Mass assemblies around the world: The modern form of struggle?

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

What can we make of all the recent actions, from Tunisia to Spain, from Greece to Egypt, from Israel to Madison, etc.? It seems that they have all been based around or resulted in mass groupings/assemblies of people in large public spaces for extended periods of time (unlike the regular old planned protests that go from point A to point B then disperse). We can go back a little further and see the beginnings of the trend in actions like the uprising in Oaxaca in 2006.

In my short lifetime at least, this seems to be a relatively new development. Of course mass rallies themselves are not new, but this seems to be something a bit different. It's not one-off protests, it's not general strikes, it's not the traditional style of occupation (though those have taken place, for example in Egypt), it's not councils....

How should we view this and how should we orient to it? How can it move forward? I think those are really burning questions today and the kind of thing that we really need to focus on.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Well, I've posted stuff here before on the Greater Toronto Workers Assembly.

Bottom line question: Do these "mass assemblies" operate on an ad hoc basis, or on the realistic basis of durable membership, complete with financial dues, dues equivalents, and political commitment? If the former, they're simply not capable of long-term administration of society (just look at Egypt's current military dictatorship situation). If the latter (thus operating on a de facto party basis), then there's potential.

[Paulappaul]

I have been thinking the same thing. It seems to me that this is reflective of the movement of Capitalism which has displaced workers into large groups of Casualized Workers and Underemployed/Unemployed who have the ability to stay for extended periods because of their work schedule. In the densely populated areas where we have workers of a number of industries the mass assembly formation seems only natural. In the New Era of Capitalism the traditional style of class struggle whether it be by Trade Union, Wildcat Strikes, Soviets or Workers' Councils have been tossed out.

For the Left this means we need to stop the agitation and hope for General Strikes, Mass Strikes, Soviets or Workers Councils and realize that we are entering into a new epoch of the workers' movement which is much more geographically and socially organized along these type of Spontaneous Mass Assemblies and Occupations.

We need to be clarifying positions within this new movement. Namely the lack of concrete demands and a roadmap for where such a movement will go.

[Tim Cornelis]

We can even go back further to the popular assemblies in Argentine in 2001.

[Die Neue Zeit]

For the Left this means we need to stop the agitation and hope for General Strikes, Mass Strikes, Soviets or Workers Councils and realize that we are entering into a new epoch of the workers' movement which is much more geographically and socially organized along these type of Spontaneous Mass Assemblies and Occupations.

They're not exactly spontaneous, comrade, if there's durable membership, complete with financial dues, dues equivalents, and political commitment.


We need to be clarifying positions within this new movement. Namely the lack of concrete demands and a roadmap for where such a movement will go.

Also consider how these assemblies themselves should be organized internally.

[black magick hustla]

^^^ Well, I've posted stuff here before on the Greater Toronto Workers Assembly.

Bottom line question: Do these "mass assemblies" operate on an ad hoc basis, or on the realistic basis of durable membership, complete with financial dues, dues equivalents, and political commitment? If the former, they're simply not capable of long-term administration of society. If the latter (thus operating on a de facto party basis), then there's potential.

the icc has a lot of articles on this, mass assemblies in general. to the icc though, the mass assemblies were a lower form that most eventually consolidate in councils. i am not so sure about the invariance of the council and form of proletarian power but certainly its something to think about, because mass assemblies are pretty old, and certainly they are not necessarily the class organizing as a class, although it is related to that and it is a sort of baby step thing.

[HEAD ICE]

Amusingly I was reading an interview by Paul Mattick II and he touched on something similar:

http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/oct11/view_on_crisis_Mattick.html
SS: Your father was connected with our American party, occasionally publishing in its journal. In a newly published biography of one its members (see http://wspus.org/2011/02/role-modeling-socialism), we see you as a child sat at your father’s knee while political discussions raged around you. Do you have memories of these times? What is your memory and present opinion of the WSPUS and our political tradition generally? You say in your book that the heydey of the left and the trade unions is over and there's no hope of reviving them. So what can be done? What's the alternative?

PM: My memories of the WSP are very good ones – I liked the people involved very much. I still remember going to classes in Marxian economics in Boston, taught by Rab and others, in some ways my real initiation into radical theory. I remember, with equal pleasure, the ‘socials’ – parties – when we kids moved around the legs of smoking, drinking, discussing, lovely adults. But I think these experiences, precious though they are to me as an individual, belong to the past. For most of today's young people – and most of their elders – the political ideas of the past have little meaning. And not only ideas – the political movements of the past no longer exist as serious forces. The trade unions have long been in decline world-wide, and the political parties of the left are either fully integrated into the capitalist political system or have become minute, unimportant sects. To an extent, this is good, as it seems to me that leftwing political organizations have historically stood in the way of creative responses to social crises, obsessed as they have been with their own agendas. But in any case, the response to the coming depression and the suffering to be imposed on people by the world's masters (and nature, as a result of the workings of the capitalist economy) is something people will have to work out for themselves, with little help from the past, in response to evolving conditions. To solve their problems, people will have to take direct, concrete action – occupying empty housing, seizing stocks of food and other goods, and eventually, if all goes well, occupying and beginning to operate the means of production and distribution. This lies in the future, but already one can see steps in this direction, in phenomena like the Greek cry ‘We won't pay!’ and French occupations of defunded schools. Even the action of tens of thousand of young Spaniards, simply meeting in the centre of Madrid and other cities, like the Egyptians in Tahrir Square, to discuss politics, is a step towards autonomy from the political wing of the ruling classes, a step towards an autonomous working-class control of social life.

SS: We see your point, but we would also say that as people begin to work these things out for themselves, they will also probably be drawn to some of our conclusions: namely, that state power will have to be reckoned with in an organised way, and alternatives to the present system discussed and agreed upon. That’s at least a possibility, isn’t it?

