"For a Workers' Occupation Movement!" -- WPA C.C. Statement on the "Occupy" Movement

[Martin Blank]

For a Workers' Occupation Movement!

Statement of the Central Committee of the Workers Party in America


NOW IN ITS THIRD WEEK, THE “Occupy Wall Street” movement has quickly become the focal point for all the pent-up anger and frustration that millions of Americans, regardless of their class, have been feeling as a result of austerity and the actions of the corporate welfare state.

What started as a few thousand protesters and a few hundred occupiers of Zucotti Park, near Wall Street, in New York City (with most of them being cranks and opportunists, such as Ron Paul supporters and “9/11 Truth” groupings) has grown into a national movement, with “Occupy” groups coming together across the country and organizing similar marches and occupations.

At the same time, this relatively small protest felt the full force of the state — the armed bodies of capitalism’s “law and order” — bear down on them. Since the occupation began on Sept. 17, nearly 1,000 participants in the associated marches have been arrested by the police, including over 700 during a march over the Brooklyn Bridge. We say: Drop all charges against those arrested!

While the armed forces of the state were doing mass roundups of protesters, most of the corporatist media has treated the movement with contempt and condescension, while other elements have looked to co-opt it and steer it in the direction of the Democratic Party. Both of these approaches start from the same perspective, that this movement needs some “official” sanction to have any real value ... to the ruling classes, that is.

While the “Occupy” movement in New York has struck a chord among millions of people, it is vitally important to examine closely what this movement is, what it aims to do and, most of all, whom it actually ends up serving.


WHEN THE “OCCUPY WALL STREET” movement began, it was thoroughly a creature of the “middle class” — the class of managers, professionals, small business people, the self-employed, artists and so on. However, as the occupation continued, it began attracting the support of workers, passively at first, but then actively.

Workers and young people from the working class not only began to show up at the protests and occupied area, but also brought with them their own slogans and ideas. They marched, they occupied, they fought. Most importantly, though, they began to change the class composition of the “Occupy Wall Street” movement.

It was at this point that the officials of various labor unions began to proclaim their support for the protests and occupation. They did this, not because they were “shamed” into participating, or out of any genuine desire to see a serious working-class resistance to austerity and corporatism emerge, but in order to stop any such development — to prevent the movement from becoming more radicalized and stop the development of an independent working-class political movement.

This is also why liberal Democratic Party politicians and their media mouthpieces, such as MSNBC and The Nation, have been parachuting into the various “Occupy” protests, both in New York City and nationally: to keep the protests from getting “out of control.”

But they are not alone in their efforts to keep this movement under control. Its very structure is designed to insure that the occupations and protests do not go too far. The idea of a “leaderless” movement that makes decisions solely on the basis of “consensus” and raises no specific demands or slogans is designed to allow an unelected (and unaccountable) group to control the politics and activity of the movement in the “general assemblies” that are meant to be decision-making bodies.

In the end, all this serves to do is keep the vision and activity of the “Occupy” movement confined to the narrowest channels. The most conservative and moderate minorities can dictate the political direction by blocking more radical and revolutionary proposals, while unelected, “unofficial” leaders can stage foolish and dangerous actions, without any check by the participants.


THE “OCCUPY” MOVEMENT MAY be thought by many to be a “good start,” but as we’ve seen throughout history, most recently in Egypt, Greece and Wisconsin, it is only the working class that has the power to put an end to the exploitation and oppression that dominates in capitalist society.

However, this power cannot be unleashed as long as workers are bound hand-and-foot to those “middle-class” leaderships — either “official” or unofficial — and are prevented from organizing themselves to fight for their own interests, under their own banners and slogans, and with their own leadership and program of action.

More to the point: We as workers must not allow these “middle class” democrats to use us as either a battering ram or a stepladder in their fight against their corporatist brethren in Washington and on Wall Street! Rather, we should be organizing ourselves, bringing out our brothers and sisters, holding our own mass assemblies and protests, and doing so on the basis of our own slogans and demands.

The working-class movement should certainly coordinate with the “middle class” occupiers and protesters wherever possible, but we cannot allow ourselves to be subordinated to them, either politically or organizationally.

