Occupy Wall Street statement by Internationalist Perspective

[HEAD ICE]

The following leaflet was handed out at the Occupy Wall Street demo today in Manhattan:

THEY DON’T GET IT….

When the media talk about Occupy Wall Street, they often do so with disdain: a movement that has no leaders, no set of demands, can’t be taken seriously. In a typical article, the New York Times quoted an ‘expert’ saying, “if the movement is to have lasting impact, it will have to develop leaders and clear demands”, and another one which stated that the passions have to be “channeled into institutions”. (NYT, 10/4) Their message to you is clear: ‘Go back to ‘politics as usual’, follow leaders, work within institutions, become foot-soldiers for the Democratic party and the unions in elections and other campaigns that change nothing at all, that don’t question the power structures that prop up this insane money-system.

They don’t get it that the absence of leaders in this movement is not a weakness but a strength, testifying to our collective determination, to our refusal to remain followers. They don’t get it that the absence of a narrow set of demands that can be recuperated by this or that institution, results from our understanding that the problem lies much deeper. That there are no quick fixes for a system that produces growing inequality, mass unemployment and misery, wars and ecological disasters.

If these problems could be solved by electing wiser politicians, adopting better laws etc, ‘politics as usual’ might be the way to go. But they can’t be solved that way. Politicians everywhere are bound by higher laws, the laws of capital. That’s why governments everywhere, regardless of their political color, are imposing austerity, forcing the working population to sacrifice so that more can be paid to the owners of capital. In fact the harshest cuts in wages, pensions and jobs are implemented by a ‘socialist’ government (in Greece). Politicians on the left may clamor for massive public spending , but that would only mean that we would be made poorer in a different way, through inflation.

There are no quick fixes because the system itself is obsolete. Pain and suffering are sometimes unavoidable but capitalism creates ever more pain that is easily avoidable, that only exists because in this society, profit trumps human needs. Almost two billion people on this planet are unemployed because capitalism has no need for them. Hundreds of millions live in slums, because building decent houses for them is not profitable. Many die of hunger each day because it’s not profitable to feed them. Everyone knows our planet is in danger and yet capitalism is continuing to destroy it in its desperate hunt for profit. Productivity never was higher, yet poverty increases. The know-how and resources are there for every inhabitant of this planet to live a decent life but that would not be profitable. Abundance has become possible but capitalism can’t handle abundance. It needs scarcity. Abundance in capitalism means overproduction, crisis, misery. This is insane. It must stop.

WE HAVE TO THINK OUTSIDE THE BOX

Capitalism is not “the end of history” but just a transient phase. It has changed the world but now no longer fits into it. We have to accept the fact that capitalism offers no perspective, no future. We have to prepare for a post-capitalist world, in which human relations are no longer commercial transactions, in which goods no longer represent a quantity of money but a concrete means to satisfy real human needs. A world in which competing corporations and warring nations are replaced by a human community that uses the resources of all for the benefit of all. We call that communism but it has nothing in common with the state-capitalist regimes that exist or existed in Russia, China and Cuba. Nothing is changed fundamentally if capitalists are replaced with bureaucrats with supposedly better intentions. Those regimes were not only thoroughly undemocratic, they also perpetuate wage-labor, exploitation and oppression of the vast majority of the population. The change must go deeper and must emancipate the oppressed, make them part of a real democracy instead of the sham that exists today.

In 2011, ten years after the attacks on New York that launched a decade of fear and demoralization, a breach has been opened. From Tunis to Cairo to Athens to Madrid to Santiago to New York, a fever is spreading. After taking it on the chin for so long, the working class, employed or unemployed, is beginning to rise up. We’re not gonna take it anymore! Something has changed. True, the Occupy Wall Street movement will not last forever. At some point, it will end, without any clear victory. But it’s just the beginning. This dynamic will continue and will gather strength. Be a part of it!

INTERNATIONALIST PERSPECTIVE

[Threetune]

What a predictably miserable and ultimately sinister piece of academic liberal anti-communist idealism.

“We have to prepare for a post-capitalist world, in which human relations are no longer commercial transactions, in which goods no longer represent a quantity of money but a concrete means to satisfy real human needs.” etc

And how does INTERNATIONALIST PERSPECTIVE recommend we get to a “post capitalist world” without destroying the massive and vicious state power of capitalism?

http://s25.stockmediaserver.com/smsdownloads/index.cfm?mode=WMcomp&imgid=IMSIMAGE:3F9B93E8-F53A-4079-978FB767BC84675B&wm=watermark_cdbank.png


‘Don’t tell the workers that they will have to build their own state power.’

[HEAD ICE]

What a predictably miserable and ultimately sinister piece of academic liberal anti-communist idealism.

“We have to prepare for a post-capitalist world, in which human relations are no longer commercial transactions, in which goods no longer represent a quantity of money but a concrete means to satisfy real human needs.” etc

And how does INTERNATIONALIST PERSPECTIVE recommend we get to a “post capitalist world” without destroying the massive and vicious state power of capitalism?

http://s25.stockmediaserver.com/smsdownloads/index.cfm?mode=WMcomp&imgid=IMSIMAGE:3F9B93E8-F53A-4079-978FB767BC84675B&wm=watermark_cdbank.png


‘Don’t tell the workers that they will have to build their own state power.’

lol wut

[Die Neue Zeit]

When the media talk about Occupy Wall Street, they often do so with disdain: a movement that has no leaders, no set of demands, can’t be taken seriously.