PM: Both of your points seem to me quite true. We can already see the state mobilising its forces in defence of capitalist social relations, even when they are barely challenged, and radical confrontation with the current social order will definitely involve finding ways to counter the military forces that will be deployed. Meanwhile, exploring alternatives to the present system, after a long period during which even the idea of an end to capitalism has been nearly unthinkable, is of great importance. This is especially true because earlier models of social change have been rendered obsolete by the development of capitalism as a system: for instance, an idea like that of the network of workers councils so important to revolutionary thought after the First World War requires thoroughgoing reformulation in a period when large numbers of workers have insecure jobs, and no longer identify themselves as workers within particular industries, not to mention workplaces, while gigantic masses of people all over the world struggle to exist without employment, and when many production processes involve workers and workplaces in different countries, as when Chinese workers assemble iPhones from parts produced in other places. Then, the developing ecological catastrophe raises novel issues which will require serious, large-scale efforts of a technological as well as a social nature. At the same time, the growing proletarianization of the world’s people and the greater level of international integration of populations and cultures, make the old slogan of “world revolution” in some ways more realistic than ever before.

[Die Neue Zeit]

the icc has a lot of articles on this, mass assemblies in general. to the icc though, the mass assemblies were a lower form that most eventually consolidate in councils. i am not so sure about the invariance of the council and form of proletarian power but certainly its something to think about, because mass assemblies are pretty old, and certainly they are not necessarily the class organizing as a class, although it is related to that and it is a sort of baby step thing.

Well, I'm coming at things from another direction ("must eventually consolidate into an official mass party-movement"), but, notwithstanding your inclinations towards riots and looting, your doubts on the invariance of the council as The Form of Proletarian Power is welcome.

[Искра]

You forgot Croatia. There were two ocassions (1) student movement which was based on direct democratic assemblies and (2) protest movement against government which was liderless.

I'm writing an article on this topic, since I participated in both struggles.

What I can say about this is that most of these (I include now Tunis, Greece, etc.) movements start ad hoc and they have great sympathies thowards direct democracy, but there's big problem of political parties who enter into those movements and try to manipulete them. Left is fucked up and small and we should build stronger organisations, which are not based on utopistic bollocks (tendency is here not important, because marxist-leninists are as utopistic as anarchists) but on real life and understanding of real life conditions, so that these organisations can influence movement. Also, I believe that such manifestations of peoples anger, such as ad hoc initiatives or assemblies, are going to repeat once in a while, more often now, and we need to prepare for that. This movements are good places for people to accept libertarian and marxist ideas.

Btw. thx for Mattick interview!!!

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

I think trying to transform it into "organization building" is a dead-end, or worse, a trap.

I think the main focus should be (1) how dominant this trend has been, is, and will be, (2) why it's emerged and what it reflects, (3) how it can be transformed into active inroads against capital (eg. concrete steps to answer general demands against unemployment, homelessness/evictions, etc.), (4) the role militants can and should play in all of this.

[Искра]

I think trying to transform it into "organization building" is a dead-end, or worse, a trap.

I think the main focus should be (1) how dominant this trend has been, is, and will be, (2) why it's emerged and what it reflects, (3) how it can be transformed into active inroads against capital (eg. concrete steps to answer general demands against unemployment, homelessness/evictions, etc.), (4) the role militants can and should play in all of this.


I agree with you. I think that you maybe got me wrong, because I’m not for sucking the mass movement into a one organisation. No. I’m for building a strong organisation which can influence such movements when time is right. So there is a difference. I believe that these movements are good for us, as activists, to not just engage in everyday’s struggle, but also they give us huge platform for conversation with “radical people”, people who feel angry because of capitalism, state repression etc., and we have big opportunity to exchange opinions etc. This is, imo, the good way for trying to develop the movement, while in the case of “sucking the mass” into a party/organisation you get nothing.

I agree with the things you put focus on. So, here’s my opinion on your “points”

(1) I think that movement is international and well spread because of “alternative mass media” such as Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, blogs, forums, leftist or liberal-leftist websites etc. I could say that even mass media such as Al Jazzera are pretty useful. It’s also interesting that most of these movements are based on “direct democracy”, concept which emerged from Croatian students blockades, or some kind of other “new political hope” within the existing system (such as more plebiscites, elections, nationalisation of banks etc.).

(2) I think that neoliberal capitalism, current capitalist crisis and repressive state regimes in “Arab world” are the main reasons. Most of these movements are against neo-liberalism, but they are not against capitalism, since a lot of people support state interventionist or welfare state reforms. Maybe we could say that this is some kind of a cry for welfare state?

(3) That is a quite difficult to answer. I think that if there strong leftist organisation which recognises power of direct democracy and direct action, it can be accepted by this movement and move struggle on next level. Good example of that is struggle of Warsaw tenants where Polish anarcho-syndicalist organisation ZSP really helped to make struggle more radical and that struggle gave positive results.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I think trying to transform it into "organization building" is a dead-end, or worse, a trap.

If it's recruitment to external sects, of course, but I'm suggesting turning this proto-movement into an actual movement. That can only be done by turning it (itself) into an actual political party.

[Искра]

If it's recruitment to external sects, of course, but I'm suggesting turning this proto-movement into an actual movement. That can only be done by turning it (itself) into an actual political party.

You missed whole point. These movements are quite anti-party. They are sick of politics as we know. They are sick of parliaments.... but... they don’t know for an alternative.


I was active in Croatian anti-government demonstrations. I informed people about that struggle, but I don’t see that many of you cared (no hard feelings). So, on the streets people were really aggressive towards political parties and idiots from some obscure parties who tried to requte people for their own interests. People burned down flags of 2 major parties (one ruling one in opposition) and a flag of European Union. People shouted in the front of HQ’s of all important parties, unions and politicians. This is something important!


I think that time of political parties is over. People demand more.

[Искра]

Oh, yeah also trying to build a communist party in country like Croatia – very bad and stupid idea.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

The revolution in communications that is ongoing, and that seems to be leading towards the ability to be in contact with friends (facebook, social networking), known acquaintances/strangers (twitter) and unknown strangers (on forums like this) 24 hours a day by e-mail, instant messanger and/or video, is absolutely key as to why the mode of protest has changed so significantly in the 21st century.

