Willthe Democratic Party Co-opt the Occupation Movement?

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Will the Dems co-opt the movement? Corporate media coverage seems odd, compared to other protest movements. Normally with protests there's a short blip , a bit of footage showing anarchists trashing Starbucks or burning a cop car, then total media blackout. This seems different in the fact that they actually mention it and (on CBS) are even somewhat supportive. There is much mocking of the "vagueness" of the demands and the famous mocking interview on CNN but still.It is true that there is now more coverage of Steve Jobs.

The 99% movement is highly embarrassing to both of the sanctioned parties in the US.If there is a "double dip" which is virtually certain, and a second financial crisus when Greece defaults, things are sure to get much worse.

It seems the ruling class is not quite sure how to handle this. While the level of US struggle is still very low, the Occupy movements have the possibility to turn into something explosive.

How will the Democratic Party, the "graveyard of social movements" handle this? What's their strategy?

[Le Socialiste]

I think things are growing increasingly tense, both financially and politically, and the occupation movement seems to tap into this frustration. While it appears to be politically diverse, it remains by and large a liberal movement. That isn't to say there's a growing number of people who are more than aware of the political and economic realities in this country (both parties are subservient to private capital and its interests and will act in ways that serve and protect these interests), but to ignore the fact that these protests are relatively moderate in their outlook doesn't take the full picture into consideration. Yes, these protests have tapped into the anger towards what they call the greed and recklessness of the "1%". Yes, there is a sizable presence of left-wing to revolutionary left-wing people and groups there. Yes, these occupations, while both narrowly rooted in pacifistic activism and focus, hold the potential to be something far more important and threatening in their demands and actions. What is desperately needed is consciousness, consciousness of the place and role of one's class and their relation to the basic modes and functions of the capitalist system and state. I've been hearing a lot of talk from friends and relatives about how these protests represent an effort to save the "middle-class". This is a dangerous position to take, for obvious reasons. If this is largely true, we have a problem. Lastly, it's becoming increasingly difficult to figure out what the occupation movement's exact goals are as the situation grows and expands across the country. Different areas and regions are going to have different demands and varying degrees of militancy (if any). The question is how the ruling political-financial elite will handle the movement and its participants. I suspect the Democrats think they can reign it in - Joe Biden referred to the movement as being something of a "liberal Tea Party". I think the effort will be made, and if that isn't successful something else will have to be tried. There appears to be frustration and disillusionment surrounding both parties right now; hopefully those of us who are able to go to one of these occupation demonstrations can use that discontent and explain the role and position of either party. If we can sever the people from both parties we'll have accomplished something (though I don't think this will happen immediately or anytime soon).

[MustCrushCapitalism]

If they do, the only effect will be bringing the occupy movements further from radical.

[tfb]

Obama already co-opted it in a speech he gave. He blamed everything Occupy Wallstreet doesn't like on the Republicans and said that this is why congress needs to PASS THIS BILL!

[eric922]

They can try, but honestly I don't think they will be able too. The Democratic party isn't as strong as it likes to think. A lot of working people are losing faith in the party, the democrats have abandoned their traditional liberal base and because of that reason that base is becoming further left. They haven't all became left in the socialist sense, but a lot of them have became social-democrats and even that is very left in American politics

[Binh]

Based on discussions with a lot of people in Liberty Park, I’d say this is highly unlikely. See also: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/06/occupy-wall-street_n_999048.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/06/occupy-wall-street_n_999048.html)

Another thing, Alliance for Global Justice (the group that takes their donations) got their phone lines physically cut. Obviously the ruling class is getting a bit nervous.

[Comrade Funk]

Let's hope not.

[Die Neue Zeit]

They can try, but honestly I don't think they will be able too. The Democratic party isn't as strong as it likes to think. A lot of working people are losing faith in the party, the democrats have abandoned their traditional liberal base and because of that reason that base is becoming further left. They haven't all became left in the socialist sense, but a lot of them have became social-democrats and even that is very left in American politics

The "Democratic" "Party" may not be that strong, but the PACs that constitute it should not be underestimated.

The potential for co-option by an outside entity would have been much greater had there been what liberals like Bill Maher have been clamoring for: some sort of Progressive Green Labor Party.

[RadioRaheem84]

Make no bones about it. They will try to co-opt it.