A "movement" that has no demands at all shouldn't be taken seriously. It isn't a genuine movement.


In a typical article, the New York Times quoted an ‘expert’ saying, “if the movement is to have lasting impact, it will have to develop leaders and clear demands”, and another one which stated that the passions have to be “channeled into institutions”. (NYT, 10/4)

I agree with the NYT, but for entirely different reasons. Leadership needs to be developed, demands need to be articulated beyond single-issue mindsets, and passions do need to be channeled into movement-developed institutions.


Their message to you is clear: ‘Go back to ‘politics as usual’, follow leaders, work within institutions, become foot-soldiers for the Democratic party and the unions in elections and other campaigns that change nothing at all, that don’t question the power structures that prop up this insane money-system.

What I've suggested isn't politics as usual, becoming foot soldiers for bourgeois parties and yellow unions, or campaigns that change nothing at all or don't question the power structures.


They don’t get it that the absence of a narrow set of demands that can be recuperated by this or that institution, results from our understanding that the problem lies much deeper. That there are no quick fixes for a system that produces growing inequality, mass unemployment and misery, wars and ecological disasters.

What they and perhaps you don't get is that the absence of a more comprehensive set of demands and a commitment to movement-developed institutions betrays a level of political immaturity.

[Jose Gracchus]

REBUILD THE SPD!!! The way forward is to build the alternative culture of the working-class. That leaflet will be off the presses tomorrow. Should include urls of your articles.

[Os Cangaceiros]

a "movement" that has no demands at all shouldn't be taken seriously.

but what about dada

[RebelDog]

A "movement" that has no demands at all shouldn't be taken seriously.


Demands without a movement will never be taken seriously.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Without a revolutionary program there can be no revolutionary movement.

[RED DAVE]

A "movement" that has no demands at all shouldn't be taken seriously. It isn't a genuine movement.Well, this movement does have demands. However, they're not focused or clarified.


I agree with the NYT, but for entirely different reasons. Leadership needs to be developed, demands need to be articulated beyond single-issue mindsets, and passions do need to be channeled into movement-developed institutions.All thrue, but the Left needs a strategy for reaching the OWS people.


What I've suggested isn't politics as usual, becoming foot soldiers for bourgeois parties and yellow unions, or campaigns that change nothing at all or don't question the power structures.If you are talking about the famous pre-WWI SPD as a model, there were very few organizations on the Left that were more reformist or bureaucratized. If we wanted to build a social democratic or a stalinist party, it would be a great model. But for a revolutionary democratic organization based on the working class, it ain't worth shit.


What they and perhaps you don't get is that the absence of a more comprehensive set of demands and a commitment to movement-developed institutions betrays a level of political immaturity.And what you don't get is that the process of building a movement at this time involves not using language like the above outside of out little Left ghetto.

I suggest some weekend you jet down to NYC and check it out.

RED DAVE

[Hoipolloi Cassidy]

http://i226.photobucket.com/albums/dd258/TheOrangePress/WOID%20Album/xx13Inheritors.gif
...and, as in '68, there are two strategies here in conflict. One, described earlier (http://theorangepress.com/woid/woid20/woidxx12.html), is to create a space - a real, a physical, and that's important - in which all kinds of things may happen. The other is the strategy of the "inheritor party," beloved of Marxists in the nineteen-twenties. "You see," the German Communists used to say as Hitler rose to power, "the movement of the Mahsses to our side is unavoidable, a Law of History, we only need to position the Party properly to pick the fruit of anger when it's ripe. The Mahsses have nowhere to turn." It seems that everyone "supports" the Occupation now: the Democrats, the unions, even George Soros, who knows a good investment when he sees one; here in New York we know a fake, either a fake Louis Vuiton or a fake supporter. The liberation of the Professional Class will be the task of the Professional Class alone.

[RED DAVE]

...and, as in '68, there are two strategies here in conflict. One, described earlier (http://theorangepress.com/woid/woid20/woidxx12.html), is to create a space - a real, a physical, and that's important - in which all kinds of things may happen. The other is the strategy of the "inheritor party," beloved of Marxists in the nineteen-twenties. "You see," the German Communists used to say as Hitler rose to power, "the movement of the Mahsses to our side is unavoidable, a Law of History, we only need to position the Party properly to pick the fruit of anger when it's ripe. The Mahsses have nowhere to turn." It seems that everyone "supports" the Occupation now: the Democrats, the unions, even George Soros, who knows a good investment when he sees one; here in New York we know a fake, either a fake Louis Vuiton or a fake supporter. The liberation of the Professional Class will be the task of the Professional Class alone.Actually, there was and is a third strategy, which is, I believe, the correct one.

