#Occupy

[A Revolutionary Tool]

Since everybody seems to be making their own #Occupy threads I thought I would join the cool crowd and make my own. Why the hell is there a "#" in front of the word "Occupy"?

[bricolage]

Twitter.

[Nox]

Because of the single shittest website on Earth... Twitter

[A Revolutionary Tool]

Wow so is this how we're going to name everything now?

[Smyg]

If you don't use Twitter, then you must obviously be a primitivst. Restrict now! :D

[EvilRedGuy]

Twitter and Facebook must be restricted not the primitivists.

[Nox]

#I #Fucking #Hate #Twitter #Why #The #Fuck #Do #People #Write #Shit #Like #This #When #They #Aren't #On #Twitter #It's #Like #Saying #lol #in #real #life

[Pirate Utopian]

#whocares

[Agent Ducky]

I've never understood why people take hashtags into things that aren't twitter. Especially if they don't USE twitter.

[Nox]

#whocares

#toughcrowd

[Nox]

I've never understood why people take hashtags into things that aren't twitter. Especially if they don't USE twitter.

#Exactly

[RHIZOMES]

Once again the dogmatic left show their complete hostility to new social movements creating fresh symbols that are relevant to 21st century activism.

Never change Revleft, never change.

[EvilRedGuy]

http://www.yalibnan.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/anti-sectarianism-rally-11-300x200.jpg

[Aleenik]

Once again the dogmatic left show their complete hostility to new social movements creating fresh symbols that are relevant to 21st century activism.

Never change Revleft, never change.Lol this, this and more of this.

Twitter is an extremely important service not just for entertainment purposes, but for change throughout the world.

[Obs]

Once again the dogmatic left show their complete hostility to new social movements creating fresh symbols that are relevant to 21st century activism.

Never change Revleft, never change.

hipsters aren't a social movement dude

[Agent Ducky]

Lol this, this and more of this.

Twitter is an extremely important service not just for entertainment purposes, but for change throughout the world.
I have respect for the Occupy movements and Twitter as a medium for spreading word, but that said, it still doesn't make that much sense for people to be using Twitter hashtags everywhere that's not twitter.

[Nox]

Once again the dogmatic left show their complete hostility to new social movements creating fresh symbols that are relevant to 21st century activism.

Never change Revleft, never change.

Yes, because putting hashtags before words when you're not on twitter is vital to 21st century activism!

#stupidity


I have respect for the Occupy movements and Twitter as a medium for spreading word, but that said, it still doesn't make that much sense for people to be using Twitter hashtags everywhere that's not twitter.

Haha exactly, people using hashtags has got to be the single most annoying thing I can think of right now.

#annoyingasfuck

[Nox]

This picture sums up my view on the 'hashtag'...

[NoOneIsIllegal]

#number

[RHIZOMES]

hipsters aren't a social movement dude

If you want to pigeonhole the entire use of the hashtag in modern protest movements to hipsters, when you probably haven't even met any of those people, be my guest.

Just don't dress it in any illusions of actual critical socio-political analysis, y'know that thing that Marxists should be doing all the time. All it is, is crude dogmatic stereotyping.


Yes, because putting hashtags before words when you're not on twitter is vital to 21st century activism!

Whatever you say Stalin avatar.

I never said vital, I said it is a symbol. In particular, it is a symbol of the bottom-up grassroots methods of organisation that the information age has allowed for, that many young people find absolutely liberating. Political symbols are rarely used for purely functional and utilitarian reasons, they are used for what they represent.

But nah keep singing the Internationale and waving Little Red Books, see if that'll capture the popular imagination. :lol:

[Pirate Utopian]

lol at people who seriously think only hipsters use twitter.

In the Netherlands even the fucking christian democrats use twitter. They're about as far removed from hipsters as you can get.

[Obs]

If you want to pigeonhole the entire use of the hashtag in modern protest movements to hipsters, when you probably haven't even met any of those people, be my guest.