On Rachel Maddow, the young liberal they had on there began to say that Americans "do not resent" the top one percent, "only their taking of most of their wealth".

Yeah as if it was an accident they hoarded all the wealth.

It started as a liberal movement and unless there are leftists in there to move it radical, it will just be another attempt to get people in power to listen to their plight.

Again, assuming that the people in power do not know what is going on.

[eric922]

Make no bones about it. They will try to co-opt it.

On Rachel Maddow, the young liberal they had on there began to say that Americans "do not resent" the top one percent, "only their taking of most of their wealth".

Yeah as if it was an accident they hoarded all the wealth.

It started as a liberal movement and unless there are leftists in there to move it radical, it will just be another attempt to get people in power to listen to their plight.

Again, assuming that the people in power do not know what is going on.
Rachel has really disappointed me lately. She used to be a good journalist, but lately she seems to scared to speak out. At least Keith Olberman covers OWS fairly.

[RED DAVE]

I think things are growing increasingly tense, both financially and politically, and the occupation movement seems to tap into this frustration. While it appears to be politically diverse, it remains by and large a liberal movement.I think it's liberal in the sense that its demands are still being framed in a liberal context of reforming capitalism. But in terms of its rejection of the Democrats, and that rejection is, I believe, fairly conscious, it's more of what we used to call "radical," not liberal.


That isn't to say there's a growing number of people who are more than aware of the political and economic realities in this country (both parties are subservient to private capital and its interests and will act in ways that serve and protect these interests), but to ignore the fact that these protests are relatively moderate in their outlook doesn't take the full picture into consideration.I think that their moderation is a function of the fact that they are just beginning as a movement and the prevailing political climate in the country is so far to the right that moderate seems radical.


Yes, these protests have tapped into the anger towards what they call the greed and recklessness of the "1%". Yes, there is a sizable presence of left-wing to revolutionary left-wing people and groups there.Here I have to agree. Everything that I'm reading is that there is no such left wing presence, as there should be.


Yes, these occupations, while both narrowly rooted in pacifistic activism and focus, hold the potential to be something far more important and threatening in their demands and actions.This is true.


What is desperately needed is consciousness, consciousness of the place and role of one's class and their relation to the basic modes and functions of the capitalist system and state.What is needed to spur that consciousness, and it is beginning to happen, is the presence of the labor movement.


I've been hearing a lot of talk from friends and relatives about how these protests represent an effort to save the "middle-class". This is a dangerous position to take, for obvious reasons. If this is largely true, we have a problem.It's part of the political problem of our time.


Lastly, it's becoming increasingly difficult to figure out what the occupation movement's exact goals are as the situation grows and expands across the country. Different areas and regions are going to have different demands and varying degrees of militancy (if any).This is true and to be expected.


The question is how the ruling political-financial elite will handle the movement and its participants. I suspect the Democrats think they can reign it in - Joe Biden referred to the movement as being something of a "liberal Tea Party". I think the effort will be made, and if that isn't successful something else will have to be tried.All true. I suspect that what will happen is an attempt to channel the movement towards the 2012 election and the re-election of Obama and more liberal Democrats.


There appears to be frustration and disillusionment surrounding both parties right now; hopefully those of us who are able to go to one of these occupation demonstrations can use that discontent and explain the role and position of either party. If we can sever the people from both parties we'll have accomplished something (though I don't think this will happen immediately or anytime soon).That's called political work.

Anyone on this board who is either present at their local occupation and doing political work or building one in their area (including their campus) is blowing it out their ass. This is an opportunity for everyone, of all tendencies, to prove themself and their ideology. Put up or shut up.

RED DAVE

[thesadmafioso]

I think some of the more pseudo-progressive elements of the party may try to do such, but for the most part I can't see such efforts having any sort of impact of the movement. This situation was born out of material conditions of capitalist crisis, and the Democrats have been working hand in hand with the rich to preserve the hierarchy of the prevailing social order which created and perpetuated that crisis. The Democratic party has no interest in actually working with the occupy movement and truly agreeing with the disdain which it is being expressed towards the suffering caused by capitalism, as it is an organ of entrenched wealth which maintains interests diametrically opposed to the majority of the protesters.