The second strategy, which we may call "Inhertance," is as bad as you've portrayed it if not actually worse. What it assumes is that we on the Left "know" what to do in revolutionary situations (or pre-revolutionary or pre-pre-revolutionary). Fact is that Marxism provides a method, which is the equivalent for a carpenter of a set of tools, not a blueprint. How many times have I seen people from all tendencies trying to lord it over others, with results we know.

As to the first strategy, it has its pitfalls as well. The space you speak of where things can happen can easily become, because of the energy needed to maintain it, a thing in and of itself, whose purpose is the pleasure of its existence. And people do not want to expand it or leave it.

I believe that for Marxists, we have to "get down and dirty with the people." We have both to learn and teach and, eventually, if not to lead then to help produce the leaders of future. We are the memory of the revolution.

RED DAVE

[Threetune]

Communism can only proceed with a polemical struggle against all other contending ideologies. Generally speaking they will be reformism, pacifism, nationalism, and economism etc, by advancing the argument at every opportunity for workers control of the world and its resources. We are in conflict with all existing capitalist ideology. That is the objective – the program! That is the consciousness that is required to win!


Everything else is not a win, why bother arguing for it? Why put it off until “more favourable circumstances” TOMORROWS NEVER COME!

Attempting to fling a net over a movement with some fiendishly clever ‘left’ ‘program’ which is usually a patronising compromise and betrayal of everyone concerned is just hopeless.

Just tell the truth about capitalism, its crisis and its unending war drive and challenge anyone who can to come up with a ‘better solution’ than building workers states to a public debate in front of the working class. That debate will have to be had out; there is no avoiding it, the sooner that debate starts the better.


The population of the entire planet is assembling for just such a debate at last, let’s have it.

[RED DAVE]

Communism can only proceed with a polemical struggle against all other contending ideologies. Generally speaking they will be reformism, pacifism, nationalism, and economism etc, by advancing the argument at every opportunity for workers control of the world and its resources. We are in conflict with all existing capitalist ideology. That is the objective – the program! That is the consciousness that is required to win! So, if you visit one of the occupations, is your program "workers control of the world"?


Everything else is not a win, why bother arguing for it? Why put it off until “more favourable circumstances” TOMORROWS NEVER COME!I think that you have no idea how the revolutionary process takes place.


Attempting to fling a net over a movement with some fiendishly clever ‘left’ ‘program’ which is usually a patronising compromise and betrayal of everyone concerned is just hopeless.That is not the purpose of a revolutionary program: to deceive people. The purpose of such a program is to articulate the needs of people, in the form of demands, while pointing out that even these demands are inadequate and what is needed is the overthrow of capitalism.


Just tell the truth about capitalism, its crisis and its unending war drive and challenge anyone who can to come up with a ‘better solution’ than building workers states to a public debate in front of the working class. That debate will have to be had out; there is no avoiding it, the sooner that debate starts the better.There is no such arena for such a debate yet.


The population of the entire planet is assembling for just such a debate at last, let’s have it.Unfortunately, much of the "population of the entire planet" is watching "Meet the Kardashians."

RED DAVE

[Threetune]

So, if you visit one of the occupations, is your program "workers control of the world"?

I think that you have no idea how the revolutionary process takes place.[/FONT][/COLOR]

That is not the purpose of a revolutionary program: to deceive people. The purpose of such a program is to articulate the needs of people, in the form of demands, while pointing out that even these demands are inadequate and what is needed is the overthrow of capitalism.[/FONT][/COLOR]

There is no such arena for such a debate yet. [/FONT][/COLOR]

Unfortunately, much of the "population of the entire planet" is watching "Meet the Kardashians."

RED DAVE


All this amounts to is cynical ‘blame the workers’ pessimism.
You have an “arena”, the ‘parliaments in the parks’ set up by (what we in the UK call) the ‘radical’ ‘middle classes’.

Only incorrigible sectarian idiots, idealist ultra ‘lefts’ and lazy ass dilatants would argue against communist workers piling in there to start agitating for workers control of the world when the issue being protested is Wall St control of the world.

Your demands are “inadequate” as you yourself admit, exactly because they are not about workers control of the world. But still, reformist like, you stupidly keep putting forward your “inadequate” demands.

Why are you against talking about workers control of the world? What superior ‘clever’ understanding do you have that would tell anyone that they “have no idea how the revolutionary process takes place.”

Come on tell us what we should be saying instead RED DAVE

[RED DAVE]

All this amounts to is cynical ‘blame the workers’ pessimism.Far from it. I do not "blame the workers" nor am I pessimistic.


You have an “arena”, the ‘parliaments in the parks’ set up by (what we in the UK call) the ‘radical’ ‘middle classes’. Correct. However, this arena is also attracting large-scale working class support, espcially that of organized labor.


Only incorrigible sectarian idiots, idealist ultra ‘lefts’ and lazy ass dilatants would argue against communist workers piling in there to start agitating for workers control of the world when the issue being protested is Wall St control of the world.When you find those "communist workers," let us know. Right now, they do not exist in any numbers at all.