Just don't dress it in any illusions of actual critical socio-political analysis, y'know that thing that Marxists should be doing all the time. All it is, is crude dogmatic stereotyping.



Whatever you say Stalin avatar.

I never said vital, I said it is a symbol. In particular, it is a symbol of the bottom-up grassroots methods of organisation that the information age has allowed for, that many young people find absolutely liberating. Political symbols are rarely used for purely functional and utilitarian reasons, they are used for what they represent.

But nah keep singing the Internationale and waving Little Red Books, see if that'll capture the popular imagination. :lol:

Sure. I can get behind the fact that this whole twitter fad is a big thing with Americans, and I don't have a problem with it. But so far I don't see any kind of ideology connecting these protests, or any kind of class perspective, which is why I see this "#occupy" thing as a symptom of some kind of consciousness brewing, but not even remotely the kind of unified force necessary for a revolution. You can't blame us for being skeptical, though - it's a bit disheartening to work in an anti-capitalist movement for years only to see a multi-million dollar business being used as a revolutionary symbol.

Also, this whole talk of twitter being a defining factor of this struggle seems a lot like what Western media did to the Egyptian protests - marginalising the role of the working class in favour of Facebook and, well, twitter.

These people don't want socialism. They want capitalism with a human face, if anything - frankly, I have yet to see any kind of tangible demand from them.

[bcbm]

Sure. I can get behind the fact that this whole twitter fad is a big thing with Americans, and I don't have a problem with it. But so far I don't see any kind of ideology connecting these protests, or any kind of class perspective, which is why I see this "#occupy" thing as a symptom of some kind of consciousness brewing, but not even remotely the kind of unified force necessary for a revolution. You can't blame us for being skeptical, though - it's a bit disheartening to work in an anti-capitalist movement for years only to see a multi-million dollar business being used as a revolutionary symbol. shit is complex and doesn't work out like whatever pro-revolutionary wet dream who knew


Also, this whole talk of twitter being a defining factor of this struggle seems a lot like what Western media did to the Egyptian protests - marginalising the role of the working class in favour of Facebook and, well, twitter.this protest is even more plugged in than the arab spring


These people don't want socialism. They want capitalism with a human face, if anything - frankly, I have yet to see any kind of tangible demand from them. who are 'these people?' there is a diversity of perspectives at the protests

also welcome to the 21st century

[Obs]

who are 'these people?' there is a diversity of perspectives at the protests

This is a major problem.

[Pirate Utopian]

This is a major problem.

Why is it a problem per se?

[RHIZOMES]

This is a major problem.

There were more people in the Anti-War and Civil Rights movement than Marxists, and there were more groups in opposition to the Czar than simply the Bolsheviks. learn2historicalmaterialism. This is an organic social movement that revolutionaries must play an active role in, not whinge about it because not everyone in it is a card-carrying communist.

This is the type of logic that breeds insular left-wing sects that only let in people who have read the right books. The US working-class is mad as hell, so what if they haven't don't have an intricate understanding of Marxist crisis theory? That is where revolutionary socialists are *supposed to* come in.

You guys seem to only know how to operate under a reactionary substitutionist logic due to the lack of political consciousness over the last 30 years, when the working-class actually mobilise you all reveal your true colours in your inability/unwillingness to effectively relate to and communicate with the masses.

Large groups of working-class folk don't all become revolutionary communists out of thin air, this position is fundamentally idealist and non-Marxist.

[socialistjustin]

If I could thank Arizona Bay's last post, I would. Good shit.

[Agent Ducky]

If I could thank Arizona Bay's last post, I would. Good shit.

This. Thank the shit out of it.

[Aleenik]

If I could thank Arizona Bay's last post, I would. Good shit.Yep. It was well said.:thumbup:

[Nox]

Whatever you say Stalin avatar.

