Sinister Cultural Marxist
7th October 2011, 16:18
(1) These are not socialist protests per se but that is no reason to give up. Instead of going there expecting to organize a socialist revolution, go there expecting to organize an anti-capitalist action and to educate people on why socialism is a good alternative. Opening people's minds to revolutionary social or economic ideology is a justifiable goal in of itself.
Most Americans aren't socialists-most anti-Capitalists aren't even there yet. Instead of giving up in frustration, socialists should instead go and have earnest discussions with liberals and left-capitalists. Instead of expecting these protests to become a revolution overnight, people should view them as an opportunity to educate people about the problems with Capitalism and how "other economic ideologies" might fix the problems.
These protests represent homeless, out-of-work, physically disabled, students, pensioners, underemployed and union members. This is a movement for them, not for sectarian socialist orgs-perhaps socialism or anarchism or other leftist ideologies might benefit them, but the protesters are not there to fight for a particular movement. Socialists should be there for them instead of expecting them to be there for the socialists!
(2) The protests are disorganized but that is their strength. The lack of top-down organization means that it is easier for anybody to feel engaged with the project, and it means that many Americans are far more sympathetic to the protests.
The protests are horribly organized, GAs can be messy at best, but this is due to the largely organic and bottom-up nature of the protests. It means that these protests can start in any city at any time with 3 people and a sleeping bag, and they can grow without needing a major organizational push. It also means everyone is more invested in the project, and people will fight harder to maintain the protest in the face of police oppression. Don't complain about the lack of a vanguard or centralization, just
(3) The lack of a central ideology or set of positions creates the opportunity to work with the Wall Street occupiers to protest any number of problems, it is not a weakness.
The Occupy protests have managed to organize-with other groups helping-a number of large protests thus far, and this will only seem to continue. This is a good opportunity to create a broad leftwing agenda. It is not too hard to explain clearly how any number of social problems, on some level, come back to the Capitalist Republicanism of the USA (not referring to the "Republican Party" but the political system). Its lack of a clear message or ideology has been its strength in this regard-where the media was asking "why are these protests here?" protesters were deciding on their own why they were there and deciding to fight everything from the Afghanistan/Iraq wars to the death penalty to a lack of environmentally-safe agriculture.
Just some thoughts on why some socialists are wrong to dismiss the protests (if they do) for the lack of a cohesive organization/message etc and why those facts are historical and material necessities.
Most Americans aren't socialists-most anti-Capitalists aren't even there yet. Instead of giving up in frustration, socialists should instead go and have earnest discussions with liberals and left-capitalists. Instead of expecting these protests to become a revolution overnight, people should view them as an opportunity to educate people about the problems with Capitalism and how "other economic ideologies" might fix the problems.
These protests represent homeless, out-of-work, physically disabled, students, pensioners, underemployed and union members. This is a movement for them, not for sectarian socialist orgs-perhaps socialism or anarchism or other leftist ideologies might benefit them, but the protesters are not there to fight for a particular movement. Socialists should be there for them instead of expecting them to be there for the socialists!
(2) The protests are disorganized but that is their strength. The lack of top-down organization means that it is easier for anybody to feel engaged with the project, and it means that many Americans are far more sympathetic to the protests.
The protests are horribly organized, GAs can be messy at best, but this is due to the largely organic and bottom-up nature of the protests. It means that these protests can start in any city at any time with 3 people and a sleeping bag, and they can grow without needing a major organizational push. It also means everyone is more invested in the project, and people will fight harder to maintain the protest in the face of police oppression. Don't complain about the lack of a vanguard or centralization, just
(3) The lack of a central ideology or set of positions creates the opportunity to work with the Wall Street occupiers to protest any number of problems, it is not a weakness.
The Occupy protests have managed to organize-with other groups helping-a number of large protests thus far, and this will only seem to continue. This is a good opportunity to create a broad leftwing agenda. It is not too hard to explain clearly how any number of social problems, on some level, come back to the Capitalist Republicanism of the USA (not referring to the "Republican Party" but the political system). Its lack of a clear message or ideology has been its strength in this regard-where the media was asking "why are these protests here?" protesters were deciding on their own why they were there and deciding to fight everything from the Afghanistan/Iraq wars to the death penalty to a lack of environmentally-safe agriculture.
Just some thoughts on why some socialists are wrong to dismiss the protests (if they do) for the lack of a cohesive organization/message etc and why those facts are historical and material necessities.