Your demands are “inadequate” as you yourself admit, exactly because they are not about workers control of the world. But still, reformist like, you stupidly keep putting forward your “inadequate” demands.I am not a reformist and neither am I a blathering ultra-leeftist. I said;


he purpose of such a program is to articulate the needs of people, in the form of demands, while pointing out that even these demands are inadequate and what is needed is the overthrow of capitalism.This is the essence of formulating meaningful demands that workers can organize around. To call for "workers control of the world" without a series of transitional demands is stupid.

The Bolsheviks called for "Peace, Bread, Land," not "workers control of the world." The put forth a series of demands that met the felt needs of the workers and peasants and which the society could not meet.


Why are you against talking about workers control of the world?I'm not. But I also don't think it's going to happen before Wednesday, and so we need a set of immediate demands to agitate around.


What superior ‘clever’ understanding do you have that would tell anyone that they “have no idea how the revolutionary process takes place.”I have something over 150 years of Marxist experience.


Come on tell us what we should be saying instead RED DAVE What I am saying is that a series of meaningful demands, a program in other words, has to be put forth and fought for a the occupations. To run around screeching "workers control of the world," accomplishes nothing.

But by all means, instead of polemicizing against me, have the courage of your convictions and go to your local occupation and agitate around that slogan. Let us know what happens. If there is no occupation, start one.

ETA: Here is a link to the OP statement –

http://internationalist-perspective.org/blog/

RED DAVE

[Threetune]

CW -A communist worker can go down to the Occupation or anywhere else you like and politely strike up a conversation with some workers or whoever might be willing to talk and listen. Like this for example:

CW ‘Hi there, I just got here, have you been here long?’

Answer

CW ‘So, what’s happening?’

Answer

CW ‘OK, well I’m here because I think there’s going to be no end to these struggles, one way or another, and I think it’s time we all joined in, otherwise they’re going to think they can push us around forever.’

Response/Answer

CW ‘Yes?! What is anyone saying about spreading this thing and occupying the workplaces and picketing the financial/ commercial district to a standstill? We should hit them where it hurts em I reckon’

Response/Answer

CW ‘I think this entire capitalist racket is finished and will drag us all down with it if the working class doesn’t start organising to take over. There’s no point in complaining about this system if we’re not prepared to take power ourselves, is there?’

Response/ Answer

At this point RED DAVE with his leaflet joins the discussion

RD “So, is your program "workers control of the world"?

CW ‘I’m saying we have no alternative’

RD “I think that you have no idea how the revolutionary process takes place.”

CW ‘Ye well, attempting to fling a net over a movement with some fiendishly clever ‘left’ ‘program’ which is usually a patronising compromise and betrayal of everyone concerned is just hopeless.’

RD “That is not the purpose of a revolutionary program: to deceive people. The purpose of such a program is to articulate the needs of people, in the form of demands, while pointing out that even these demands are inadequate and what is needed is the overthrow of capitalism.”

CW ‘Your demands are “inadequate” as you yourself admit, exactly because they are not about workers control of the world. But still, reformist like you stupidly keep putting forward your “inadequate” demands. Just tell the truth about capitalism, its crisis and its unending war drive and challenge anyone who can to come up with a ‘better solution’ than building workers states to a public debate in front of the working class. That debate will have to be had out; there is no avoiding it, the sooner that debate starts the better.’

RD “There is no such arena for such a debate yet.”

CW ‘The population of the entire planet is assembling for just such debates at last, let’s have it.’

RD “What I am saying is that a series of meaningful demands, a program in other words, has to be put forth and fought for at the occupations. To run around screeching "workers control of the world," accomplishes nothing.”

CW ‘Well RD firstly I’m not running around screaming, but if you think saying that workers should take control of the world will accomplishes nothing, why else are we here talking to these citizens?

[Jose Gracchus]

Different dialogue with occupiers will not prepare the working-class to take "state power" in any substantive way.

Your comments are therefore irrelevent.

[RED DAVE]

communist workerYou show me where these communist workers are anywhere outside your mind, and then we'll talk. In the meantime, you're indulging in a literary fantasy.

In the meantime, here's my version:


A communist worker can go down to the Occupation or anywhere else you like and politely strike up a conversation with some workers or whoever might be willing to talk and listen. Like this for example:Again, where are these communist workers? You?

So let's see what really happened down there.


Hi there, I just got here, have you been here long?
I've been here for two weeks
So, what’s happening?
Man, we're really makin' the revolution right here and now.
OK, well I’m here because I think there’s going to be no end to these struggles, one way or another, and I think it’s time we all joined in, otherwise they’re going to think they can push us around forever.
That's what we're doin' man. We're all together. This is cool.
Yes?! What is anyone saying about spreading this thing and occupying the workplaces and picketing the financial/ commercial district to a standstill? We should hit them where it hurts em I reckon.
Yeah man. That's cool.
I think this entire capitalist racket is finished and will drag us all down with it if the working class doesn’t start organising to take over. There’s no point in complaining about this system if we’re not prepared to take power ourselves, is there?
No man. I'm with you on that.At this point RED DAVE with his leaflet joins the discussion.