It has taken more than a decade for the “middle class” democrats to regroup and launch their fight to win back some of the power they lost in the rise of corporatism in 2000. But we must not let them use workers as little more than a stepping stone for their return to power.

This is the perspective of the Workers Party. We fight for the overthrow of capitalism and capitalist rule, and the establishment of a workers’ republic as the transition to a classless, communist society. If you agree with this perspective or want to know more, contact us.



The problem is not Wall Street alone! The problem is capitalism! Austerity and the rise of the corporate welfare state are part and parcel of capitalism in its decay and decomposition. Capitalism has to be defeated and overthrown in order to stop these attacks.
Break with the “Middle Class” Reformers! For a Workers’ Occupation Movement! The “middle class” elements leading the occupations only want a capitalism that works for them — a capitalism where workers are still exploited, but bribed into passivity and silence.
For accountability! “No leaders” allows the “middle class” minority to lead with impunity. Democratic elections and the right of immediate recall insure that those making decisions are fully accountable.
For a revolutionary workers’ platform! The working class has no common interests with either the capitalists or the “middle class,” and we cannot share a common platform without subordinating ourselves to the other classes.
For workers’ self-defense against police terror! The cops have made it clear that they will not let any serious challenge to the ruling classes take place without a violent response.
Organize and occupy our workplaces! Workers’ power comes from our role in society and the mode of production. Exercising our power means shutting down production in addition to confronting the ruling classes and their state.
For a workers’ republic! Real majority rule means workers’ control of industries and services, and of society — that is, a workers’ republic, based on workplace and neighborhood/city assemblies and councils.



-30-


In PDF format (for downloading and printing): http://www.workers-party.com/lit/occupy20111004.pdf

[aty]

I think we socialists should push for an occupation of the workplaces. But without the commie-rethorics...

Such a move will give ideas that will in itself create a revolutionary mind.

[RED DAVE]

I think that in terms of analysis, the OP document is probably 95% correct. But subjectively, as a way to reach people, workers, the existing protesters, etc., it's useless. It's rhetoric is virtually unreadable by anyone who isn't an experienced Marxist.

Comrades need to update their rhetoric. This is 2011, not 1931.

RED DAVE

[Die Neue Zeit]

OP comrade: I like the two subtle differences between the presentation of this document and the presentation of a more typical Trotskyist document:

1) "Contact us" can be where a reader stops reading and takes action without absorbing the sloganeering.
2) The sloganeering is elaborated upon outside the bold.

[DaringMehring]

I think that in terms of analysis, the OP document is probably 95% correct. But subjectively, as a way to reach people, workers, the existing protesters, etc., it's useless. It's rhetoric is virtually unreadable by anyone who isn't an experienced Marxist.

Comrades need to update their rhetoric. This is 2011, not 1931.

RED DAVE

Agree.

Our language should try to engage, not alienate.

And the document, which I also generally agree with, lacks an element of persuasion. It basically attacks many of the people on the action, on the basis of their class background, when by their actual present objective economic situation, they're well positioned to be antagonistic to capitalism. Educate and agitate, don't attack!

[MarxSchmarx]

I think that in terms of analysis, the OP document is probably 95% correct. But subjectively, as a way to reach people, workers, the existing protesters, etc., it's useless. It's rhetoric is virtually unreadable by anyone who isn't an experienced Marxist.

Comrades need to update their rhetoric. This is 2011, not 1931.

RED DAVE

I see your point; in the spectrum of Marxist writing about these actions out there it is actually one of the better pieces in terms of keeping jargon to a minimum, but it does creep in.

What would you change for instance?

[Martin Blank]

I think we socialists should push for an occupation of the workplaces. But without the commie-rethorics...

and...


It's rhetoric is virtually unreadable by anyone who isn't an experienced Marxist.... This is 2011, not 1931.

and...


It basically attacks many of the people on the action, on the basis of their class background, when by their actual present objective economic situation, they're well positioned to be antagonistic to capitalism. Educate and agitate, don't attack!

"Commie-rethorics" ... like, what? Raising the slogan of a workers' republic? Saying workers need to organize their own movement for revolution? Providing a revolutionary political direction instead of tailing the petty-bourgeois leaderships and kissing their asses?