Of course, they may try to co opt it for out of opportunistic political desires, but any such attempts are bound to have incredibly restrained results. The Democrats can't simply go back and rewrite their long and robust history of willing collaboration with the capitalist classes, they can't whitewash over their history of doing battle with the interests of the working masses, and they can't believably tell the majority of society otherwise.

[eric922]

I just thought I'd add something here. I just got back from Occupy Knoxville, which is a conservative town in a conservative state. There were over 400 people there and there was an undercurrent of anti-capitalist sentiment. Several people held signs attacking capitalism itself.

Also, there was an organizer from Socialist Worker there handing out the party's newspaper and trying to organize a branch of the party in Knoxville. I got the last copy of the paper so the people must have been fairly responsive.

[Le Socialiste]

I think it's liberal in the sense that its demands are still being framed in a liberal context of reforming capitalism. But in terms of its rejection of the Democrats, and that rejection is, I believe, fairly conscious, it's more of what we used to call "radical," not liberal.

Fair enough. There is definitely a strong underlying sense of betrayal amongst those demonstrating in terms of how the Democratic Party has handled itself over the past few years. If the people there come to realize that the real nature of the Democrats doesn't align with the interests of the working-class it may have a domino effect. One fear I have (which I suspect won't come to fruition) is that this anger might cause some participants to swerve to the right. I have yet to see this happen though, so I'm sure the chances of this occurring are relatively slim.


I think that their moderation is a function of the fact that they are just beginning as a movement and the prevailing political climate in the country is so far to the right that moderate seems radical.

I'm not sure that's entirely accurate. I think the movement's emphasis on moderation stems from their efforts to present the movement as "transcending politics and ideologies", not out of a perception of it being radical. I would question how well this is turning out, though, as some people have been reporting scenes from their own occupations that are directed more at capitalism than Wall Street, pointing to a potential rise in consciousness and militancy. If this spreads to the point in which it becomes the prevailing attitude of the movement it will be interesting (and exciting) to see how far it can and will go.



What is needed to spur that consciousness, and it is beginning to happen, is the presence of the labor movement.


True, but the labor movement is in such disarray and consumed with reformist, opportunistic tendencies that it can only provide the necessary element of class consciousness without acting on it. The unions have been weighed down by a bureaucracy that isn't friendly towards the workers or their struggle. Instead, what we have is a group of bosses working hand-in-hand with the system (in this case the Democrats). It is good that labor has decided to enter the movement, but what will its impact be? It could be a way for the leaders of the labor movement to reign in the protests in favor of the Democrats, as well as letting the workers within their ranks blow off a little steam at the system. The presence of labor's rank-and-file is an encouraging one, but it is vital that the occupation movement doesn't get wrapped up in the slogans of the union leadership itself, which will only try to steer the people away from the essentials of the class struggle and guide them on towards reformist policies and demands.


All true. I suspect that what will happen is an attempt to channel the movement towards the 2012 election and the re-election of Obama and more liberal Democrats.

I believe this will be attempted as well. If the Democrats see an opportunity to seize on this they will. The question is whether or not they'll succeed.



Anyone on this board who is either present at their local occupation and doing political work or building one in their area (including their campus) is blowing it out their ass. This is an opportunity for everyone, of all tendencies, to prove themself and their ideology. Put up or shut up.

I'm not clear on what you're trying to say here. Care to clarify?

[Le Socialiste]

I just thought I'd add something here. I just got back from Occupy Knoxville, which is a conservative town in a conservative state. There were over 400 people there and there was an undercurrent of anti-capitalist sentiment. Several people held signs attacking capitalism itself.

Also, there was an organizer from Socialist Worker there handing out the party's newspaper and trying to organize a branch of the party in Knoxville. I got the last copy of the paper so the people must have been fairly responsive.

That's encouraging. The fact that people were interested enough to take a copy of the paper shows that there are some who are perhaps conscious enough to realize an alternative to capitalism is needed. Do you happen to know how many copies the Socialist Worker had printed? I don't expect you to, just wondering.

[tfb]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhrwmJcsfT0

Occupy Wall Street finally has a spokesman... and he's a multimillionaire!

[RHIZOMES]

I think while the Occupy movement is not 'radical' to the sense we like it, the fact they are questioning financial hegemony over every facet of American life is radical in-and-of-itself. It is up to American revolutionary socialists to effectively communicate their stand to the OWS movement.