So, is your program "workers control of the world"?
I’m saying we have no alternative.
Occupier, I'm not sure about program, but we need to have some goals. The revolution ain't going to happen tomorrow.
I think that you have no idea how the revolutionary process takes place.
Ye well, attempting to fling a net over a movement with some fiendishly clever ‘left’ ‘program’ which is usually a patronising compromise and betrayal of everyone concerned is just hopeless.
Man, you guys sound like Communists from the 1930s. Either of you could be played by John Garfield. Why don't you speak English?
That is not the purpose of a revolutionary program: to deceive people. The purpose of such a program is to articulate the needs of people, in the form of demands, while pointing out that even these demands are inadequate and what is needed is the overthrow of capitalism.
Your demands are “inadequate” as you yourself admit, exactly because they are not about workers control of the world. But still, reformist like you stupidly keep putting forward your “inadequate” demands. Just tell the truth about capitalism, its crisis and its unending war drive and challenge anyone who can to come up with a ‘better solution’ than building workers states to a public debate in front of the working class. That debate will have to be had out; there is no avoiding it, the sooner that debate starts the better.
I'm getting a headache. Either of you guys got some Tylenol.
There is no such arena for such a debate yet.
The population of the entire planet is assembling for just such debates at last, let’s have it.
I think we have to reach out to people who'll listen to us.
What I am saying is that a series of meaningful demands, a program in other words, has to be put forth and fought for at the occupations. To run around screeching "workers control of the world," accomplishes nothing.
Well RD firstly I’m not running around screaming, but if you think saying that workers should take control of the world will accomplishes nothing, why else are we here talking to these citizens?
I don't think we're ready to take over the world yet, but we do need to have some goals, like doing something about evictions. My folks are about to get evicted. And we do have some unions coming around. Listen, I'll see you guys around. I'm going over to the food table.And the beat goes on. I'll be visiting the Occupation in New York this evening. Maybe I'll run into Threetune.

But I doubt it.

RED DAVE

[Threetune]

Different dialogue with occupiers will not prepare the working-class to take "state power" in any substantive way.

Your comments are therefore irrelevent.


Another ‘left’ hoping to shut-down communist discussion in favour of self admitted “inadequate” ‘demands’ that never include taking power and building a workers state, the only solution to degenerate capitalist crisis war mayhem.

The sooner you face up to this “inadequacy” in your ‘programs’ the sooner the working class, as a class, can move forward to revolutionary understanding and victory.

Alternatively, you can continue keeping quiet about it and just nudging and winking at it, consciously holding back this crucial theoretical understanding like all good elitist fake ‘lefts’ always have done.

[Threetune]

You show me where these communist workers are anywhere outside your mind, and then we'll talk. In the meantime, you're indulging in a literary fantasy.

In the meantime:

Again, where are these communist workers? You?

Kind of sounds like, "Do you come here often?" but I'll let it go.[/FONT][/COLOR]

Answer

CW ‘So, what’s happening?’

Answer

CW ‘OK, well I’m here because I think there’s going to be no end to these struggles, one way or another, and I think it’s time we all joined in, otherwise they’re going to think they can push us around forever.’

Response/Answer

CW ‘Yes?! What is anyone saying about spreading this thing and occupying the workplaces and picketing the financial/ commercial district to a standstill? We should hit them where it hurts em I reckon’

Response/Answer

CW ‘I think this entire capitalist racket is finished and will drag us all down with it if the working class doesn’t start organising to take over. There’s no point in complaining about this system if we’re not prepared to take power ourselves, is there?’

Response/ Answer

At this point RED DAVE with his leafletjoins the discussion

RD “So, is your program "workers control of the world"?

CW ‘I’m saying we have no alternative’

RD “I think that you have no idea how the revolutionary process takes place.”

CW ‘Ye well, attempting to fling a net over a movement with some fiendishly clever ‘left’ ‘program’ which is usually a patronising compromise and betrayal of everyone concerned is just hopeless.’

RD “That is not the purpose of a revolutionary program: to deceive people. The purpose of such a program is to articulate the needs of people, in the form of demands, while pointing out that even these demands are inadequate and what is needed is the overthrow of capitalism.”

CW ‘Your demands are “inadequate” as you yourself admit, exactly because they are not about workers control of the world. But still, reformist like you stupidly keep putting forward your “inadequate” demands. Just tell the truth about capitalism, its crisis and its unending war drive and challenge anyone who can to come up with a ‘better solution’ than building workers states to a public debate in front of the working class. That debate will have to be had out; there is no avoiding it, the sooner that debate starts the better.’

RD “There is no such arena for such a debate yet.”

CW ‘The population of the entire planet is assembling for just such debates at last, let’s have it.’

RD “What I am saying is that a series of meaningful demands, a program in other words, has to be put forth and fought for at the occupations. To run around screeching "workers control of the world," accomplishes nothing.”

CW ‘Well RD firstly I’m not running around screaming, but if you think saying that workers should take control of the world will accomplishes nothing, why else are we here talking to these citizens?

RED DAVE[/QUOTE]

Sadly, it’s evident you’re not a communist worker. But are you seriously telling us that there are no communist workers in the US who could go to the demos? None on Revleft?