"It's rhetoric is virtually unreadable" ... where? As with the above, is it all "rhetoric" because we're not going to have a love-in with Adbusters and the AFL-CIO officials? Is it "virtually unreadable" because it includes terms like "revolutionary", "workers' republic" and "workers' power"?

"It basically attacks ... on the basis of their class background" ... as opposed to what? Should we shelve our criticisms of the class character of both the politics and "unofficial" leadership of these actions, and just "unite for unity"? Should we just forget about the class basis of exploitation and oppression?

"This is 2011, not 1931" ... true enough. But that doesn't explain why all of you are sounding like it's 1936?


I see your point; in the spectrum of Marxist writing about these actions out there it is actually one of the better pieces in terms of keeping jargon to a minimum, but it does creep in.

We do our best to keep jargon to a minimum. Sometimes space doesn't allow for the "long-hand" explanation; other times, the terminology is simply necessary and there's no way getting around it without compromising principle. I think the statement is rather accessible in its use of language. But then, I'm biased.


What would you change for instance?

I'd wager it would be the class-based approach and raising of revolutionary slogans.

[The Douche]

I think this piece is pretty spot on and effective, and I'm usually pretty pleased with the propaganda WPA puts out.

[DaringMehring]

"It basically attacks ... on the basis of their class background" ... as opposed to what? Should we shelve our criticisms of the class character of both the politics and "unofficial" leadership of these actions, and just "unite for unity"? Should we just forget about the class basis of exploitation and oppression?


If someone is from a petit-bourgeois background, but has been "proletarianized" by bad economy, then there is no basis to call them "middle class" (which in America is usually a synonym for working class anyway). For instance, someone who got a degree then could only get a minimum wage service job.

In Russia, they had many peasants who urbanized and got factory jobs. The Bolsheviks didn't treat them as peasants once that had happened.

I agree that the influence of reformist petit-bourgeoisie should be fought. To me, that means opposing Democratic co-optation, union bureaucrat co-optation, and weak demands (change the tax code a bit). But, remember that the majority of the Bolshevik leadership themselves came from the petit-bourgeoisie, including Lenin. Socialist, revolutionary petit-bourgeoisie origin people are not the enemy. It is an insanity to try to root them out, in general, and in particular since Ron Paul "End the Fed" types are all over the place.

[The Douche]

If someone is from a petit-bourgeois background, but has been "proletarianized" by bad economy, then there is no basis to call them "middle class" (which in America is usually a synonym for working class anyway). For instance, someone who got a degree then could only get a minimum wage service job.

In Russia, they had many peasants who urbanized and got factory jobs. The Bolsheviks didn't treat them as peasants once that had happened.

I agree that the influence of reformist petit-bourgeoisie should be fought. To me, that means opposing Democratic co-optation, union bureaucrat co-optation, and weak demands (change the tax code a bit). But, remember that the majority of the Bolshevik leadership themselves came from the petit-bourgeoisie, including Lenin. Socialist, revolutionary petit-bourgeoisie origin people are not the enemy. It is an insanity to try to root them out, in general, and in particular since Ron Paul "End the Fed" types are all over the place.

If somebody works in a minimum wage service job, they are working class, not middle class. Their class background is proletarian not bourgeoise.

[Martin Blank]

If someone is from a petit-bourgeois background, but has been "proletarianized" by bad economy, then there is no basis to call them "middle class" (which in America is usually a synonym for working class anyway). For instance, someone who got a degree then could only get a minimum wage service job.

First of all, proletarianization is not an immediate thing, and if the person from a petty-bourgeois background is still able to go back to their class origins, not much of the new consciousness is going to stick with them. In terms of this conversation, though, this is neither here nor there. The same is true with how the term "middle class" is used by the corportate media. (For the record, we do define what we mean by "middle class" in the first paragraph of the second section of the leaflet text.)


In Russia, they had many peasants who urbanized and got factory jobs. The Bolsheviks didn't treat them as peasants once that had happened.

Sure, and neither would we. If they were new to the factory, we would see them as developing into proletarians and help with that development. If they had been there long enough to make returning to the land impossible, then they would be fellow workers. Again, however, this is neither here nor there for this conversation.