Whilst (and I got cained for it) I took a fairly dim view to much of the rioting and in particular looting that occurred recently in London, what amazed me was just glancing at the twitter feed, it occurred to me that the technology exists to not just organise or inform, but to create whole movements out of thin air, quite literally.

Whereas there were once legitimate organisational criticisms of workers' spontaneity, the ability now exists for a truly exponential rise in just such a process. Also, in a world of increasingly stringent anti-union, anti-strike laws, the age of instant, anonymous communications allows us to bypass such laws and launch legally legitimate demos and protests.

In short, to supplement to your original question, whereas it was originally thought that the economic struggles would connect with political struggles through unions, wildcat and general strikes, and then (with Luxemburg's breakthrough), through the mass strike, will the revolutionary process now reach its tipping point not through 'strike action', but through mass, anonymous, spontaneous assemblies, demonstrations and protests instead? Will the proletariat in future bind itself together, not through the traditional vanguards such as the union leadership and the Leninist 'professional' revolutionaries, but in a more issue-based way?

It's certainly a massively interesting topic and one that provides many opportunities for the working class.

[Die Neue Zeit]

You missed whole point. These movements are quite anti-party. They are sick of politics as we know. They are sick of parliaments.... but... they don’t know for an alternative.

Just because they're against vote-grabbing electoral machines (today's crude definition of "political parties") on the one hand and sects on the other doesn't mean they're against actual political parties. I'm suggesting an actual alternative, in fact the only realistic one.


The revolution in communications that is ongoing, and that seems to be leading towards the ability to be in contact with friends (facebook, social networking), known acquaintances/strangers (twitter) and unknown strangers (on forums like this) 24 hours a day by e-mail, instant messanger and/or video, is absolutely key as to why the mode of protest has changed so significantly in the 21st century.

Whilst (and I got cained for it) I took a fairly dim view to much of the rioting and in particular looting that occurred recently in London, what amazed me was just glancing at the twitter feed, it occurred to me that the technology exists to not just organise or inform, but to create whole movements out of thin air, quite literally.

Whereas there were once legitimate organisational criticisms of workers' spontaneity, the ability now exists for a truly exponential rise in just such a process. Also, in a world of increasingly stringent anti-union, anti-strike laws, the age of instant, anonymous communications allows us to bypass such laws and launch legally legitimate demos and protests.

Didn't you read recent articles on government clampdowns against those trying to organize not-so-mainstream political action using social media, up to the point of government-ordered mass communications lockdown? :confused:

If "the revolution won't be televised," it sure won't be "social media"-ed, either.


Will the proletariat in future bind itself together, not through the traditional vanguards such as the union leadership and the Leninist 'professional' revolutionaries, but in a more issue-based way?

No, and hell no if "issue-based" refers to single issues or a limited set of issues.

[Искра]

Just because they're against vote-grabbing electoral machines (today's crude definition of "political parties") on the one hand and sects on the other doesn't mean they're against actual political parties. I'm suggesting an actual alternative, in fact the only realistic one.
People are starting to question the system - system of parliamentary democracy. That is the only point. In Croatia more and more people are debating about implementation of "direct democracy" into this system for example... there's one liberal-left party which is trying to get more seats on that "wave".

You are suggesting quazi-ideological bullshit alternative which you read from some 19th century book. Why would somebody wanted to build a party when they are aware that if they do that 90's experience will probably happen again (talkin' again about Croatia)? It's good thing that they do not want to do that, because that mean that people are starting to question whole this system and by doing they are planing a seed for a communist movement.

I don't know what sects you are talking about.

[Die Neue Zeit]

People are starting to question the system - system of parliamentary democracy. That is the only point. In Croatia more and more people are debating about implementation of "direct democracy" into this system for example... there's one liberal-left party which is trying to get more seats on that "wave".

That's not a political party in the sense I'm talking about.


You are suggesting quazi-ideological bullshit alternative which you read from some 19th century book. Why would somebody wanted to build a party when they are aware that if they do that 90's experience will probably happen again (talkin' again about Croatia)?

Croatia never had a mass party-movement.


I don't know what sects you are talking about.

Re. your comment "idiots from some obscure parties who tried to recruit people for their own interests."

[Искра]

That's not a political party in the sense I'm talking about.
I know it's not. I know what are you talking about and I'm against it. I think that idea of forming a political party from the movement is unrealistic and outdated. That party I mentioned was here just to ilustrated the influence of "direct democracy" on politics. Of course, everbody has their definition but people are talking about it.


Croatia never had a mass party-movement.
Who has? This is not an era of "mass party-movements" but of "spontanious ad hoc" movements.


Re. your comment "idiots from some obscure parties who tried to recruit people for their own interests."
Ok.

[Paulappaul]

They're not exactly spontaneous, comrade, if there's durable membership, complete with financial dues, dues equivalents, and political commitment.

Spontaneity lead to the development of organizations with the above characteristics.


Also consider how these assemblies themselves should be organized internally.

I agree, generally from my experience in such assemblies there needs to be rigid centralization and decentralization in certain areas. More importantly though, as I said, we need to be clarifying positions in such assemblies, particularly that of the supposed "a-political" stance of the movement.


and certainly they are not necessarily the class organizing as a class, although it is related to that and it is a sort of baby step thing.

I disagree. More then anything out there, the assemblies are all over place in their class composition.


the role militants can and should play in all of this.

The idea of building organizations to lead the working class is obviously dead. Networks of Militants have a duty in such assemblies to clarify existing positions and promote posistions which will further the unification of class in and for itself as well as promote an Autonomous and Anti - Capitalist mindset within the working class.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Spontaneity lead to the development of organizations with the above characteristics.

Maybe I used the wrong word. :(

It's the very subtle difference between spontaneous and spontaneist. They wouldn't be spontaneist if there's durable membership, complete with financial dues, dues equivalents, and political commitment - with that last part not being equivalent exclusively to (hyper)-"activism."

