participants in working class struggles and resistance, like it or not, and our voice should be heard and we should not be reluctant to make it loud and clear.

[Anonymous]

The recent Summer School discussion about the Occupy Movement can be heard athttp://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/audio/occupy-movement-discussion 

[Anonymous]

Well done, Rob.  That’s come out very well considering some idiot had the Zoom recorder on the wrong setting :}

[ALB]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Has Cockburn been a bit too premature with his obituary?

Didn’t he just die himself?

[Anonymous]

Oh dear, these technical issues are sent to try us… and I’m happy to shoulder my share of the idiocy But, thankfully, it was not beyond rescue – I’m surprised it emerged as well as it has. Hopefully, the others will be similarly ‘do-able’  

[stuartw2112]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

SOYMB blog received criticism from a few members that it was too critical of the Occupy movement. Perhaps it can be conceded that the tone of some posts was too negative but others i maintain were written sympathetically.

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

[alanjjohnstone]

Of course, there always some who think their own shit smell of roses. If you accept an analysis that a certain strategy is the more appropriate course of action whether workers council or revolutionary use of parliament where is the arrogance in communicating and promoting those means? The alternative is some sort of radical Bernsteinism. The movement is everything.  The objective indeed remains formless just waiting for all those Left Keynsesians and currency cranks to define the shape who appear to have had a more measure of success than ourselves, not just locally but world-wide. One lesson that has been learned and it something thats is constantly debated on Libcom between those of the Left Communist currents and others in regard to trade unions – whether there is a need for a permanent organisation of class struggle of trade unions or whether the strike committee and ad hoc work-place committees should supplant the union organisation. The same issue of difference exist for those  who desire the abolition of the socialist political party and others who see it as the organisation umbrella where a diverse heterogenous working class gather under. On the personal side one of the most ridiculous scenes i witnessed on TV was a group of Occupiers at a political meeting and aping Wall St Occupiers where because of city by-laws the use of amplification equipment by speakers was restricted so the human megaphone system was devised for those at the back could hear what was going on. This clip showed how the intervention chose to mimic Wall St when there was absolutely no need to use it. It was an example where content is deemed unimportant and is replaced by an improvised form of public address that becomes ritualised. Libcom, btw, has a comment by someone from i think the Pittsburg Occupation who described the way his contribution was sabotaged simply because the human megaphone participants practised their own form of censorship and kept quiet and did not repeat his statements because of their personal disagreement with it. There is ample evidence that due to the manner of the decision making Occupy was NOT democratic in the sense that minorities(often very small minorities) could thwart the majority will or subsitute for it by claiming a legitimacy they did not possess. To argue as i did in  the blog did that this type of “formless” was not desirable but detrimental and arguing that Occupy has to go beyond “structurelessness” may indeed be seen as shit by some but dealt with actualities and practicalities not just abstract theory – revolutionally fluff. As for the future I know it is not materialist to say that history repeats itself exactly but I hope that the present hiatus of the Occupy movement can be seen as mirroring the gap between 1905 Russian Revolution and  February 1917 and that genuine revolutionaries are more effective in warning of and blocking an October,  that the socialist/anarchist movement are more prepared for it without resorting to spouting platitudes.  After all, as the link you gave demonstrates, there is ample philosophying about Occupy, the point is to change it !!!

[ALB]

I didn’t see much wrong with Dave Flynn’s personal comments on Occupy. It could just as easily have come from an SPGB member as from an ex-member.

Quote:

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.

I was with Dave at that meeting and was just as frustrated as him that Occupy had organised a meeting at which some (in fact most) of the speakers were openly pro-capitalist. What I don’t understand are those who imply that we should give such people a free run and not say what we think, on the grounds that this would be telling the movement what to do. Dave didn’t agree with this as he was one of the two “communist interventions” saying that it was the capitalist system, not the banks, that had caused the problem and that it was communism, not banking reform that was the solution.

Quote:

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.

I imagine that this is the passage that Stuart likes but what is it actually saying beyond that we shouldn’t predict or dictate to the future? In any event, it is still thinking in terms of a revolution to end capitalism and replace it by socialism. Just like us. Or are we to assume that advocating socialism is also dictating the future?

[stuartw2112]

When Dave and I first left the party, we often repeated a few predictions of our own: that an upturn in the class struggle and improved prospects for revolution would not come out of nowhere, or out of party propaganda, but out of a crisis of capitalism. We further predicted that following the first signs of this upturn, or of the emergence of a revolutionary or popular movement, the party would condemn it within seconds of hearing about it. Our predictions were fulfilled.It’s an interesting experience to have one’s own views caricatured, and to reflect on what this tells us about the artist(s). I’ve noticed that my objections to party members’ reactions to Occupy (that they were not socialist and based on cynicism and contempt for the working class rather than on solidarity; based on ignorance of what was going on; based on a totally undeserved, in fact ridiculous, confidence in and overvaluation of the worth of ‘theoretical’ conclusions; based on pride in the daft conclusions of a prematurely forestalled education) are now understood to be that I object to people expressing their opinions, and that pro-capitalist views should not be challenged!I believe this caricature was created right from the start when I laughed at Alan’s reaction to the Occupy movement in America, which was to get down there with a truckload of leaflets, presenting them with The Answer, to be swallowed whole on delivery. My laughter was answered with a genuine question: how, then, should we present them with The Answer, to be swallowed whole on delivery? I think the point was perhaps missed, and the missing of the point made the point more forcefully than I could have ever done. In other words, yes indeed Alan, some people do indeed think that their shit smells of roses.