I agree that the influence of reformist petit-bourgeoisie should be fought. To me, that means opposing Democratic co-optation, union bureaucrat co-optation, and weak demands (change the tax code a bit). But, remember that the majority of the Bolshevik leadership themselves came from the petit-bourgeoisie, including Lenin. Socialist, revolutionary petit-bourgeoisie origin people are not the enemy. It is an insanity to try to root them out, in general, and in particular since Ron Paul "End the Fed" types are all over the place.

We're not Bolsheviks, so that argument is meaningless for us.

If you actually read the leaflet, you will notice that our references are to the "middle class" leadership of the "Occupy" movements. That is, they are directed at the "reformist petit-bourgeoisie" you agree should be fought. They are not directed at the participants, be they workers or "middle class". Those we wish to generate a break from are the Democratic Party elements (including their "grassroots" auxiliaries, like MoveOn.org), the union officials, petty-bourgeois radical groups like Adbusters, the Ron Paul cult, the "9/11 Truthers", etc. -- in other words, all the same people you think this movement should be broken from.

Where we seem to differ is on the question of what happens next. You are for breaking with the petty-bourgeois reformers, but keeping their structures and strategy in place. We disagree with that concept and propose a new direction for the movement, under workers' leadership, with a workers' program that recognizes that the problem is not "Wall Street", but capitalism as a whole, and that it must be overthrown.

It is not our job to tail this movement or to render it greater than it actually is, whether out of some sense of desperation, or belief it is going to develop into a full-blown revolution, or whatever. As it stands, the most this movement can accomplish right now is to galvanize a large movement of young people to ... vote Democratic in 2012. They are a long way from being an independent political movement, and it will stay that way as long as all these petty-bourgeois meddlers are controlling it.

[tir1944]

Smells like Anarcho-Syndicalism or something to me...

[The Douche]

Smells like Anarcho-Syndicalism or something to me...

Grade-A, well thought out, well constructed post which is sure to add a lot to the discussion.:thumbup:


The WPA is not an anarcho-syndicalist group, they are pretty diverse ideologically, but are influenced by DeLeonism. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Leonism)

[coda]

I disagree with the statement of the Worker's Party. While conceding that it is not the first shot fired that will start "the revolution"; there is no doubt that the composition is made up of the working class -- a disgruntled working class aiming their discontent at the heart of Capitalism. This is how class consciousness develops.. And surely some are getting a first time crash course of what happens when you rise against the state and Establishment and authority. Leftists know to use the derogatory term "middle class" against the workers is only with intent to divide and disempower them. It is what it is.. and the Left should be out here agitating along side the workers and strongly against Anti-Capitalism (as we do at National Conventions and Anti-war protests) rather than sitting on your snobbish ass watching it from tv and criticizing it.


<<This is the perspective of the Workers Party. We fight for the overthrow of capitalism and capitalist rule, and the establishment of a workers’ republic as the transition to a classless, communist society. If you agree with this perspective or want to know more, contact us.>>

"Call us".. Amazing lazy-ass organizing. why don't "you's" get the fuck down there with your signs and flyers and Represent and try to inflict some class consciousness.

[The Douche]

I really resent the assumption that everybody who has anything critical to say of the occupation movement is not participating in it.

[coda]

good let me know where the WPA camp is set up in New York and I will come and pay my respect.

[Welshy]

<<This is the perspective of the Workers Party. We fight for the overthrow of capitalism and capitalist rule, and the establishment of a workers’ republic as the transition to a classless, communist society. If you agree with this perspective or want to know more, contact us.>>

"Call us".. Amazing lazy-ass organizing. why don't "you's" get the fuck down there with your signs and flyers and Represent and try to inflict some class consciousness.

I'm a member of their Supporter's Organization and I was involved in the Student Walk out at my university and I took part in the first general assembly in my area. I have also been talking to my co-workers to try to get them involved and I'm going to try to get the word out about the General Assemblies and the protests to my neighbors (I live in an apartment complex that consist of mainly working class in my town and some students). I have also been one of a couple people who have been advocating leftist politics in the GA. Miles could probably give you more information about the New York Branch as I haven't been in contact with them. But to say that just because we are being critical of how the Occupy Together movement is currently structured, doesn't mean we are just sitting back and playing armchair revolutionary.