As I have said a few times already, there were more people in the Civil Rights/Anti-War movements than simply Marxists, and more people in opposition to the Czar than simply the Bolsheviks. The revolutionary left has got to make a stand at this decisive juncture.

[the last donut of the night]

It started as a liberal movement and unless there are leftists in there to move it radical, it will just be another attempt to get people in power to listen to their plight.


everybody marching in the streets could be a radical leftist and it wouldn't change shit. unless working-class consciousness imbues the protests with radical ideology, we won't have the power to change anything.

[Sasha]

as long as even former democratic representatives among the protesters are slamming the democrats (and the journalists), i still see hope:

yhrwmJcsfT0

[eric922]

as long as even former democratic representatives among the protesters are slamming the democrats (and the journalists), i still see hope:

yhrwmJcsfT0
Yeah I saw that. Grayson is far too conservative for me, but I'll admit I like his style. He really doesn't care who he offends.

[NewLeft]

The democratic party will not co-opt the movement, but they will try to use it to their advantage..

[Ocean Seal]

Every faction will attempt to co-opt the movement, from the unions, to the Tea Party, to liberals like Mahr, to the center of the democratic party, to the Republicans. They will all try to co-opt a wing. We have to dig our own wing from under the Earth. Turn all those who are there more militant, more politicized, more class conscious, and teach them to believe in themselves and in their fellow workers. The revolution isn't coming any time soon, but the time to plant a communist foothold is, and the time for a mass social democratic party is coming as well.

[eric922]

Every faction will attempt to co-opt the movement, from the unions, to the Tea Party, to liberals like Mahr, to the center of the democratic party, to the Republicans. They will all try to co-opt a wing. We have to dig our own wing from under the Earth. Turn all those who are there more militant, more politicized, more class conscious, and teach them to believe in themselves and in their fellow workers. The revolution isn't coming any time soon, but the time to plant a communist foothold is, and the time for a mass social democratic party is coming as well.
I think your analysis is correct. The question is, should we support a mass social-democratic party? I, personally, think anything is better than what we have right now and I do think it'd help the working class, so I'd probably be critically supportive.

[∞]

please dont please dont please dont

[Welshy]

The question is, should we support a mass social-democratic party?

I agree with young based lord on this. The only reason I would think someone would want to support that is if they want to steer what ever class conscious workers we have down the path of reform and destruction of any and all revolutionary energy the working class has. History has shown us enough to tell us that supporting social democracy is a bad idea.

[RED DAVE]

It may well be that, given the miserably low level of American class consciousness, that a social democratic party or a labor party may emerge. If it does, our first response should be to get religion and thank god for it because it will represent an enormous advance. In 2011, a new labor/social democratic party would be a tremendous arena to carry out revolutionary politics as it will be unable to carry out its program.

To the question should we advocate such a party, I think the answer is also yes: to call for the unions to break with the Democrats and run their own candidates is, I believe, a good demand inside and outside of the labor movement, including at the Occupations.

What is the short-term alternative? The Occupations themselves? They must, everyone knows, go beyond themselves. The question is: Where. I hope everyone here believes that the direction is to the working class. The question then becomes: what are the organizational forms that mass struggles can use in this period? We aren't ready for soviets.

Shit, I don't even see mass sit-ins yet, but they could easily break out in a factory that's being closed. in the meantime, to call for fight-backs against all cuts and for a labor party (probably have to call it a peoples party) are good beginning demands.

RED DAVE

[Die Neue Zeit]

The question is, should we support a mass social-democratic party?


The only reason I would think someone would want to support that is if they want to steer what ever class conscious workers we have down the path of reform and destruction of any and all revolutionary energy the working class has. History has shown us enough to tell us that supporting social democracy is a bad idea.


The question then becomes: what are the organizational forms that mass struggles can use in this period? We aren't ready for soviets.

Shit, I don't even see mass sit-ins yet, but they could easily break out in a factory that's being closed. in the meantime, to call for fight-backs against all cuts and for a labor party (probably have to call it a peoples party) are good beginning demands.

I wrote above of a Progressive Green Labor Party, and even you aren't in on that boat, Red Dave.

Leaving aside programmatic reformism and worse, my beef with the "social-democratic" route is that, globally, it abandoned the Independent Institutions route many decades ago.


