The commendably political character of recent "Occupy" campaigns

[Die Neue Zeit]

Now, in complete contrast to riots and looting of recent memory, the burst of "Occupy" campaigns should be seen as a very welcome political development.

Every genuine class struggle is political, and not so economic (like arising from mere labour disputes). These campaigns have yet to reach the level of actual class struggle (based on proper composition and proper program), but they have two notable advantages:

1) Their explicitly political orientation; and
2) Their willingness to, unlike typical liberal and hippie protests, challenge the rule of bourgeois law in a constructive matter (illegal "occupations" being a form of civil disobedience in the first place).

Discuss.

[RED DAVE]

Now, in complete contrast to riots and looting of recent memory, the burst of "Occupy" campaigns should be seen as a very welcome political development.What events are you referring to specifically!

RED DAVE

[Die Neue Zeit]

Apparently you haven't heard the likes of "Occupy Wall Street" and similar current and planned actions in other cities. :confused:

[RED DAVE]

Apparently you haven't heard the likes of "Occupy Wall Street" and similar current and planned actions in other cities. :confused:Pardon me but, fool that I am, I thought you were referring to factory occupations.

RED DAVE

[RED DAVE]

Now that we know what's being discussed:


Now, in complete contrast to riots and looting of recent memory, the burst of "Occupy" campaigns should be seen as a very welcome political development.Maybe yes, maybe no, maybe rain, maybe snow.
Frankly, I question your ability to assess what constitutes progress.


Every genuine class struggle is politicalOkay.


and not so economic (like arising from mere labour disputes).Here you go: riding your favorite dead horse. Somehow you've contrived a dichotomy between "mere labor disputes" and political actions. I wonder if you consider the current Wall Street occupation is superior to a strike.


These campaigns have yet to reach the level of actual class struggleYou bet they haven't. And there's a good chance they won't without the input people from of "mere labor disputes."


(based on proper composition and proper program), but they have two notable advantages:What do ou mean by "proper composition and proper program?


1) Their explicitly political orientation; andAccording to reports reaching revleft, the "political orientation" of these occupations is dubious.


2) Their willingness to, unlike typical liberal and hippie protests, challenge the rule of bourgeois law in a constructive matter (illegal "occupations" being a form of civil disobedience in the first place).If you're referring to some shoving matches with the cops, that's far from "challeng[ing] the rule of bourgeois law."

RED DAVE

[Die Neue Zeit]

Here you go: riding your favorite dead horse. Somehow you've contrived a dichotomy between "mere labor disputes" and political actions. I wonder if you consider the current Wall Street occupation is superior to a strike.

You bet they haven't. And there's a good chance they won't without the input people from of "mere labor disputes."

What do ou mean by "proper composition and proper program?

If the Occupation waves go beyond simple-minded slogans, they have the potential to be far superior to general strikes.

On the question of proper composition, it means worker-class participation relegating non-worker-class participants to the sidelines. It also means that your beloved trade union militants will have to sit near the sidelines while the rest of the worker-class participants take the lead.


If you're referring to some shoving matches with the cops, that's far from "challeng[ing] the rule of bourgeois law."

Not just that. The basic premise of an organized Occupation action is one of illegality, specifically of civil disobedience.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

As I see it: No class consciousness=no future.For there to be a future for these occupy movements there needs to be revolutionary ideology infused, otherwise they are reform movements which will be hijacked by the "progressive" bourgeoisie.

[Fawkes]

As the acts of civil disobedience grow, so will the aggressiveness of the police's responses. People don't lash out violently at cops and the state out of mere aggression, it's a defense mechanism. i.e. if the recent trend of increasingly aggressive police tactics continues, we can expect increasingly militant responses from demonstrators.


You bet they haven't. And there's a good chance they won't without the input people from of "mere labor disputes."
A number of unions have already declared solidarity with the wall street demonstrators, and the majority of people I've come into contact with at the demonstrations have been workers.

[Fawkes]

As I see it: No class consciousness=no future.For there to be a future for these occupy movements there needs to be revolutionary ideology infused, otherwise they are reform movements which will be hijacked by the "progressive" bourgeoisie.