[The Douche]

good let me know where the WPA camp is set up in New York and I will come and pay my respect.

Every single person who has critical input for the occupation movement is attacked in the same way "why don't you get out there?!?!?!", plenty of people who have constructive criticism are in fact participating in some way.

Its not just about the WPA, who may or may not have individuals in New York, in which case, they probably don't have much of a physical presence. But they can produce a piece of propaganda, and make it available so that individuals who agree with it can distribute it. Which is participation, its one of the only ways groups/individuals who cannot physically be there can participate.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

The whole line of argument smacks of activist machismo anyway. Why do you have to participate in something to criticize it? Let's extend that argument to other situations and see how idiotic it is:

- If you don't participate in the elections, you can't criticize them!
- If you don't participate in Obama's campaign, you can't criticize him!
- If you don't participate in the war, you can't criticize it!

And I guess Marx shouldn't have written about the Paris Commune, including the critical bits, since he didn't participate in it!

Pure horseshit.

[coda]

<<I'm a member of their Supporter's Organization and I was involved in the Student Walk out at my university and I took part in the first general assembly in my area.>>

Good to hear, as you should be, if one is able. Therefore, I am not referring to those who are participating. But, Just curious... did you walk out as part of a group of WPA Supporting Organization?

Perhaps I'm missing the basic sentiment of the whole statement which seems to bespeak to stay away because it is a "middle class", liberal and reformist tendency.

True as that may be...and if it is then there should be a strong leftist anti-capitalist counter presence. Which I am not seeing, at least in NYC. where are the Leftist headquarters here? You would think that every Leftist organization would (and should) be squatting the parks and fiercely agitating revolutionary propaganda and anti-capitalist demands. Nope, that element seems to be virtually missing. Not that there are not any Leftists here and there. There are. But any given one-day anti-war protest has had a bigger stronger Left presence involved. so, what's going on? I suspect it's because for the most part the Left are being dissuaded by their respective organizations to stay away. So, there you have why the occupation will be and remain reformist. How is the Left basically going to sit this one out? That should be contemplated and analyzed. There is never going to be 'perfect conditions'...

[coda]

by the way, just to clarify.. my comments aren't in regard to criticisms or point by point analysis against the action. Criticize away...

It's purely rounded against the lack of Leftist counter presence.

[The Douche]

Perhaps I'm missing the basic sentiment of the whole statement which seems to bespeak to stay away because it is a "middle class", liberal and reformist tendency.

What gives you the impression that those critical of the occupations are saying "stay away from them"?

[coda]

<<The whole line of argument smacks of activist machismo anyway. Why do you have to participate in something to criticize it? Let's extend that argument to other situations and see how idiotic it is:>>

Nope, it's not "activist machismo"-- whatever the fuck that means! If Leftists organizations/ members of organizations/all others/ are physically or logistically able, then when some kind of pro-Capitalist or anti Capitalist action erupts... Leftist anti capitalist presence should be largely visually present, seen and felt. Especially during a multiple week sit in. Why would they not??? What are we waiting for the unpoliticitized working class to just stumble and happen upon an open book of the Communist Manifesto calling for working class organization and revolution? Sorry, I don't get it!

[coda]

<<What gives you the impression that those critical of the occupations are saying "stay away from them"? >>

The lack of visual Leftist presence at the NY action has made me suspect that. and the Question is Why? Why such a lack of presence? Either they are being told to "stay away".. or they are not being encouraged to participate. Either way..amazing lack of Left presence at this multiple week anti capitalist gripe fest.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

"activist machismo"-- whatever the fuck that means!

It's the idiocy from people who participate in protest parades, 4-man informational pickets, or whatever else is going on, who rant and rave about it and throw their empty activism in other peoples' faces in an attempt to silence criticism with their perceived prestige. Frankly, I could give a fuck less how much shoe rubber someone has burned up in these sorts of events, especially in regard to their opinions. You'll find that some of the most reformist, opportunist, yellow-bellied misleaders on the left are involved in any and all activities - which in retrospect have achieved all of jack shit.

Perhaps Hemingway said it best: "Never confuse movement with action."