Spontaneous (Mass) Institutionalization Before Revolutionary Periods? ;)

[Paulappaul]

Yes I think the Later term would be more appropriate. Institutionalization means basically one of two things, either the movement is co-opted into the Capitalist system (i.e. as the Trade Unions have historically become and the whole "labor" movement)", or it creates the basic instruments of the future social order (workers' parties, clubs, councils, communes, assemblies, etc.)

[Art Vandelay]

I wish there were more discussions like this on revleft and i agree that this is one of the most important questions forced upon us in this time. Firstly I believe that we are in the beginning of a revolutionary time period. And Marx's historical materialism unfolding before our very eyes. With the advancement of technology the world is shrinking and capitalism will have a much shorter reign in the history books than feudalism. Although many of the uprisings lately have not exactly been revolutionary, history moves in dialectic way and I honestly within a hundred years the changes we all want will be realized. They have to be for the sake of the world because capitalism is driving the world down a dead end street at high speed. The people may have been subjected to a long slumber but I do not think that they are apathetic and they will not watch as their world is destroyed.

I also have slowly come to the realization that the types of changes made in the future will not be made in the same way as the past. I do not think that a party will lead the way and I truly think it will be a spontaneous uprising or mass uprising like we have been saying lately. It will however have to be a militant one. There is absolutely no question either that the type of media and communication available to everyone today will make it easier for communication to be passed instantaneously.

While I respect the opinions expressed here talking about party building I think that the revolutions in the future that will gain the support needed to implement change will be based on leaderless mass direct democracy. I would also say that people preaching the words of Lenin and all past communist leaders will probably find their words falling on mostly deaf ears. Years and years of capitalist anti-red propaganda has been very successful and sadly, regardless of their theories, an instant negative reaction has generally been conditioned

[Paulappaul]

It is important we clarify what was spontaneous and what was not. I think it relates to the party question and the question of "what is to be done".

The Call to this movement was not spontaneous. It had its roots in real material conditions. In a particularly historical moment characterized by intense Social, Political and Economic Austerity. Particularly within the occupations I have been involved with recently, they were not started by a mass group of workers or students, they were started by a Single, Middle Class, White Male. A single person made this call. In the case of the broader movement, it was a dozen of so people. So while the call was not Spontaneous, the speed at which the movement grew, at which new ideas and content came about, at which similar calls were made and more actions taken, can be labeled as Spontaneous.

Relating this back to the main theme of the discussion, there is still a position for a Party and for Militants. Have no illusions about spontaniety, we look at things too often in the objective. The purpose of philosophy is to break down the objective to the subjective and understand the interrelations which make up the Objective. Whether it be the Hungarian Revolution, May 68 or the Historical Moment which surrounds us, there exists a similar progression of class struggle. Of discontents with the system which create class consciousness, which push the class to taking action, which starts small, but in times blooms into mass action often labeled as "Spontaneous" - despite having origins in smaller discontents and struggles.

I am not a Fortune teller, but it seems to me that the Historical Moment we are living in is going quick out the door as the Workers' Movement heats up, the Capitalist is quick to reconstitute itself along more stable lines. I imagine the coming election will reshape the world radically. The Revolutionary Wave we are living in will die off and will be remembered. But it will live on no doubt as accumulated experience, as another small struggle which will snowball in the coming years to more radical occupations, with a more radical perspective, with more radical, concrete demands.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

How can we be living in a historical moment? Without the benefit of hindsight one cannot say that.

[Devrim]

Maybe I used the wrong word. :(

Don't worry. You can always make up a new one.

Devrim

[La Comédie Noire]

It's a bunch of people who are dressed up, but have nowhere to go. We're looking for a grip on something, but we can't seem to find purchase. We need to formulate concrete demands, but their doesn't seem to be anything all that concrete. Meanwhile the liberal democracies will dissolve parliaments and recall officials till the end of time if that's what it takes to keep up the facade of democracy.

Work place seizure is not out of the question, but where do you go from there? There is also a lot of liquid capital sitting around in banks, perhaps general assemblies could vote democratically on what to do with that? Like begin a massive overhaul of public works along more eco friendly lines?

I like the idea of trusts and demarchy too.

[piet11111]

The whole no politics no leadership worry's me.

Politics is obvious without questioning the bourgeois political system nothing can be changed.
The no leadership is troublesome because its a recipe for disintegration of the movement its a call for democratic decision making but it rejects the ability to create a workable program.
Leadership is not a bad thing in and of itself aslong as the elected officials can be recalled at a moments notice and are elected democratically to represent a larger amount of people.

This whole exercise is just a way to tire out the people just like the greek one day strikes unless they get organized around a socialist program.

[La Comédie Noire]

The whole no politics no leadership worry's me.

Politics is obvious without questioning the bourgeois political system nothing can be changed.
The no leadership is troublesome because its a recipe for disintegration of the movement its a call for democratic decision making but it rejects the ability to create a workable program.
Leadership is not a bad thing in and of itself aslong as the elected officials can be recalled at a moments notice and are elected democratically to represent a larger amount of people.

This whole exercise is just a way to tire out the people just like the greek one day strikes unless they get organized around a socialist program.

That's what I'm worried about too, we've been taught that having a clear political line makes you a narrow minded, religious zealot and that any direction of any kind, even if provided by ultra democratic bodies, is bound to corruption.

It's all a recipe for theoretical and tactical poverty if you ask me, which results in most of the protests looking like a no holds bar, go with what you feel is right, outdoor cook out, freak fest.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

I don't know about all that. I don't see why, at a real mass assembly with thousands upon thousands of people assembled, goals couldn't be set and achieved. Why couldn't a mass meeting of 500,000 in Rome decide to take public possession of all factories, warehouses, distribution centers, government buildings, armories and police stations, media in the city; and then set out and do exactly that?

[La Comédie Noire]

I don't know about all that. I don't see why, at a real mass assembly with thousands upon thousands of people assembled, goals couldn't be set and achieved. Why couldn't a mass meeting of 500,000 in Rome decide to take public possession of all factories, warehouses, distribution centers, government buildings, armories and police stations, media in the city; and then set out and do exactly that?