It may well be that, given the miserably low level of American class consciousness, that a social democratic party or a labor party may emerge. If it does, our first response should be to get religion and thank god for it because it will represent an enormous advance. In 2011, a new labor/social democratic party would be a tremendous arena to carry out revolutionary politics as it will be unable to carry out its program.

To the question should we advocate such a party, I think the answer is also yes: to call for the unions to break with the Democrats and run their own candidates is, I believe, a good demand inside and outside of the labor movement, including at the Occupations.

The US situation is more ripe for a "social-democratic party" than a mere "labor party." I don't think non-unionized populists of working-class background would like the idea of giving bloc votes to affiliated trade unions in meetings of the vote-getting electoral machine's supreme bodies.

[ComradeGrant]

At Occupy-Portland, there seemed to be a strong anti-Democratic Party sentiment there. Even people who didn't want to abolish capitalism all together didn't want help from the Democrats.

[RED DAVE]

The question is, should we support a mass social-democratic party
The only reason I would think someone would want to support that is if they want to steer what ever class conscious workers we have down the path of reform and destruction of any and all revolutionary energy the working class has. History has shown us enough to tell us that supporting social democracy is a bad idea.
The question then becomes: what are the organizational forms that mass struggles can use in this period? We aren't ready for soviets.

Shit, I don't even see mass sit-ins yet, but they could easily break out in a factory that's being closed. in the meantime, to call for fight-backs against all cuts and for a labor party (probably have to call it a peoples party) are good beginning demands
I wrote above of a Progressive Green Labor Party, and even you aren't in on that boat, Red Dave.Actually, I support a Progressive Green Labor Social Democratic Populist Party with a side order of mashed potatoes.


Leaving aside programmatic reformism and worse, my beef with the "social-democratic" route is that, globally, it abandoned the Independent Institutions route many decades ago.And that is exactly what we need to be discussing in a thread about Democrats and the Occupations: whether or not the social democrats were wrong to about a strategy of "Independent Institutions." Right.


It may well be that, given the miserably low level of American class consciousness, that a social democratic party or a labor party may emerge. If it does, our first response should be to get religion and thank god for it because it will represent an enormous advance. In 2011, a new labor/social democratic party would be a tremendous arena to carry out revolutionary politics as it will be unable to carry out its program.

To the question should we advocate such a party, I think the answer is also yes: to call for the unions to break with the Democrats and run their own candidates is, I believe, a good demand inside and outside of the labor movement, including at the Occupations.
The US situation is more ripe for a "social-democratic party" than a mere "labor party." I don't think non-unionized populists of working-class background would like the idea of giving bloc votes to affiliated trade unions in meetings of the vote-getting electoral machine's supreme bodiesAnd what makes you think that that model which, as far as I know has never been used or advocated in the US, is what we would advocate just because it's the European model?

By the way, DNZ, have you visited an Occupation yet?

You seem to have a lot to say about them. It would seem to me that it behooves you to visit one or, if there isn't one in your area, to start organizing one. Frankly, you talk a lot of talk; here's your chance to walk the walk.

RED DAVE

[CAleftist]

"Will the Democratic Party co-opt the movement?"

Can they? My neck of the woods is very Dem-friendly/loyal in general, yet I'm hearing more and more people express disgust and disillusionment with the Democrats and Obama.

I don't think most people in this movement want help from the second-most enthusiastic pro-capitalist, pro-imperialist political party in history.

[Jimmie Higgins]

What is the short-term alternative? The Occupations themselves? They must, everyone knows, go beyond themselves. The question is: Where. I hope everyone here believes that the direction is to the working class. The question then becomes: what are the organizational forms that mass struggles can use in this period? We aren't ready for soviets.

Shit, I don't even see mass sit-ins yet, but they could easily break out in a factory that's being closed. in the meantime, to call for fight-backs against all cuts and for a labor party (probably have to call it a peoples party) are good beginning demands.

RED DAVE

I'm just ending a trip to greece where there were hundreds and hundreds of occupations, an "indignants" movement, and dozens of general strikes. The thing that's blown my mind while talking to radical socialists and anarchists (ones from both tenancies who advocate revolution from below) is that they keep saying "we are at the brink of a BEGINNING!".

I've never been out of the US and they always say that travel gives you perspective... and yes, this has been the case. I left thinking that OWS was a US "beginning" and feeling like I had a good sense of humble perspective about the situation in the US, but this trip has been very enlightening.