[The Douche]

Well, I have friends at it, I have seen people from various organizations that I know get arrested. I have seen propaganda and signs from various organizations, so, don't really know what to tell you.

Seems to me, much like the set ups of the anti-war movement.

[Martin Blank]

The lack of visual Leftist presence at the NY action has made me suspect that. and the Question is Why? Why such a lack of presence? Either they are being told to "stay away".. or they are not being encouraged to participate. Either way..amazing lack of Left presence at this multiple week anti capitalist gripe fest.

Nowhere in our leaflet did we say or suggest that people "stay away". What we said is that there needs to be a break with the petty-bourgeois reformers, politically and organizationally, and the development of a workers' occupation movement. That requires engagement and discussion.

As for us, we have a very small Unit in New York City, and our members have jobs that prevent them from being involved in the actual occupation. If we had the people, we would have a WPA tent area, where we would host discussions and be actively organizing for a distinct revolutionary workers' contingent, with its own elected and accountable leaders, and based on a revolutionary workers' program. Unfortunately, our numbers don't permit us to do that in New York City. However, where we do have the members to do it, that is our plan.

As for the lack of leftist participation, perhaps it is for the best, since it seems that most of the self-described socialists and communists are doing nothing but tailing the petty-bourgeois democratic reformers who are leading the occupation.

[Welshy]

<<I'm a member of their Supporter's Organization and I was involved in the Student Walk out at my university and I took part in the first general assembly in my area.>>

Good to hear, as you should be, if one is able. Therefore, I am not referring to those who are participating. But, Just curious... did you walk out as part of a group of WPA Supporting Organization?


I am currently the only member of the supporters organization at my university and the we only had a day to get the word out about the walk.



Perhaps I'm missing the basic sentiment of the whole statement which seems to bespeak to stay away because it is a "middle class", liberal and reformist tendency.

You missed the entire point of the leaflet. No where does it say to stay away.




True as that may be...and if it is then there should be a strong leftist anti-capitalist counter presence. Which I am not seeing, at least in NYC. where are the Leftist headquarters here? You would think that every Leftist organization would (and should) be squatting the parks and fiercely agitating revolutionary propaganda and anti-capitalist demands. Nope, that element seems to be virtually missing. Not that there are not any Leftists here and there. There are. But any given one-day anti-war protest has had a bigger stronger Left presence involved. so, what's going on? I suspect it's because for the most part the Left are being dissuaded by their respective organizations to stay away. So, there you have why the occupation will be and remain reformist. How is the Left basically going to sit this one out? That should be contemplated and analyzed. There is never going to be 'perfect conditions'...

In every video that I have seen of the protests there has been tons of PSL signs, I know ISO people who were there getting arrested on the bridge, and we have the TWU involved which the LRP does a lot of work in from what I have heard. And I sure there are a lot more groups there. So this idea that there is no revolutionary left presence at OWS isn't founded in reality. The problem is that the left isn't terribly big in the country, so what does exist has a shit ton of work to do. It seems like you expecting huge groups of people marching around with red flags chanting "death to capitalism!".

So I guess my point is that a lot of us are working, whether it's in NYC or in our own cities. So instead of attacking us for a perceived lack of action, start helping. Produce you own pamphlets/leaflets, so you comrades can distribute them and/or agitate and educate in your area as well.

[coda]

<<It's the idiocy from people who participate in protest parades, 4-man informational pickets, or whatever else is going on, who rant and rave about it and throw their empty activism in other peoples' faces in an attempt to silence criticism with their perceived prestige. Frankly, I could give a fuck less how much shoe rubber someone has burned up in these sorts of events, especially in regard to their opinions. You'll find that some of the most reformist, opportunist, yellow-bellied misleaders on the left are involved in any and all activities - which in retrospect have achieved all of jack shit.
Perhaps Hemingway said it best: "Never confuse movement with action.">>

Well, what is a valid or worthwhile tactic and strategy can be debated til the sun burns out..(You personally have your own platform to vent propaganda if I'm not mistaken). but anyway, after decades of nothing happening I'm at the conclusion that revolutionary leftist visibility and transparency can only help a communist movement. That means having a distinct presence at anything even remotely critical of capitalism. NO?