That's how I feel too and I think that maybe the way things will go, but a lot of people at these protests either suffer from weak politics, or are afraid of saying anything concrete. There is a lot of vague slogans and no action. I think AttackGR posted a good article awhile back, or was it bcbm?, about a group of protesters in Greece who got mad at a leftist for trying to get all "political and preachy" on them.

It keeps getting channeled into these ridiculous "the little guys vs. the big guys populism" that the right wing has gained so much ground on, but that has to do with their utterly simplistic politics that are more about blame than concrete goals.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Quite understandable with the history of the left. And frankly, I think the more these events escape the realm of bourgeois politics, left vs. right capitalism, etc., the better off they will be.

I don't know what it means to call (for example) the big strikes and assemblies in Chile recently politically weak or "afraid of saying anything." They were saying a lot and doing a lot. The main problem is to get from assemblies to real inroads against capital. That is, to get the movement headed in the right direction. The biggest development in all of this is that there are movements to begin with. That's something different in recent years.

[La Comédie Noire]

I don't know what it means to call (for example) the big strikes and assemblies in Chile recently politically weak or "afraid of saying anything." They were saying a lot and doing a lot. The main problem is to get from assemblies to real inroads against capital. That is, to get the movement headed in the right direction. The biggest development in all of this is that there are movements to begin with. That's something different in recent years.

I'm not familiar with Chile in 01, I was thinking more along the lines of occupy wall street, the greek protests, the austerity protests in the euro zone, Madison, and toher more recent events.

Any good articles on Chile? :)

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

In 01? I am talking about the major events of this year.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/strikes-occupations-protests-t159277/index.html
http://www.revleft.com/vb/not-everything-free-t159564/index.html
http://www.revleft.com/vb/young-chilean-girl-t159603/index.html

And that's not even mentioning the fuel strikes earlier in the year in Chile.

I don't really think "Occupy Wall Street" can be compared to Oaxaca, Chile, Spain, Greece, Egypt, Tunisia.... or even Madison... Especially at this point.

[syndicat]

For the Left this means we need to stop the agitation and hope for General Strikes, Mass Strikes, Soviets or Workers Councils and realize that we are entering into a new epoch of the workers' movement which is much more geographically and socially organized along these type of Spontaneous Mass Assemblies and Occupations.

all working class upsurges historically have had new elements. new types of organization, new organizations created, new demands/issues, new groups of people going into motion.

but the capitalists still have control over the means of production, which is the heart of their system. there is no reason to view mass assemblies and disobedience in the streets as counter-posed to rising disobedience, organizing in the workplaces.

the day of struggle by the radical left unions in spain on Sept 29th had the slogan "the struggle is in the street". at the same time the anarcho-syndicalists have said the disobedience and occupation movement needs to also be extended into the workplaces.

there are also signs of increasing struggle and militancy of workers, and it may be that these two things...occupations by disaffected young people...and workplace actions can influence each other and are both signs of an upturn in struggle, an "i'm fed up" mentality. by the upturn in labor struggle, this has occurred in USA as well as other countries. there's a strike wave now in Brazil. in the US there has been the militant struggle of the longshore workers inA WA, the big hospital strike (a sympathy strike no less) in CA (biggest hospital strike in U.S. history), the big occupation in Madison last February.

[Paulappaul]

How can we be living in a historical moment? Without the benefit of hindsight one cannot say that.

Because obviously the conditions present are different then the conditions previously.


The whole no politics no leadership worry's me.

I agree.


but the capitalists still have control over the means of production

You're looking at thing in a very point of production fashion, forgetting that in a time when most of the Western population is underemployed/unemployed and casualized, our lives don't really revolve around the workplace as much as they did. Capital needs labor; the workplace is not the heart of the system - labor is. Organizing Labor, particularly that of the working class, is important - this can be done in and outside the workplace.

[Devrim]

I don't know about all that. I don't see why, at a real mass assembly with thousands upon thousands of people assembled, goals couldn't be set and achieved. Why couldn't a mass meeting of 500,000 in Rome decide to take public possession of all factories, warehouses, distribution centers, government buildings, armories and police stations, media in the city; and then set out and do exactly that?

I don't think that you can have a mass meeting of half a million people. It just wouldn't work. In fact I would wonder if you could have a genuine mass meeting of 1% of that number. The biggest mass meeting that I have personally attended had about 1,000 people there, and although there was some real discussion, I feel that even with those numbers it is beginning to turn into a rally.

Of course what we advocate is councils made up of delegates from mass meetings, but here lies another problem. In these current movements what would people be delegates for? Who would they be representing? I think there is a difference between a general assembly of political activists, who represent nothing except themselves, and a meeting of people delegated by mass meetings at their workplace, or in their community.

Devrim

[Devrim]

The Revolutionary Wave we are living in will die off and will be remembered.

I don't think that we can describe what is currently going on as a 'revolutionary' wave. I think that the level of class struggle is quite low, and has been for some time. This leads to people, who perhaps are too young to remember high levels of class struggle, or who have perhaps got over excited in the heat of the moment and forgotten to misunderstand the current situation.

It is not 1979, and 1979 itself was not a revolutionary period though then perhaps we could say that the spectre of the mass strike had raised its head on an international level.

There is still a long way to go.

Devrim

[Devrim]

(1) I think that movement is international and well spread because of “alternative mass media” such as Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, blogs, forums, leftist or liberal-leftist websites etc. I could say that even mass media such as Al Jazzera are pretty useful. It’s also interesting that most of these movements are based on “direct democracy”, concept which emerged from Croatian students blockades, or some kind of other “new political hope” within the existing system (such as more plebiscites, elections, nationalisation of banks etc.).

I think that new forms of media are hugely important, but also that their role mustn't be overstated. The events in Egypt were described as a 'Facebook Revolution', but it is worth remembering that in the run up to the events in Tahir square various organisations in Egypt handed out hundreds of thousands if not millions of leaflets.