Of course, and that's exactly what we are trying to do. Social movements and revolutions don't spring from a clear and concise ideology, rather, they are the results of overwhelming anger and dissatisfaction with the existing society. It's the job of revolutionaries to work to channel that anger and frustration into something productive.

[RED DAVE]

Here you go: riding your favorite dead horse. Somehow you've contrived a dichotomy between "mere labor disputes" and political actions. I wonder if you consider the current Wall Street occupation is superior to a strike.

You bet they haven't. And there's a good chance they won't without the input people from of "mere labor disputes."

What do ou mean by "proper composition and proper program?
IfBig if coming.


the Occupation waves go beyond simple-minded slogansAnd what would cause them to do so? There would have to be, somehow, a "force" that has a higher consciousness. Now that can be either class conscious workers, probably unionized and/or over a long period of time, consciously, consistently acting revolutionaries. The chances of petit-bourgeois demonstrators reaching class consciousness on their own is not great. The New Left in the US, comprising tens of thousands, never made it.


they have the potential to be far superior to general strikes.So let me see: a protest, with no ability to exert any class force is superior to a general strike, which is the most powerful form of revolutionary activity short of an actual insurrection.


On the question of proper composition, it means worker-class participation relegating non-worker-class participants to the sidelines.You are begging so many questions here, it's amazing. First of all, we are not dealing with the "worker-class," we are dealing with the working class. Secondly, this act of relegation: who will accomplish this dubious act of leadership; how will such a decision be made. But, finally, why the fuck would you want to do this. Students, for example, middle-class students, are often an important factor in an uprising, especially in the beginning. Nonsense, coming from someone who has never been involved in labor work or, most likely, mass actions (on a leadership basis).


It also means that your beloved trade union militants will have to sit near the sidelines while the rest of the worker-class participants take the lead.Which means that you have abandoned not only Marxism but the kind of common sense that tells us not to cross the street against the light through heavy traffic. Wow! Not surprising; you done it on other threads, but wow!


If you're referring to some shoving matches with the cops, that's far from "challeng[ing] the rule of bourgeois law."Not just that. The basic premise of an organized Occupation action is one of illegality, specifically of civil disobedience[/quote]Which goes to show that you do not understand the occupations, civil disobedience or the basis of class power.

The occupations are largely peaceful. If they got out of hand, the cops would come down on them massively. There would be protests, etc., but unless the unions got involved, unless an organized for capable of wielding power over production, got involved, it would blow over.

In addition, civil disobedience involves actively challenging the law and the status quo. It is not camping out in a park with the agreement of the cops. It involves directly, consciously and deliberately breaking the law to expose the law in all its viciousness or, when it reaches its mass form (especially in a general strike), there is a direct challenge to the state.

You have no concept of what power is in capitalist society. It is class power, and in order to move toward revolution that power has to be challenged, ultimately at the point of production (which you are so fucking afraid of), for control of the ultimate motor of capitalism itself: the production of value.

RED DAVE

[Die Neue Zeit]

People don't lash out violently at cops and the state out of mere aggression, it's a defense mechanism. i.e. if the recent trend of increasingly aggressive police tactics continues, we can expect increasingly militant responses from demonstrators.

You guys down in the US are way behind the curve. "Aggressive police tactics" isn't the term used by more mainstream sources here to describe police brutality.

[RED DAVE]

You guys down in the US are way behind the curve. "Aggressive police tactics" isn't the term used by more mainstream sources here to describe police brutality.I strongly suggest that you leave your eyrie and hustle on down to New York so you can be a consultant to the demonstrators on police tactics. You can recount to them all your personal experiences on the fly with the fuzz.

RED DAVE

[Die Neue Zeit]

Meanwhile, all the tred-iunion bureaucrats and militants can do is merely "express support/solidarity." So much for political struggle coming from their neck of the woods.