I never said vital, I said it is a symbol. In particular, it is a symbol of the bottom-up grassroots methods of organisation that the information age has allowed for, that many young people find absolutely liberating. Political symbols are rarely used for purely functional and utilitarian reasons, they are used for what they represent.

But nah keep singing the Internationale and waving Little Red Books, see if that'll capture the popular imagination. :lol:

The hashtag isn't a political symbol, it's a symbol for people who get twitter confused with real life/other websites. I wouldn't be surprised if in the near future people say a sentence out loud and follow it with 'hashtag' then a key word.

[#FF0000]

The hashtag isn't a political symbol

why not

[Nox]

why not

It isn't a political symbol, people are trying to make it a political symbol, but what's the point?

[hatzel]

Could I just take this opportunity to point out that my favourite post of the thread so far has been...


http://www.yalibnan.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/anti-sectarianism-rally-11-300x200.jpg

...from somebody who just the other day called for all speciesists to be banhammered (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2253665&postcount=3) in a totally unrelated thread. Lolzer.

Anyway, that's enough of the hostility...

I don't actually use the hashtag on my Twitter posts at the moment, because I'm not so much using Twitter as I am just setting it up so that my posts appear as a feed on the side of my blog, so that I can easily post (potentially) meaningless crap from my phone - like "Perhaps. Purr-haps. Woof-haps. Miss Woof. Haps" or "I am other people" or "A dog is a wolf inside" - in order to maintain the feeling of freaky-weird-parody-blog-thing that I've got going on at the moment, and I feel that hashtagging and all that would spoil the aesthetic. So now you all know. And you are better people for it.

At the same time...I love the ol' hashtag, and it's good if it's used, even if just because people may then tweet about...well, whatever it is the whole thing's about...using that hashtag, and perhaps generating some kind of buzz or awareness or something positive.

[#FF0000]

It isn't a political symbol, people are trying to make it a political symbol, but what's the point?

I don't think people are trying to. I think it is, given that, uh, people are using it and it has come to represent political things.

[EvilRedGuy]

Could I just take this opportunity to point out that my favourite post of the thread so far has been...



...from somebody who just the other day called for all speciesists to be banhammered (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2253665&postcount=3) in a totally unrelated thread. Lolzer.



:rolleyes:







So being against racism, or homophobia and wanting them banned would be unokay for you aswell? In that case no one should be restricted. I'd rather you banned though.

[Obs]

There were more people in the Anti-War and Civil Rights movement than Marxists,
Which is part of the reason why the US is involved in four simultaneous wars today, and blacks continue to be oppressed in comparison to whites in America.

and there were more groups in opposition to the Czar than simply the Bolsheviks.
Yet the Bolsheviks had to take charge for anything productive to start happening.


This is an organic social movement that revolutionaries must play an active role in, not whinge about it because not everyone in it is a card-carrying communist.
I wouldn't say I'm whinging. My take on this is just that this does movement does not appear to have any potential due to its divided nature.


This is the type of logic that breeds insular left-wing sects that only let in people who have read the right books. The US working-class is mad as hell, so what if they haven't don't have an intricate understanding of Marxist crisis theory? That is where revolutionary socialists are *supposed to* come in.
Sure. Anything else would be idiotic. But don't get your hopes up.


You guys seem to only know how to operate under a reactionary substitutionist logic due to the lack of political consciousness over the last 30 years, when the working-class actually mobilise you all reveal your true colours in your inability/unwillingness to effectively relate to and communicate with the masses.
Oh, I can play this game too; it seems you guys (notice how I can be just as intentionally vague as you?) haven't learned from 30 years of constant defeat that impulsive social movements don't always pan out well. If we tag along to every little protest we're gonna look naive and foolish, and when the protest has no clear goal, I wouldn't count on any momentum being built from it.

[RHIZOMES]

Which is part of the reason why the US is involved in four simultaneous wars today, and blacks continue to be oppressed in comparison to whites in America.

