RT Crossfire: Occupy Wall Street

[Die Rote Fahne]

nO9oMV-RXRUThe Occupy movement is discussed on Russia Today's "Crossfire" between two Occupy proponents and a Tea Party idiot.

This tea party guy's loud mouthed idiocy isn't the only problem I have. These proponents are talking about democratizing their economy within capitalism...about how it is a mystical "something else" as opposed to capitalism or not capitalism. To me, this movement is lacking what it really needs, a revolutionary socialist element, the class conscious Marxist element, where those involved are fighting for an actual end to bourgeois rule and the establishment of a socialist system. Did I ever expect it to be theoretically sound and motivated? No. They are Utopians, they are the social democrats, the democratic socialists, what have you. This is the fundamental issue, and reason why it will ultimately accomplish nothing.

Is it possible that this can change? Yes, but it needs to have an organization/party dedicated to leading and moulding this movement, and making their voices be heard the only way they can be, by overturning the capitalist system.

Thoughts?

[Zealot]

Calm down, it hasn't even been a month yet, and probably will be a few more before you'll see anyone chanting "Down with the bourgeoisie!". It's still a learning process for most of them, like the utopians who hated the rotten system but didn't really know how to critique it until good ole Uncle Marx came along. And you're right, we need revolutionaries in there to raise class consciousness and guide it. But who is willing to do that? Chanting "We are the 99%" is not revolutionary enough comrades.

[Die Rote Fahne]

Calm down, it hasn't even been a month yet, and probably will be a few more before you'll see anyone chanting "Down with the bourgeoisie!". It's still a learning process for most of them, like the utopians who hated the rotten system but didn't really know how to critique it until good ole Uncle Marx came along. And you're right, we need revolutionaries in there to raise class consciousness and guide it. But who is willing to do that? Chanting "We are the 99%" is not revolutionary enough comrades.
Especially when the 99% includes members of the ruling class.

[Tablo]

The main thing I think we can see out of this is growth in class consciousness and the further radicalization of some members of the working class. I don't see a revolution/whatever from this. I'm hoping we can at least get some solid fucking concessions, but even that is unlikely.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

nO9oMV-RXRUThe Occupy movement is discussed on Russia Today's "Crossfire" between two Occupy proponents and a Tea Party idiot.

This tea party guy's loud mouthed idiocy isn't the only problem I have. These proponents are talking about democratizing their economy within capitalism...about how it is a mystical "something else" as opposed to capitalism or not capitalism. To me, this movement is lacking what it really needs, a revolutionary socialist element, the class conscious Marxist element, where those involved are fighting for an actual end to bourgeois rule and the establishment of a socialist system. Did I ever expect it to be theoretically sound and motivated? No. They are Utopians, they are the social democrats, the democratic socialists, what have you. This is the fundamental issue, and reason why it will ultimately accomplish nothing.

Is it possible that this can change? Yes, but it needs to have an organization/party dedicated to leading and moulding this movement, and making their voices be heard the only way they can be, by overturning the capitalist system.

Thoughts?

(1) America doesn't have a recent history of socialism and we have to start from scratch not only due to the fall of the USSR which "discredited" socialism (despite the fact that the USSR failed to effectively build a socialist system) but due to the deep cultural mistrust of the ideology and preference for Capitalism ingrained since the independence of the 13 colonies.

(2) Political parties bring discipline to a movement but have often shown themselves to be a part of the problem as corruptible institutions with power-cliques. They are not an answer to the insufficient political organization of the wall street protests, at least not the short term.

(3) The movement isn't explicitly socialist, nobody is saying it is and to be frank people shouldn't try to force it into one. It is an expression of people's frustration with the ruling powers in general. The failure of the banks gives an opportunity to critique Capitalism in a way which was not possible before and show how Marxist models accurately reflect growth and decline in the free market.

The movement is more of an anarchist free-space than a socialist revolutionary party, and I think that many would like to keep it that way for the time being.


Especially when the 99% includes members of the ruling class.

"the 99%" is a metaphor for those who are not bourgeois (ie, petit bourgeois and proletariat). I think it refers to the fact that 1% of the USA owns almost 50% of America's wealth.

[ВАЛТЕР]

Watched this last night, I grew to hate that Tea Party guy with a passion. He just looks like he has never done a hard days work in his life, and he is going to tell people it is their fault they are poor.