[RED DAVE]

Meanwhile, all the tred-iunion bureaucrats and militants can do is merely "express support/solidarity." So much for political struggle coming from their neck of the woods.Funny that you put militants and bureaucrats in the same basket. In any event, the struggle is just beginning. Have you got your ticket to New York yet? You could also consult on political strategy and party building. Of course, it would help if you ever were involved in forming revolutionary strategy or trying to build a revolutionary organization.

RED DAVE

[Le Socialiste]

Now, in complete contrast to riots and looting of recent memory, the burst of "Occupy" campaigns should be seen as a very welcome political development.

This development, while apparently focused on corporate greed, has so far resisted any attempts to guide the occupations into a position of class aggression and militancy. Their adoption of reformist methods to address capitalism's current crises neglects the actual nature of capitalism and the interests that arise from it. While it would be foolish to condemn the demonstrations outright (there appears to be something of a leftist presence in some of the occupations), it would be equally foolish to try and draw a conclusion that assumes them to be beyond simple reformism and a belief in the present system. Whereas the riots in London (despite their disorganization and lack of focus) contained characteristics of a struggle borne out of years of state-sanctioned manipulation, brutality, and a deterioration in economic/material conditions, the occupations have yet to similarly abandon their present methods of struggle in favor of a more militant understanding of capitalism and the thread-bare legitimacy of the state it supports. There has yet to be any significant developments within the political character of the demonstrations because they remain proponents of the very system they're rallying against. Furthermore, the political character of these "movements" has yet to be determined. They appear to be politically diverse.



Every genuine class struggle is political, and not so economic (like arising from mere labour disputes). These campaigns have yet to reach the level of actual class struggle (based on proper composition and proper program), but they have two notable advantages:

1) Their explicitly political orientation; and
2) Their willingness to, unlike typical liberal and hippie protests, challenge the rule of bourgeois law in a constructive matter (illegal "occupations" being a form of civil disobedience in the first place).


That's just it, though: these protests haven't emerged as genuine manifestations of the class struggle. In fact, they are anything but. Most of these demonstrations have yet to fully break with state-approved methods of dissent. While I would agree that they are political in their focus - and to various degrees economic - they aren't likely to take on the "proper composition and proper program" of the class struggle. Being "explicitly political" in their orientation doesn't immediately translate into an awareness of class and social makeup, nor does it mean it will lean to the revolutionary left. Given the diversity of the protests, I'd venture to say it is incredibly unlikely that these occupations will move beyond anything resembling various shades of liberalism. As for your second point regarding a disregard for bourgeois law, my last sentence still applies in that the forms of dissent expressed in the protests have largely adhered to "liberal" or even bourgeois thinking. The lack of militancy and a loss of faith in the entire system prevents them from proceeding further down a path of revolutionary leftism, especially if those involved resist calls for radicalization. So far, all it has done is culminate in an explosion of anger towards the rich, which despite similar positive qualities don't go beyond liberalism or the necessary basics of the class struggle. I believe the potential remains, but if those involved refuse to take the next step there is little chance that they can be anything other than another protest rooted in non-threatening dissent and retaining support for bourgeois law and governance.

[MarxSchmarx]

One thing this movement appears to have, which Madison and other US protests haven't have to the same degree, is quite prominent media coverage relative to the number of activists.

I suspect part of this is because they are doing it in Manhattan, and part of it may be that the "mainstream" press has gotten a lot of flak for exaggerating the Tea Party antics so now feels it must do something like that on the left. Finally Anonymous's involvement does have a way of attracting lazy journalists who spend most of their time surfing the web.

Anyway, I think that this has raised the profile of what started out as a rather small core quite a bit beyond their numbers. I think we'll know in the weeks to come whether it will serve as more than soapbox.

[blake 3:17]

Funny that you put militants and bureaucrats in the same basket. In any event, the struggle is just beginning. Have you got your ticket to New York yet? You could also consult on political strategy and party building. Of course, it would help if you ever were involved in forming revolutionary strategy or trying to build a revolutionary organization.

New strategies are emerging hour by hour. The most radical and energized sectors of the oppressed and exploited are working together to challenge capitalism. Build it now!