[RED DAVE]

Sadly, it’s evident you’re not a communist worker. But are you seriously telling us that there are no communist workers in the US who could go to the demos? None on Revleft? First of all, who the fuck are you to judge me? I've been a revolutionary inside the working class, white collar, blue collar and civil service, for over forty years and been a member of half a dozen unions. What are your creds, kiddo?

Second of all, there are very few "communist workers" in the US, and to build a strategy on such workers is a fantasy and shows your ignorance of US conditions.

RED DAVE

[Threetune]

First of all, who the fuck are you to judge me? I've been a revolutionary inside the working class, white collar, blue collar and civil service, for over forty years and been a member of half a dozen unions. What are your creds, kiddo?

Second of all, there are very few "communist workers" in the US, and to build a strategy on such workers is a fantasy and shows your ignorance of US conditions.

RED DAVE

OK, so don’t run off a few leaflets on your civil service copier. Don’t go to the park. Don’t talk to the ‘Occupy’ people about how we need a revolution to get rid of capitalism. Communist workers definitely will, that I am certain of. And they won’t be checking the union “creds” like some shiny ass ‘left’ bureaucrat erecting ‘programmatic’ hoops and organisational walls for workers to clamber over. It is the capitalist crisis that is driving workers on to the road of revolution, not some ‘left’ fantasy programs which you are already admitting are “inadequate”.

You can keep shying away from the necessity of having the debate about workers state power if you want to but its coming anyway, capitalist crisis guarantees it.

[citizen of industry]

Okay, so we're debating the necessity of transitional demands. In my experience, telling people the workers of the world need to unite, seize the means of production and create a workers state is going to fall on deaf ears. Understanding that requires theoretical knowledge, which isn't gained by a party paper or us preaching about it. It has to be studied. People have to want to study it themselves. If you try to explain the economics which back up your claim to half-interested people it just sounds like intellectual jargon. Maybe if you have mass organizations already capable and on the way to seizing power you can put out those slogans.

On the other hand, pointing the finger at capitalism and demanding things like no more bailouts for banks, redirecting military spending into social services, taxing the rich and corporations, universal employment, housing and healthcare,etc. gets more traction.

And guess what? These things are theoretically possible within the current governmental system, but they will never happen because of capitalism's insatiable drive for profit. So demanding these kinds of things is just a step away to a revolutionary attitude.

And I wouldn't shy away from a debate about workers state power if that was what people wanted to talk about. But I wouldn't emphasize that from the get-go. I'd emphasize the things people are pissed about.

[Threetune]

Okay, so we're debating the necessity of transitional demands. In my experience, telling people the workers of the world need to unite, seize the means of production and create a workers state is going to fall on deaf ears. Understanding that requires theoretical knowledge, which isn't gained by a party paper or us preaching about it. It has to be studied. People have to want to study it themselves. If you try to explain the economics which back up your claim to half-interested people it just sounds like intellectual jargon. Maybe if you have mass organizations already capable and on the way to seizing power you can put out those slogans.

On the other hand, pointing the finger at capitalism and demanding things like no more bailouts for banks, redirecting military spending into social services, taxing the rich and corporations, universal employment, housing and healthcare,etc. gets more traction.

And guess what? These things are theoretically possible within the current governmental system, but they will never happen because of capitalism's insatiable drive for profit. So demanding these kinds of things is just a step away to a revolutionary attitude.

And I wouldn't shy away from a debate about workers state power if that was what people wanted to talk about. But I wouldn't emphasize that from the get-go. I'd emphasize the things people are pissed about.

Okay, so we're debating the necessity of transitional demands." Or, the none- necessity of transitional demands. Or to be more specific, the none-necessity of the transitional demands that have been articulated so far on this board.

“ In my experience,telling people the workers of the world need to unite, seize the means of production and create a workers state is going to fall on deaf ears. “In your experience”? And who can deny the validity of your experience? Anyone can adopt this line of argument about anything. It’s unhelpful to say the least.

For example, in my experience ‘telling people the workers of the world need to unite, seize the means of production and create a workers state’ is understood more readily and fully, the more the capitalist system exhibits its vicious irrational exploitative crisis nature and you would not be able to deny the validity of my experience.

“Understanding that requires theoretical knowledge, which isn't gained by a party paper or us preaching about it. It has to be studied. People have to want to study it themselves.” Now here is a pile of subjective spaghetti that needs unravelling.

Understanding that “workers of the world need to unite, seize the means of production and create a workers state” requires some knowledge is true, but what are the theoretical obstacles which prevent that simple understanding, three simple ideas, can be grasped by even a child who can calculate 2+2 =4. It is simple like this in fact:

“The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains.” They have a world to win.” Marx.

That’s clear enough “requiring” no complex special theoretical knowledge to understanding.