I agree, and your criticism of why it failed does have value. But the conclusions you have drawn from those criticisms are a bit dodgy. We should see the failures of the Anti-War and Civil Rights movements and try not to let it happen again, this is the use-value history contains for actual revolutionary real-life Marxists.

On the other hand, nay-saying internet Marxists use history to shit all over any sign of class struggle because it doesn't fit their murky pre-conceived theoretical paradigms. :P


Yet the Bolsheviks had to take charge for anything productive to start happening.

What you exactly mean by "anything productive" is a bit ambigious, but I'll let that slide. My point is that the Bolsheviks weren't the determining factor in the formation of organic class struggle. Class struggle happened due to the material contradictions within Russian society. The Bolsheviks merely seized the moment. If my argument could be reduced to a single position, it for the way in which we should always distinguish between an organically formed movement of class struggle and the revolutionary leftists that intervene.

The 1917 revolution was the ultimate result of decades of class struggle from different ideological groups, remember the 1905 St. Petersburg massacre? This functions as a handy microcosm of what I am saying. It was a massacre of peaceful, unarmed demonstrators. This protest wasn't lead by the Bolsheviks, it was organised by a socially concerned Russian Orthodox priest!

The class struggle will always have multiple perspectives within it, and this is inevitable due to the very individual nature of human consciousness. Everyone comes from their own different perspective due to a lifetime of distinct material and ideological determinants.

When the working-class are angry, their anger is not always going to be very well-formed or directed at the right people. There is no clear cause-effect relationship between the base and the superstructure, i.e. there is no simple relationship between our ideas and economic reality. All because the working-class *should* be mad at capitalism as a whole doesn't mean they will always express their class anger in the clearest and most effective way, and this is where revolutionary socialists come in.

If you go back and read The Communist Manifesto, you'll find that one of the central concerns of Marx and Engels is how communists relate to the already-existing class struggle that was occurring in Europe (which also had multiple perspectives, just like every class struggle in history). Communists didn't invent class struggle, and the presence of a clear communist voice shouldn't be the determining feature of whether communists should 'support' it or not, but rather such conditions should determine how we intervene.

Also, this is why substitionism is reactionary. Too many communist parties think that they can simply instigate the class struggle all by themselves, because they also have this same false idea of conflating class struggle with themselves. And then when actual class struggle intensifies, they have no idea how to conceive of it because they've become so locked-in to this substitutionist mode of organising.


I wouldn't say I'm whinging. My take on this is just that this does movement does not appear to have any potential due to its divided nature.

Luckily the tides of history have the tendency to unfold in the least expected ways. So what if the Occupy movement doesn't result in the immediate seizure of the means of production? This is the beginning of a new stage of class struggle in the US to a scale not seen in years, and the revolutionary left have got to engage with it or it will be lapped up by murky liberal politics.


Sure. Anything else would be idiotic. But don't get your hopes up.

I'm not getting my 'hopes up' for success or failure, my view of how history unfolds is a lot less didactic than that.


Oh, I can play this game too; it seems you guys (notice how I can be just as intentionally vague as you?) haven't learned from 30 years of constant defeat that impulsive social movements don't always pan out well. If we tag along to every little protest we're gonna look naive and foolish, and when the protest has no clear goal, I wouldn't count on any momentum being built from it.

The Occupy movement has a lot more revolutionary potential than most other impulsive social movements over the past 30 years, precisely due to its class character and unifying message (99% solidarity). All because it is not ideologically well-formed (yet) is no reason not to get involved. One of the most interesting characteristics of the movement is how it is effectively creating a space where revolutionary ideas can be discussed and communicated amongst people who aren't just part of the usual left-wing protesting activist intelligentsia, and this is extremely positive.

[ColonelCossack]

I've never heard of any of this before...

#Da fok? If anyone's noticed... that's become my catchphrase.

[RHIZOMES]

lol i totally killed this thread