[coda]

<<As for us, we have a very small Unit in New York City, and our members have jobs that prevent them from being involved in the actual occupation.

good to hear, Miles. I would assume at your organization's level to make an appearance, If not be holding ground at the park. I'm glad you cleared that up. I will try to look for your org. and drop by for a leaflet.

<<So instead of attacking us for a perceived lack of action, start helping. Produce you own pamphlets/leaflets, so you comrades can distribute them and/or agitate and educate in your area as well. >>

I've been there for nearly two -1/2 weeks back and forth in shifts. Yes, more convenient as I live in NY. I wouldn't say otherwise had I not seen for myself a distinct lack of leftest presence. Nor did I say there wasn't any Leftists at all Just not what you would expect from a multi-week action continuously picking up steam (in NY) that is based on grievances against Capitalism.

And don't think I' attacking individual leftists.. there are plenty of anarchists roaming the streets of NY. I am questioning why prominent Leftists organizations are not there.. and if they are, are not making themselves known. Even for the World Can't Wait oust Bush one day action, Left organizations were chartering busses to get people there. So, yeah.. I'm a bit baffled.. Not neccessarily attacking.. just seriously questioning??????

[RED DAVE]

You would think that every Leftist organization would (and should) be squatting the parks and fiercely agitating revolutionary propaganda and anti-capitalist demands. Nope, that element seems to be virtually missing. Not that there are not any Leftists here and there. There are. But any given one-day anti-war protest has had a bigger stronger Left presence involved. so, what's going on? I suspect it's because for the most part the Left are being dissuaded by their respective organizations to stay away. So, there you have why the occupation will be and remain reformist. How is the Left basically going to sit this one out? That should be contemplated and analyzed. There is never going to be 'perfect conditions'...Exactly.

If I were in a group, I'd be agitating for it to set up a booth there 24/7.

RED DAVE

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Well, what is a valid or worthwhile tactic and strategy can be debated til the sun burns out..(You personally have your own platform to vent propaganda if I'm not mistaken). but anyway, after decades of nothing happening I'm at the conclusion that revolutionary leftist visibility and transparency can only help a communist movement. That means having a distinct presence at anything even remotely critical of capitalism. NO?

No. I think the further the left sects stay away from any authentic movement, the better.

[coda]

Thank you, Dave.

I mean, really, isn't (anti)Capitalism "The" Left cause ---the reason for being? To overthrow it however way possible? To be THE social forces against it. Isn't that our purpose? Nope, the Democrats are taking over the anti-Capitalist movement. Those hardy bunch of people camping out for weeks on end in the rain and change of season for a cause they know nothing about. And where fore art thou the commies? The Days of Rage, the predecessors of the Chicago 7? Our we becoming a wholly theoretical movement-- a study group-- a book club?

Anyone?

[Binh]

Exactly.

If I were in a group, I'd be agitating for It to set up a booth there 24/7.

RED DAVE

No left group has an ongoing presence there. It's a disgrace.

The failure of the organized socialist left to relate to this doesn't mean it's reformist. There is more than one revolutionary trend on the left.

[OHumanista]

Frankly I think most socialist organisations in the US are in such a weak state and so full of doubts and so apathetic that I am not really expecting them to seize ANY opportunities anytime soon.
Of course I hope I am completely wrong and that is does "seize" the moment even in a limited way.

[coda]

<<No left group has an ongoing presence there. It's a disgrace.>>

Indeed.

Isn't it time for the revolutionary radical left to come out from the shadows of being a radical fringe irrelevant cold war relic and into the present as something that is truly beneficial and useful and good for the whole of the working class majority? It's a huge missed opportunity that the Left isn't there at this anti-Capitalist event to carve out and hold some ground and to say "this system failed-- will always fail....communism is the way forward." When people are listening....

wtf??

[coda]

<<Frankly I think most socialist organisations in the US are in such a weak state and so full of doubts and so apathetic that I am not really expecting them to seize ANY opportunities anytime soon.>>>

yes.. so full of doubt...

when that happens the leadership should move aside.

[Martin Blank]

good to hear, Miles. I would assume at your organization's level to make an appearance, If not be holding ground at the park. I'm glad you cleared that up. I will try to look for your org. and drop by for a leaflet.