Devrim

[Dimmu]

all working class upsurges historically have had new elements. new types of organization, new organizations created, new demands/issues, new groups of people going into motion.

but the capitalists still have control over the means of production, which is the heart of their system. there is no reason to view mass assemblies and disobedience in the streets as counter-posed to rising disobedience, organizing in the workplaces.

the day of struggle by the radical left unions in spain on Sept 29th had the slogan "the struggle is in the street". at the same time the anarcho-syndicalists have said the disobedience and occupation movement needs to also be extended into the workplaces.

there are also signs of increasing struggle and militancy of workers, and it may be that these two things...occupations by disaffected young people...and workplace actions can influence each other and are both signs of an upturn in struggle, an "i'm fed up" mentality. by the upturn in labor struggle, this has occurred in USA as well as other countries. there's a strike wave now in Brazil. in the US there has been the militant struggle of the longshore workers inA WA, the big hospital strike (a sympathy strike no less) in CA (biggest hospital strike in U.S. history), the big occupation in Madison last February.


I agree with this..

And i would also like to add that most of these street assembly are still playing by the capitalist's rules. People meet on the street, throw a party, make some speeches and then do nothing when the police brutally smacks them down. I just hope that the people who are involved in these assemblies will get more radical and i actually see it happening in the places i have been to.

[Искра]

Before I start, I would like to say that I'm quite happy that this topic became so active. Now... I'll write a sheet.

First, I would like to stress that in this kind of discussion we must stay focused on present situation and historical conditions and try not to “run” into history etc., especially without critical relationship between past and present. I’m saying this because some of ideas here seems to me more of utopian ideological phrases than real analysis connected with reality (I’m referring to a building of a political party in the first place).

Second, regarding those movements it’s important to stress, and I see that a lot of you did, that they are “class colorful”. In Greece on protests you can find everyone from workers, unemployed, students, pensioners, small bosses, farmers etc. Same was in Croatia, and as if you read this article: http://en.internationalism.org/icconline/2011/september/indignados you could guess that the same situation is in Spain. Regarding political line it’s also colorful. In the Greece, for example, you have mostly left on the stress in form of KKE and various leftcom, libcom and anarchists groups and collectives, but also there are social democrats and liberals etc. In Croatia (You’ll have to forgive me for mentioning Croatia all the time, but I was there in the movement, so I have different experience than you, even though movement in Croatia was quite smaller than in Greece, Spain, Israel etc.) there were “two sides” in every demonstration: radical left one and radical right one. Actually, it was a quite funny situation. So, after saying all this, I can conclude that this mass movements are usually not acting “as one big body”, but there are different ideas, complains and demands. It also important to stress that majority of people in these movements is just fed up with this system but they don’t have real alternatives and they are easy to manipulate by political parties or charismatic individuals’ within the movements who are trying to use people for their own gains. Also, most of ideas that these movements express as their goals etc. are mostly reformist, and they usually attack capitalism (or neoliberalism) from “moral” instead of “class” position. As Dervim concluded – these movements are not revolutionary, but they are really important because they are full of radical people with which we can talk to and radicalize.

Third, regarding democratic assemblies I also agree with Devrim when he said that:


I don't think that you can have a mass meeting of half a million people. It just wouldn't work. In fact I would wonder if you could have a genuine mass meeting of 1% of that number. The biggest mass meeting that I have personally attended had about 1,000 people there, and although there was some real discussion, I feel that even with those numbers it is beginning to turn into a rally.

Of course what we advocate is councils made up of delegates from mass meetings, but here lies another problem. In these current movements what would people be delegates for? Who would they be representing? I think there is a difference between a general assembly of political activists, who represent nothing except themselves, and a meeting of people delegated by mass meetings at their workplace, or in their community.

I personally participated in democratic assemblies where more that thousand people were and I can say that it was a really powerful thing, but still it was a bit of chaotic, because all people were not able to talk and assembly lasted for more than 4 hours which was terrible. Delegates and delegation system is important.

[black magick hustla]

workplace, or in their community.

Devrim

i don't think we will see traditional councils based on "workplaces" and "industries" anymore, at least not in a significant extent. i agree with paul mattick jr about it. i also agree that all these assembly stuff is baby steps, but i don't think the future class struggle will look like the past, and a lot of it will be based on slumification and the precarious proletariat, than the traditional working class. i think the old forms of struggle of the working class were decimated by the triumph of regan, thatcher, et al, and neoliberal capitalism. i think the 1980s were a decisive fight and we lost.

[citizen of industry]

i don't think we will see traditional councils based on "workplaces" and "industries" anymore, at least not in a significant extent. i agree with paul mattick jr about it. i also agree that all these assembly stuff is baby steps, but i don't think the future class struggle will look like the past, and a lot of it will be based on slumification and the precarious proletariat, than the traditional working class. i think the old forms of struggle of the working class were decimated by the triumph of regan, thatcher, et al, and neoliberal capitalism. i think the 1980s were a decisive fight and we lost.

I agree the 80's were a tremendous defeat and basically gutted the labor movement in many countries. And the precariat is fastly becoming the majority of the workfore and is largely unorganized. So there is a good argument to suggest that labor unions are obsolete and future class struggle will take on a different form, like mass occupations, etc.

But I wonder if it is not possible to revive the labor movement. Let's look at some facts first (I'm using the US as an example): Yes, union membership has been on a decline since the 1940's, from about 36% of the workforce to about 12%. But union membership has been increasing since the recession, particularly in the service industry so perhaps that trend is reversing. The majority of the workforce is in the service/retail industry or does office work.

Then some of the challenges organizing in today's economy: it is difficult for a union to go up against a multi-national (think walmart) with neo-liberal government backing. You can go through the NLRB but will probably lose. So you need to take direct action in the workplace - strikes, work-to-rule, sabotage, sick-ins, etc. But to do that requires a majority of the shop be organized, which is difficult if you are trying to organize a transient workforce who is apathetic about their jobs(think walmart).

That last bit is the contradiction I can't get over. It is the hurdle, IMO, to reviving a strong labor movement. One possible benefit I can see, if your job sucks and you can just quit, well why not try to unionize? Who cares if you are fired? So that is the ideological struggle - "Why bother to unionize, I can just quit this shithole?" - Also "The economy is bad, I don't want to risk losing my job even though it sucks." - And "This place is a shithole and I don't care if I get fired, I'll try to organize." People think differently.