Your assertion that “theoretical knowledge”, “isn’t gained by a party paper or your preaching about it” is no reflection on the workers capacity for understanding. It’s simply that your party papers and your “preaching” don’t present “theoretical knowledge” clearly, unambiguously and confidently as Karl Marx did in the statement above. In fact you obscure it. Here is an examples where you say:



“If you try to explain the economics which back up your claim to half-interested people it just sounds like intellectual jargon.” “claim” ? Are you hinting that “workers of the world need to unite, seize the means of production and create a workers state” isn’t true or needed now? It’s you who sound like a jaded cynical and contemptuous “preacher” blaming the “half- interested people” for sleeping through your “theoretical” sermons. And how convenient for you that only when there are “… mass organizations already capable and on the way to seizing power you can put out those slogans.” You can always put off revolutionary explanations until tomorrow and tomorrow and……….


“On the other hand, pointing the finger at capitalism and demanding things like no more bailouts for banks, redirecting military spending into social services, taxing the rich and corporations, universal employment, housing and healthcare, etc. gets more traction. “


“And guess what? These things are theoretically possible within the current governmental system, but they will never happen because of capitalism's insatiable drive for profit. So demanding these kinds of things is just a step away to a revolutionary attitude.”



Yes, tail-ending dead end trades union economism and reformist traction for your economist reformist politics. You can’t stop the "bailouts" under capitalism, can you?

The idea of "redirecting military spending into social services" is just a sick joke under capitalism. "Taxing the rich and corporations" is asking for more crumbs from the capitalist table instead of snatching the loaf and tacking over the whole bakery etc. "Universal employment" - under capitalism! And you talk about workers not having “theoretical understanding”, its fucking certifiable comrade is what it is.

[A Marxist Historian]

but what about dada

dada wasn't supposed to be taken seriously, and it never was. The dadaists would have been the first to object to anybody taking it seriously.

I mean hey, taking your lobster for a walk is not the solution to the problems of the world.

-M.H.-

[A Marxist Historian]

RED DAVE

Sadly, it’s evident you’re not a communist worker. But are you seriously telling us that there are no communist workers in the US who could go to the demos? None on Revleft? [/QUOTE]

Well, I suppose I qualify, more or less. I am a communist, and I used to be a worker, have a couple decades of union experience under my belt. Normally I wear my old union jacket to things like this, but today was too warm.

These rallies are very variegated. Just visited Occupy Berkeley and recoiled in horror. The rad-lib white petty bourgeoisie of Berkeley at their worst, sitting around practicing their weird little thumb movements like any other cult, doing a "Simon Says" call and response thing on all the little cult consensus procedures, reminding me of watching Sesame Street. A lot of the signs were pure Democratic Party politics, e.g. "we need another FDR."

Escaped by subway to Occupy Oakland, where you had a good sized mass rally with lots of working class and black participation, and a fair number of socialists on the fringes. However, you also had cooptation at its worst, with the same mayor and city council who sent the police to terrorize and brutalize the Oscar Grant protests, a true mass rebellion, now "endorsing" the whole thing, with the cops waiting in the wings.

Given the low political level and lack of class consciousness of the crowds, it's premature to talk about the OWS movement turning into a movement for workers control on a world basis. First things first.

Firstly, a lot of the marchers have a lot of illusions that capitalism can be reformed. But a lot of others are starting to grasp that the whole system is unreformable. So it is necessary to say loud and clear that the only solution to Wall Street domination is replacing capitalism with socialism. Once people are clear on that, we can move forward to how to get that, and start talking about workers control and a revolutionary party and so on and so forth.

Secondly, illusions in the Democrats are ubiquitous, even though many marchers understand that the Democrats are just as bad as the Republicans. But they too often have the concept that the Democrats are "selling out." So we need to explain how both parties are capitalist parties, and the Demos are just doing what comes naturally. We are getting a lot of help on that from the Democrats these days, especially from Obama, who is making it clear every day just how little the difference between him and the Republicans is. Answer: a workers party to fight for a workers government.

I like the Spartacist slogan, that we need a new ruling class to replace the 1%, the working class.

Thirdly, illusions in the cops as allegedly part of "the 99%." Now, the police are working overtime to clear that illusion up, but it is pretty deepseated in the white participants, who continue to be the great majority everywhere unfortunately.

At the current level of the movement, it is necessary to stick to basics like that and not to get too carried away in putting the cart before the horse.

-M.H.-

[A Marxist Historian]

Okay, so we're debating the necessity of transitional demands. In my experience, telling people the workers of the world need to unite, seize the means of production and create a workers state is going to fall on deaf ears. Understanding that requires theoretical knowledge, which isn't gained by a party paper or us preaching about it. It has to be studied. People have to want to study it themselves. If you try to explain the economics which back up your claim to half-interested people it just sounds like intellectual jargon. Maybe if you have mass organizations already capable and on the way to seizing power you can put out those slogans.

On the other hand, pointing the finger at capitalism and demanding things like no more bailouts for banks, redirecting military spending into social services, taxing the rich and corporations, universal employment, housing and healthcare,etc. gets more traction.

And guess what? These things are theoretically possible within the current governmental system, but they will never happen because of capitalism's insatiable drive for profit. So demanding these kinds of things is just a step away to a revolutionary attitude.