[Young Master Smeet]

I for one welcome the electoral turn of the Occupy movement: http://lukeakehurst.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/council-by-elections_27.html “The 4th was in Farringdon Within Ward in the City of London. City elections uniquely involve a business franchise as well as residential voters, and are usually contested on a non-partisan basis. This one was won by the former Tory parliamentary candidate for Tooting, running as an Independent. He took 59% of the vote. A candidate who had been involved in the Occupy movement got 13%. The remaining 28% was shared between two more independents.” Mind, that’s only 23 votes for Bryn David PHILLIPS (did well getting on the ballot paper, mind).http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jul/18/city-of-london-electoral-challenge?CMP=twt_gu

[stuartw2112]

I too welcome it, with reservations:http://lbo-news.com/2012/06/06/walkers-victory-un-sugar-coated/

[alanjjohnstone]

If ridiculous caricatures of political positions are being made they of course come from yourself, Stuart. The example of the truck-load of lit you mentioned said: “Socialists can only hope that Occupy Wall St develops further, by shedding particular campaigns for the improvement of capitalism, into a general and radical attack on capitalism itself. These are people who are actually looking for answers as to why the world is in such a mess and think we need to be there with truck-loads of leaflets and having a dialogue with anyone prepared to listen to counter-act those with a reformist agenda of a “tamed capitalism” to push. Once again we welcome the fact that some people are moving towards identifying capitalism as the cause of problems they had previously sought to deal with on a single-issue basis, and now we urge them to take the next step and join us in the struggle for socialism as the only practicable alternative to capitalism. Recognising ones class position as many have done on at Liberty Plaza, that they are the 99% and the capitalists the 1%, is the first step, yet an indispensable step, towards socialist consciousness, and the easier it must be for us to put our case across. So how can we as socialists not welcome the emergence of Occupy Wall St? Where else, if not amongst such people, are we to find those we are trying to win over to the socialist case. It can only be hoped that they will come to realise that a real alternative is up for grabs. Socialists are not in the business of protesting for a larger slice of the cake that the workers bake, but for control of the whole bakery plus the grain fields. We argue that we should only settle for free and equal access to all that we produce and all the services we, the working class, provide.” But having now set yourself up on a pedestal as more knowledgeable and more in spirit with the Occupy Movement (not to mention being a soothsayer) than the rest of us mere mortals still inside the SPGB who now by the inference of your language are also now designated to be outside the working class, the minutes of your ex branch don’t appear online like some others, but tell me, what was your own actual motion for the branch’s engagement with the Occupy Movement that precipitated your resignation?”The Communists, therefore, are on the one hand, practically, the most advanced and resolute section of the working-class parties of every country, that section which pushes forward all others; on the other hand, theoretically, they have over the great mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly understanding the line of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement. The immediate aim of the Communists is the same as that of all other proletarian parties: formation of the proletariat into a class, overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, conquest of political power by the proletariat. The theoretical conclusions of the Communists are in no way based on ideas or principles that have been invented, or discovered, by this or that would-be universal reformer. They merely express, in general terms, actual relations springing from an existing class struggle, from a historical movement going on under our very eyes.”The above should be our approach and i believe we performed within our limitations just that. We push the Occupy Movement forward to a line of march; because of our theoretical advantage, (but perhaps you now deny the validity of the principles of the party you twice joined. ) We identified and exposed the fakirs with their political and economical constructs. We drew attention to the need to go beyond protest and challenge political power. We placed the Occupy movement in its historic and social context, which may have pricked the inflated egos of some participants. We all hoped that the Occupy Movement would grow wider and not remain in isolation but partly due to what was an inherent weakness of organisational structure the vaunted aspirations of November 30 last year, or May Day of this year, opportunities where the Occupy Movement had a potential of inspiring and giving a much needed boost to a previously very insipid labour union movement (which is also now showing some signs of re-invigoration and re-juvenation)  proved sadly disappointing and came to nothing. The link with the public space and the factory floor never reached fruition.Solidarity doesn’t mean silence or playing lip-service to rituals. The arrogance you accuse ourselves of can easily be re-directed back at some of those in the Occupy Movement who believed they were unique but they were in fact in many cases re-inventing the wheel. Workers constantly develop new strategies and tactics in conducting the class war. The positive parts will be expanded upon and furthered and the faults rectified or discarded. These need to be identified and specific remedies taken.If Occupy Movement truly accept that they speak for the 99% then the 99% cannot be excluded from the decision makiing. As i have said to many anarchists, if politics is to be decided on the streets and on the barricades, what about those unable to physically join in and participate, do their voicies get ignored? Electoral involvement helps to bring those people into the decision process – marking a cross on a bit paper should be considered as legitimate as jazz hands. Some could justifiably describe Occupy of being exclusive in the sense that we are all part of the 99% and that those who claim to act and speak for us need to have our permission and authority to do so by some democratic means. If for all extents and purposes Occupy have currently faded away, the search for the reasons should be within Occupy because that is where they are to be found. Not searching for the scapegoats in the attitude of the SPGB or any other political party. Our own particular failure was not having our own clear and determined presence within the Occupy Movement, whether it was by a truck-load of literature, or hosts of public speakers on soap boxes who don’t require a human microphone to be heard, or discussions at the improvised study groups. We should have targetted the online lists with our  position. After all, there is no debate if no-body is aware of your existece or know about your political outlook. What we should not have done and did not do, is to subscribe to the view that Occupy was beyond the criticism.The point really missed is that the class struggle has to evolve into something more tangible than some sort of amorphous anger and all the talking and writing about it won’t bring that about – it takes practical concrete steps and at times stepping on peoples’  toes.

[Author]

Posts