So how to organize? One way that piqued my interest (and this was discussed a bit on another thread) is solidarity unionism on a geographical basis. Rather than voting, carding, going to the NLRB with collective bargaining demands and then union vs. walmart, forming city unions - a good example of the is Montpelier downtown city workers union: Organizing all the service workers in the downtown area, and supporting each other by taking direct action in and against each others workplaces in the community, rather than taking on the corporation as a whole: http://news.infoshop.org/article.php?story=04/07/02/1795378

[Dunk]

The occupation is really quite interesting. I among many others in my circle of activist friends were very skeptical at first. Initially, it seemed that the Wall Street movement was a collection of typical "NYU Hipsters." In fact, we were basically correct about that demographic but it has since morphed into an amazing array of diversity with respect to age, race, socioeconomic background, labor/students, etc. I find this to be extremely promising. And upon reflection, I don't think it is necessarily a bad thing that it was the "privileged class" of student intellectuals who initialized the occupation; after all, they have the time, often the money and the radical education to get the ball rolling.

I don't think this rebellion can be branded as anything but organic. It is a poetic expression of working-class anger and insecurity that has finally come to be expressed in a constructive, organized, disruptive, class-based manner. I don't think it is trivial that some are referring to this as the American Autumn.

Admittedly, I originally felt that the strategy behind this movement was rooted in neo-anarchist, decentralized, anti-hierarchical thinking where coming to a consensus on anything (not limited to a set of demands) would be near impossible and perhaps structurally sabotaged from its conception – specifically because of the decision making method of using a general assembly. I must say, however, that upon participating in this burgeoning movement that I feel my original critique was rooted more in ideology than it was in material realities. In fact, it truly is amazing how the democratic process operates there - especially, but not limited to the creative method of speech-crowd repetition whereas because the NYPD has banned voice amplification, a speaker will chant "mike check," the entire crowd immediately quiets down and whatever he/she says is repeated by the entire mass of people for everyone to hear! In a strange twist of irony, despite the NYPD's attempt to silence protesters, this has actually strengthened the solidarity, organization and discipline of the movement! This, in my opinion, makes this a rather sophisticated movement if not for anything else, its ability to adapt in incredibly constructive ways. I do still believe, though, that we should proceed with a healthy skepticism with respect to the efficacy of a consensus-based general assembly decision making process; especially as the mass of people swells.

Programmatically, I believe there is a growing number of people who see the creation of a set of demands as being vitally important as the movement progresses. Based on my observations, however, there are still people – including I believe, some of the original organizers – who feel that placing demands upon our political system is useless because of its dysfunction and that perhaps trying to do so will lend legitimacy to our broken system of governance. This in my opinion is an immature approach to movement politics that ignores the historical empiricism which illustrates quite clearly that sustained disruptive social movements are extremely effective at forcing otherwise dysfunctional governments to respond to society's needs. Furthermore, if we adopt the notion that demands are useless – and perhaps detrimental – then we are essentially embracing the idea that anything short of a revolution which completely restructures our political-economic system is to render the Wall Street occupation as being nothing more than a symbolic gesture of working-class strife. I believe this is a sentiment we must reject.

There is no indication that this movement is going to die anytime soon but we need something concrete to organize around in order to build a critical mass. It's getting cold out there and once sickness and fatigue really set it, the fully committed cadre who actually sleep there are going to need something more to keep them energized than just marching across bridges and the occasional drum circle. I want to clarify that I'm not undermining the significance or importance of the recent marches but we need tens of thousands of people on a regular basis in order to achieve the militant, disruptive civil-disobedience needed to actually challenge capital.

As for the million dollar questions of "radicalness:" There are a lot of leftists participating in this movement. In fact, I'd say they are the heart of it. Yes, there are definitely liberals and social democrats as well but my feeling is that this movement has the potential to be something truly radical. There have been widespread chants against Wall Street, but against capitalism as well and I think that is extremely promising. What is needed now is the agitation from radical, sane leftist formations who have the ability to influence the course of this movement away from reactionary liberal politics towards a new, sustainable, politically and economically democratic vision of society. An example of this would be to extend the current rhetoric of Wall Street's influence over politics towards an overarching ethic that holds all institutions, political and economic actors, production, etc. accountable to democratic processes.

The Occupy Wall Street movement is something that we desperately need. While it is still in its infant stage, I think there are clear signs that this movement has the potential of becoming a serious threat to the current oligarchical paradigm. With every day that goes by, the maturation of this movement seems to grow as participants adapt to police repression, well known figures such as Frances Fox Piven, Michael Moore, Joseph Stiglitz and even celebrities like Susan Sarandon and Roseanne Barr join the ranks of protesters, communication between the initial Wall Street occupation and the growing number of occupations around the country increases and regular teach-ins are held with key figures like economist Richard Wolff. And, it should not be overlooked that the feeling of community which exists at the Wall Street occupation has been so strong that many protesters have chosen to stay days if not weeks because of the bond they feel with fellow comrades; dare I say this solidarity may be the key to a successful movement? Possibly, but like everything else, only time will tell. What is certain, however, is that the Unites States has not seen such a spontaneous, organic, class-based movement in decades. Perhaps this will in fact be our American Autumn.


I agree with nearly everything he claims. I would add that while demands are certainly not useless, it should be discussed that if this movement gains enough strength to be able to make demands and lead the capitalist class to compromise, that we only delay the inevitable day when we or our children will be back in the same situation. A sort of "back the progressive working class but never stop telling them the truth about the situation".

I think it's undeniable that this is a working class movement, though I'm unsure as to whether anyone has said otherwise. If it develops enough strength to make broad demands to the ruling class, then our class must be sufficiently conscious, organized, and powerful enough to overthrow our oppressors and assume democratic control over production.

A question I've been asking myself recently is, "Do you have to be a self avowed communist to be a communist?" or "Can radicalization develop quickly in the midst of these struggles?" - a sort of "liberal today, challenging the ruling class tomorrow?" type of phenomenon?