Anyway, to the question: the Democrats IMO will try to co-opt this movement only so far as they think they can quickly defang and dismantle it. On the one hand, like with Wisconsin, they can't fully expose themselves to their base as being as pro-austerity and business as the Republicans and so they have to at some times give lip service (if it is popular enough and can no longer be ignored as they did for 3 weeks or so). But they also really don't want this to catch on and see people move outside the fold of the establishment politics; they really don't want people getting the idea that maybe people can make decisions is popular assemblies, maybe rank and file unionists can debate strategy and fightback outside the organized bureaucracy-run union process, etc.

So our job is to promote that kind of popular discussion and open democracy in this movement! And bring in our labor links and links to oppressed communities.

I think the bigger risk than outright co-option of this movement is demoralization (which is why the Democrats would want to co-opt it, to drive it into the ground). To prevent people from feeling alienated at some point when the spontaneous upsurge easy part has passes, is to try and promote transparent democratic organization so we can maybe begin to have popular political discussion and debate about both ideas and tactics in an open way outside the control of the parties and liberals and NGOs and so on.

I can't believe I went to Greece just in time to miss out on occupations in the US - oh well the 3 strikes and the public worker general strike will have to substitute:lol:

[the last donut of the night]

jimmie, you're spot-on. i think the best defense against the democrats is to always emphasize mass democracy (meetings, discussions, open mics, whatever) so that people learn how important their own voices are and to be suspicious whenever the liberal media/establishment rears its head

[Ele'ill]

Here in Portland- at least from the perspective of the liberal 'head organizers' who started the local movement and maintain the website- there is a 'voting system has failed us' position that seems quite popular. I heard that Portland is/was the largest occupation aside from New York. Perhaps the libs here need to agitate that radical thought that voting isn't working- fuck the ruling class capitalist parties. There was a lot of non-radical liberals at the barricade on 3rd and Main- right up front- starting specifically anti capitalist chants.

Just as another perspective. During the main march right before the occupation (the march that had five to ten thousand people in it) we arrived at the court house area and there's a city pavilion thing (concrete park) but the area had been partially barricaded off by the city/police (who were not present at that specific location but who were across the street protecting the court house) Several people (I'm assuming many non-radicals) realized that we needed more room for everyone and started taking down the barricades- we eagerly helped out :lol:
Word of mouth was that several undercovers and police liaisons began to panic even though everyone was removing the barricades casually and lining them up neatly in the far corner of the park. I'll take this as a start to people realizing that we are a collective body and that there are others attempting to control us and impose policy on us.

[Rocky Rococo]

With Democratic mayors from coast to coast unleashing their cop SWAT and riot teams to beat the crap out of OWS encampments tonight, I think any plan to co-opt the movement for the Dems sort of went by the boards. After all, the Dems job is to protect hegemony from any threat of social resistance, and if hegemony wants that done violently, Dems don't need to be told twice.

[Comrade-Z]

Maybe the taste of repression and defeat will make liberals wake up and smell the coffee. This is actually the best realistic denouement to this movement (the only other realistic one being co-option). At least repression sets the stage for further radicalization.

A state that has to repress rather than co-opt, despite the greater show of force, is actually a weaker state. It is a sign that the system recognizes that its ideological hegemony is breaking down and that there's nothing it's prepared to sacrifice to placate the liberal protesters. All it would take would be some modest reforms to bring most of these liberals back into the fold, but for some reason the capitalist state apparently feels that it cannot even afford that. What does this say about the health of capitalism in the advanced capitalist countries? Decadence?

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Even if it were decadence, programmatically we shouldn't declare so many things "transitional."

[RED DAVE]

^^^ Even if it were decadence, programmatically we shouldn't declare so many things "transitional."Would you care to explain this rather opaque remark?

RED DAVE

[Die Neue Zeit]

It's the age-old debate between Marx and Guesde on the nature of structural, radical, pro-labour reforms:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/05/parti-ouvrier.htm


After the programme was agreed, however, a clash arose between Marx and his French supporters arose over the purpose of the minimum section. Whereas Marx saw this as a practical means of agitation around demands that were achievable within the framework of capitalism, Guesde took a very different view: “Discounting the possibility of obtaining these reforms from the bourgeoisie, Guesde regarded them not as a practical programme of struggle, but simply ... as bait with which to lure the workers from Radicalism.” The rejection of these reforms would, Guesde believed, “free the proletariat of its last reformist illusions and convince it of the impossibility of avoiding a workers ’89.” Accusing Guesde and Lafargue of “revolutionary phrase-mongering” and of denying the value of reformist struggles, Marx made his famous remark that, if their politics represented Marxism, “ce qu'il y a de certain c'est que moi, je ne suis pas Marxiste” (“what is certain is that I myself am not a Marxist”).