And I wouldn't shy away from a debate about workers state power if that was what people wanted to talk about. But I wouldn't emphasize that from the get-go. I'd emphasize the things people are pissed about.

Yes, put your finger on capitalism. But taxing the rich and all that may be more popular, but actually has the same problem as transitional demands of being too detailed, but lead in the wrong direction, whereas transitional demands, not just seize the means of production right away but real transitional demands, 30 for 40, sliding scale of wages tied to inflation, expropriate the thieving bankers etc. etc., lead in a *socialist* direction.

Tax the rich is exactly what Obama is calling for. Sure, you want to tax the rich a lot more than he does, but to the average person, maybe that means he understands the political situation better than you and is more practical.

He's not for redirecting spending from the military to social needs, but Nancy Pelosi is, though she's fairly timid about it. But, if the Demos and Repubs can't agree on how to balance the budget, that's the the fallback she managed to sneak in to the budget crisis resolution.

So the kind of demands that you want to raise, which are so popular in the OWS crowds, just make you the left wing of the Democratic Party. If that's what you fight for, whatever your intentions are you are just doing donkey work for the donkey party.

Taxing the rich just doesn't work. Taxes on the rich are quite high in Europe, and nonetheless Europe is in a bigger mess than the US is. We are in a worldwide crisis of capitalism, and more basic solutions, radical solutions, are needed.

Trotsky's Transitional Program explained how to get from here to there, and given that the world economic situation is pretty close to that in the '30s, just about all of it is relevant here and now. It's the best guide you can find to coming up with the right demands to raise, when we get to that point.

Right now, at OWS rallies, rather than trying to get those kind of demands adopted it's necessary to deal with basics, that capitalism can't be reformed, that the answer is socialism, and that the cops and the Democrats are our enemies and not our friends. Once that message gets across, then we can start arguing about exactly what demands to include in the program.

-M.H.-

[Die Neue Zeit]

Trotsky's Transitional Program is a classic example of broad economism, though:

http://s11.invisionfree.com/Kasama_Threads/ar/t493.htm

[A Marxist Historian]

Trotsky's Transitional Program is a classic example of broad economism, though:

http://s11.invisionfree.com/Kasama_Threads/ar/t493.htm

What's economism? It's disregarding the interests of non trade unionists and focusing only on narrow economic issues like higher wages and better working conditions.

Thus yes indeed, when and if we get to the point that it would actually be worthwhile fighting to get revolutionary demands adopted at Occupy Wall Street mass meetings, it is desperately necessary to have demands focusing on black oppression, oppression of immigrants, oppression of women etc. etc.

And you will find such demands in the Transitional Program, therefore it is not economist.

-M.H.-

[A Marxist Historian]

Trotsky's Transitional Program is a classic example of broad economism, though:

http://s11.invisionfree.com/Kasama_Threads/ar/t493.htm

Had a look at the Kasama thread. And it is in fact a fair criticism of how the TP is *misinterpreted* by some alleged Trotskyists.

But Trotsky's concept was not at all "tactics as process," where first you use demand number 1 in the program, build a movement around that, then in the next stage you get to number 2, etc. etc.

No, the Transitional Program was intended as a single integrated program for revolutionaries to advance in the context of mass workers movements, as a bridge between the demands of those movements and the overall solution of socialism. Naturally, the particular demand most relevant to the particular movement needs to get the most emphasis, that is elementary. But it is all of one piece, not a grab bag to snip formulas out of.

-M.H.-

[M42-AEK]

hey threetune, in your defense i am a worker and a communist, and am all for open discussion of the leftist perspective with occupiers and non occupiers alike, what harm can the spread of leftist ideas do? as long as you make a good impression. and it can be discussed in complex jargon but there's no need for that, words like 'fairness' and 'equality' work, plus you learn about sharing in preschool so it's not that complex

[Ravachol]

And pray tell, all the social-democrats and SPD-fetishists (Oh, did the 2nd international lead the working class into the brutal slaughter of the trenches, burying the legacy of social-democracy among the gassed corpses at Flanders fields? I didn't know!) in this thread: What demands should we make? Higher wages? Less layoffs? Perhaps someone else in office? :rolleyes:

The whole point of a demand is bending the knee. It is a prayer aimed at a series of institutions to reform this or that aspect of capitalism, to integrate the antagonist movement within Capitalism's already over-bloated body. It recognizes the state, the bosses, the bureaucrats and all their institutions as legitimate and asks them to fulfill a demand, changing the form but not the content of the social hourwork.

Instead of demands, ways of struggle should be developed which realize their own demands. A factory occupation doesn't make demands, it takes the factory and uses it. Shutting down the stock exchange doesn't make demands, it turns off a central node within the financial sphere. Instead of making a myriad of recuperable, reformist demands we should develop forms of struggle that actually realize these demands without turning to institutionalization and it's bourgeois tentacles. This doesn't mean we shouldn't look at what we want realised, it simply means that any antagonist movement shouldn't make demands aimed at the existing power structures but simply realize their demands to the full extent of their possibilities.

There is only one demand, one that will not be fulfilled voluntarily by those in power, worthy of making and that demand is libertarian communism.