We've been talking about this problem (us not having people at the occupation site in Zucotti Park) and we're looking for a way for me to get there to join in the occupation. The big problem is, of course, transportation to NYC from Michigan. It's about $300 whether I take the bus, fly into town or rent a car -- all of which is well outside of what I can afford, and the Party has nowhere near that much money in its treasury. So, we'll have to see what kind of miracle we can accomplish.

[Threetune]

I think that in terms of analysis, the OP document is probably 95% correct. But subjectively, as a way to reach people, workers, the existing protesters, etc., it's useless. It's rhetoric is virtually unreadable by anyone who isn't an experienced Marxist.

Comrades need to update their rhetoric. This is 2011, not 1931.

RED DAVE

Go on then show us how.

[Threetune]

So what, the ‘radical’ reformists are setting up ‘parliaments in the parks’, good!
Now let the communist workers descend on their parliaments, congresses, or whatever they are called and turn them into workers councils and the ‘radicals’ can stay if they abide by the revolutionary democratic will of the workers.

Edit: What's the problem?

[RED DAVE]

So what, the ‘radical’ reformists are setting up ‘parliaments in the parks’, good!
Now let the communist workers descend on their parliaments, congresses, or whatever they are called and turn them into workers councils and the ‘radicals’ can stay if they abide by the revolutionary democratic will of the workers.

Edit: What's the problem?It's hard to see where you're coming from politically. What's your strategy and program. Everyone wants the "communist workers" to show up, but they don't exist at this point in history.

RED DAVE

[Threetune]

It's hard to see where you're coming from politically. What's your strategy and program. Everyone wants the "communist workers" to show up, but they don't exist at this point in history.

RED DAVE

So what are you?

[R_P_A_S]

Yes.. I say stop clutching your photos of Marx, Lenin, Stalin and Trotsky and do away with the slogans which have alienated the workers more than united them. Who cares what is called or how it looks like at first? As long as is genuinely democratic and for the good of all working people (the majority). Who cares! It doesn't need a title or an "ism".

Look at the status quo and all of those supporting it. HOW OFTEN do you ever hear them shouting "CAPITALISM RULES"? I rarely hear anyone marching around with Capitalism slogans or symbols or rhetoric and if they do have it they don't throw the term "Capitalism" around like we throw around Socialism, Communism.

Eventually people ON THEIR OWN will realize.. "this is true democracy at work" and then will see how it looks a lot more like socialism. etc etc.

Someone said "give out communist mainifestos at the occupy events. REALLY? You honestly think half of those people will read it? Come one.. lets me realistic.

[Threetune]

For pity’s sake, all any communist has to do is join in and start talking about the need for workers power. It’s not rocket science. It will change the revolutionary consciousness of others in practice (even if they don’t agree) and it will improve yours. What is the problem?

[Rocky Rococo]

I always prefer to take away from something what I consider the central positives, and let the rest go.

To me, the idea raised here of extending the movement into workplace occupations is a clear winner. it provides an angle that at the same time clearly connects with and continues the essential positive spirit and character of the current movement, the idea of "Occupation", while giving it a more militant and more unmistakably working class character. I want to thank the WPA for bringing this idea forward, and encourage them to make that the central focus of their work relevant to the current situation going forward, and deepening and broadening their outreach around that idea.

[Martin Blank]

In every video that I have seen of the protests there has been tons of PSL signs, I know ISO people who were there getting arrested on the bridge, and we have the TWU involved which the LRP does a lot of work in from what I have heard. And I sure there are a lot more groups there. So this idea that there is no revolutionary left presence at OWS isn't founded in reality. The problem is that the left isn't terribly big in the country, so what does exist has a shit ton of work to do. It seems like you expecting huge groups of people marching around with red flags chanting "death to capitalism!".

I think that SF is referring to a lack of leftist participation in the actual tent city occupation, not the protests and marches that are happening. It's a legitimate criticism, IMO, to point out that these groups are parachuting in for the marches, handing out leaflets about what the "Occupy" movement should do, and then taking off as fast as they came, leaving the actual occupiers to themselves. By all rights, there is no reason why groups like the ISO, WWP, PSL, SWP, CPUSA, etc., can't have their own presence in the park.