Crane Brinton's The Anatomy of Revolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Anatomy_of_Revolution#Background_of_the_revolu tionaries) actually confirmed parts of both sides. The contents of things such as what I've proposed (Employer of Last Resort, Fully Socialized Labour Markets, Economy-Wide Indicative Planning, etc.) are both a "practical programme of struggle" and "bait" (declaring things not to be "transitional" even though they may be) but are in another league compared to today's "reformist struggles" and are not "revolutionary phrase-mongering."

[RED DAVE]

The contents of things such as what I've proposed (Employer of Last Resort, Fully Socialized Labour Markets, Economy-Wide Indicative Planning, etc.) are both a "practical programme of struggle" and "bait" (declaring things not to be "transitional" even though they may be) but are in another league compared to today's "reformist struggles" and are not "revolutionary phrase-mongering."If these are the elements of your program for the Occupations, would you please formulate them in a more systematic way so we can be criticize them.

RED DAVE

[Die Neue Zeit]

If these are the elements of your program for the Occupations, would you please formulate them in a more systematic way so we can be criticize them.

The three examples I gave aren't my suggestions. Check out my Occupy Canada thread instead.

[RedTrackWorker]

"Will the Democratic Party Co-opt the Occupation Movement?"

While it won't co-opt the "occupy together" events themselves, that's not the point. Consider the possibility that election season 2012 rolls around some months after this stuff may have mostly fizzled out. Who do you think's going to benefit from this stuff about "corporate greed," etc.?

If the "occupy" events had clear demands like "jobs for all"--much harder for the Democrats to co-opt the sentiment. But the populist stuff that's in focus right now...yep, many Democratic electoral strategists are quite happy with this for now I imagine. Hopefully that'll bite them in the ass, but that's only if broader social layers, especially workers, are drawn into action, which doesn't seem to be happening.

[Threetune]

IT IS THE WIDE RANGING LEVELS OF DEBATE AND THE PARTISIPATION OF MANY ‘DIFFERENT’ PEOPLE IN THAT DEBATE THAT IS ITSELF THE NEW REVOLUTIONARY PHANOMINA.

It is pointless trying to guess at what will happen next. Let's look at what is and take it from there. Right now (reportedly) there is NO Consensus about what to say or do or think, but still the 'movement' of this diverse group of people is there and spreading around the US and the world.

Put any template you like on top of it from the historical record in order to define it and we can find close matches and some near parallels, but none of the old templates fit this new phenomena because it is a spontaneous response to an economic, social and political reality that has never existed before.

That is what is giving rise to the unprecedented debate being generated around it, 54 threads on this sight alone, together with the confused response of the 'establishment' which by turns has tried to ignore it, court it, or condemn it.

IT IS THE WIDE RANGING LEVELS OF DEBATE AND THE PARTISIPATION OF SO MANY PEOPLE IN THAT DEBATE THAT IS ITSELF THE NEW REVOLUTIONARY PHANOMINA.

The people are beginning, albeit tentatively, to debate widely about the future of, well, everything.

The best activity communists can do now is to invite all workers to participate in the DEBAT and let the ‘Occupy movement’ become the Great Talking Shop. Demand that everyone who wants to speak be given five minutes’ at the microphone – more if the assembly want to hear more.

The DEBATE and wining the debate, polemic, arguments, out in the open in front of the working class is the opportunity for communism.

Seize the day!

I’m repeating this for the folks at the back to hear !

[Dimmu]

Maybe the taste of repression and defeat will make liberals wake up and smell the coffee. This is actually the best realistic denouement to this movement (the only other realistic one being co-option). At least repression sets the stage for further radicalization.


Thats what i was telling and thinking all the time. Some of the liberals are good people who were just raised under a system that gave them no other "option".

These liberals are the onces we need to help to embrace leftist politics and i do not think thats its hopeless or useless.