[nguyenmuabien]

should be more careful before deciding, if not there will be no good results. but who will make the final decision?

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I think that new forms of media are hugely important, but also that their role mustn't be overstated. The events in Egypt were described as a 'Facebook Revolution', but it is worth remembering that in the run up to the events in Tahir square various organisations in Egypt handed out hundreds of thousands if not millions of leaflets.

Devrim

What has made it possible to print millions of impressive looking leaflets.

I agree that when it comes to communication, we shouldn't think that the revolution started with the iPad or Twitter. It started with the early macintosh, the sega megadrive and the Nokia 3210, and evolved from there.

So maybe we should thank Steve Jobs a bit. :lol:

[Искра]

Why not workplace councils? I participated in 2 of them (or 1... I'm not sure now). They are good stuff when workers (especially in "state" industry) are on the strike or when they are fighting for their rights etc. That's the best way to organise them and to make them to decide about their future moves without unions and political shit.

[Devrim]

I think that new forms of media are hugely important, but also that their role mustn't be overstated. The events in Egypt were described as a 'Facebook Revolution', but it is worth remembering that in the run up to the events in Tahir square various organisations in Egypt handed out hundreds of thousands if not millions of leaflets.What has made it possible to print millions of impressive looking leaflets.

I agree that when it comes to communication, we shouldn't think that the revolution started with the iPad or Twitter. It started with the early macintosh, the sega megadrive and the Nokia 3210, and evolved from there.


What about the Telegraph. I would bet that in 1848 people all around Europe and even the world were going on about the 'telegraph revolution'.

I am old enough to remember when we had to produce leaflets before any of those things you mention.

There was once a machine called a typewriter...:blushing:

Devrim

[Devrim]

i don't think we will see traditional councils based on "workplaces" and "industries" anymore, at least not in a significant extent. i agree with paul mattick jr about it. i also agree that all these assembly stuff is baby steps, but i don't think the future class struggle will look like the past, and a lot of it will be based on slumification and the precarious proletariat, than the traditional working class. i think the old forms of struggle of the working class were decimated by the triumph of regan, thatcher, et al, and neoliberal capitalism. i think the 1980s were a decisive fight and we lost.

The 1980s were a massive defeat, which the working class still hasn't fully recovered from.

I still think though that the 'mass worker' still has an important role within the class struggle. Although in some countries there are numerically far fewer of them than there once were, they still carry a weight within the class struggle disproportionate to their actual numbers.

Devrim

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

What about the Telegraph. I would bet that in 1848 people all around Europe and even the world were going on about the 'telegraph revolution'.

I am old enough to remember when we had to produce leaflets before any of those things you mention.

There was once a machine called a typewriter...:blushing:

Devrim

Ha, fair enough point, but was it not the case with these things that they were a crude form of distribution, quite apart from the free, instant and numerous distribution of media that we have today.

We now have the possibility for anybody with access to the correct media, to upload videos, write blogs or make websites accessible by the entire population that has access to similar media.

How many leaflets could you make with a typewriter, is what i'm trying to say! Certainly not an accessible mode of communication, which is what i'm trying to say. Today there is a greater possibility of a non-vanguard led revolution, because we the masses have the ability to access and share knowledge on a different level, whereas previously there was certainly a divide between those who were indulged in overtly political work, and those who mostly engaged in selling their labour for 50+% of the day to survive.

[Devrim]

How many leaflets could you make with a typewriter, is what i'm trying to say! Certainly not an accessible mode of communication, which is what i'm trying to say.

As many as you can print is the answer. There are times when a leaflet is a much more accessible form of communication. I want to give one example.

In 1988, we were involved in a series of strikes at work, and there was a ballot for a national strike. We printed and distributed 10,000 leaflets in London offices in the 24 hours following the ballot result, with all of the major offices covered within two hours of the results announcement. For anyone who wants to see exactly how bad leaflets looked in those days, a pdf can be found here (http://libcom.org/files/communication-worker-5.pdf).

So within a day, we had distributed our leaflet to an eighth of the 80,000 London workforce. When you consider that people would have shown it to others and that many would have been read by more than one person, it seems to me to be quite a respectable proportion of the workforce.


We now have the possibility for anybody with access to the correct media, to upload videos, write blogs or make websites accessible by the entire population that has access to similar media.

Yes, accessible, but in the avalanche of information that is today's multimedia how many people do access these things.

Don't get me wrong, I think that the 'new media' is very important. The question is realising what its place is, and using it effectively.

Looking at something much more recent that I was involved in work around the TEKEL struggle in Turkey, the ICC, which I was a member of at the time, did three leaflets during this struggle. Looking at the relevant page on the ICC website, we can see that these leaflets were read by between 1,053 and 1,576 people. Now perhaps this reflects on how poorly the ICC uses its website, but it shouldn't be forgotten that internet access is much lower in Turkey than in, for example, the UK (and I assume it is even lower in Egypt). However, I know for a fact that the ICC distributed at least 4,000 of each of these leaflets. As you see very few political leaflets in Turkey compared to the UK , where you come home with enough paper to reconstruct a rain forrest, and because of this people are more willing to read them, and in fact often form an orderly queue to get one, we can assume that at least an equal number of people read the leaflet as read it later on the website.

Not only this, but on a demonstration in a workers' dispute you are targeting exactly the audience that you want to hit. Surely different forms of media play a complimentary role in that a leaflet has your web address on and also advertises your website.

Devrim

[Искра]

I agree with Devrim and I would like to stress that physical propaganda is really important. Leaflets, papers etc. offer even greater opportunities than Internet propaganda. The most important factor is an opportunity for a conversation. When you give someone a leaflet with, for example, red and black star or a sabcat (I was in an anarcho-syndicalist organisation, so that’s why I chose those symbols), they ask you “What a heck is this?”, “Who are you?”, “What do you want?” etc. which gives you an opportunity to explain your position etc.


Also, when you put a lot of posters on the streets people feel the power.