A warning: Rise to defend the revolutionary

[kasama-rl]

http://kasamaproject.org/2011/10/06/a-warning-to-those-who-think-they-are-conscious-revolutionary/

A warning: Rise to defend the revolutionary

by Mike Ely Here is the deal: The smell of sulfur is upon the land. Satan himself is coming now…

Of course we don’t believe in Satan. It is a metaphor.

What I mean is this: The real and difficult struggle within this movement and for this movement is now starting.

The media is turning on the machinery. The unions officials will now come as “supporters” but broker for the liberal establishment. “Advisers” will show up. People (who are pliant and acceptable) will now be declared leaders and spokespeople in the media. Demands will be announced or promoted or demanded that correspond to the program of the Democratic Party…. and much more.

We see it on every side: The Democratic Party (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/10/05/1023087/-Numerous-political-figures-endorse-Occupy-Wall-Street?via=siderec) (through many instrumentalities) is coming to convert the Occupy XXX movement into a liberal version of the Tea Party (their personal reserve to whipping up their social base for the coming elections). It is, to put it bluntly, what death looks like for this new movement.

They are coming in disguise, with honeyed words, with promises and seductions. As they have come for previous generations.

The liberal establishment themselves will now try to shape and coopt. And i mean those who currently dominate an empire and wage wars to maintain it.They are the confidants of the bankers, the guardians of the status quo.

They will whisper the language of populist rage and reform — while offering a servile place in their election machinery. Those who are coming have money, agents, foot soldiers, spotlights, avenues to fame, perfumes of power and the weight of their system’s deadening political logic.

Look at Wisconsin — where a righteous resistance was funneled into a lame recall campaign… the way cattle are funneled toward the zapper.

The system is not fixable. We don’t want a way back in. Obama is the president from Goldman Sachs. He serves as commander in chief of an empire and its wars. We don’t want a seat in his campaign table. And we don’t want tactical advice on how to help his campaign appeal to “Middle Americans.”

We will reach the people ourselves (especially the youth of ghettos and barrios and Middle America) with a subversive message that won’t compute in the calculators of this system.

What will they do: The Republicans sent in a steel backbone of trained operatives (led by Dick Army) to simply take over and shape the Tea Party — replacing the rightwing grassroots with a flogging of mailing lists using Fox News. The Democrats will now try the equivalent with the Occupy movement — if we allow it.

Can we allow ourselves to become a house-broken leftwing chorus within an oppressive and corrupt status quo? No.

Meanwhile the libertarian and conspiracy theorists are seeking to grab this movement for the radical right — promoting free market dogmas that culminate with a call for abolishing the Federal Reserve. Can we allow ourselves to become a megaphone for some mythic unrestrained capitalism?

Obviously not.

How we will defeat this:

First, we need to take an inventory of who we are — the revolutionary, the discontented, the dissident, the energized and visionary — and see the great potential for this radicalism. We are not something that “turns off” — we are not something that has to be tamed, or hidden, or cleaned up. On the contrary, we will have to deepen our critique and its radicalism — because the problems run deeper than even many of us know, and the solutions will require more disruption and change than even many of us imagine.

And so, we need to prepare a sophisticated defense of the radical: within the movement and within the larger society.

This movement has punched a hole into the public sphere. The whole world is watching — use it!

Our enemies are now turning on the big carrot and big stick and big lie. They will now start to red-bait the radicals, revolutionaries and “crazies” in the movement. It is already happening. Learn to ride the tiger (http://kasamaproject.org/2011/04/03/riding-the-tiger-how-to-light-the-sky-survive-the-repression/).

Look at the major questions of power and politics concentrated in this moment and this movement. Get on a high plane.Represent the future within the present and the whole within the part. Represent the revolutionary within the movement — in a sweeping, not nit-picking, way.

We need strategic messaging when we write and speak. We need to identify forces inside and outside the movement we are speaking to.

Above all, we need to grasp the power of that very radicalism that they will try to extinguish.

Don’t focus on the petty

If reactionary shit goes down within the movement (especially the usual racist and sexist shit of American society), let’s call it out — short, sharp, clear. Bring it to a stop and move on. But our self-cleansing is process, not the central work. Don’t get bogged down.

I hear complaints — about the naive and goofy within the movement (including consensus rules, hand gestures, an attempt to avoid leadership or what ever). Deal with such things when they get in the way — but don’t get lost.

We need to help build a core of the most determined and radical (together with others) to grow through the offensives that will be thrown at us.
Revolutionaries need to develop a generous, inclusive, and sweeping manner of speaking — that sharply indicts all that abuses the people. We need to speak to (and for) the revolutionary within this movement.

This requires some quick transformation, quick learning, mutual training and creative work. Do it. Time is running out.

Proclaiming the revolutionary: Breaking down the tasks

Revolutionaries within this movement face some incredibly challenging responsibilities. Let’s rise to our crucial tasks.

Prominent among them: We need to solve the problem of getting youth from oppressed communities deep into this movement, and help transform it. Help actually solve the problem… Make outreach of that kind into a movement of the advanced.

And my main theme here: We need to help wage that proud and unapologetic defense of the revolutionary (inside and outside the encampments)

For that…. four things:

1) Develop a visible and creative pole of revolutionary discussion — we need arguments based on the overall direction and purpose of this movement (not on petty correctives). What does that consist of? First, putting forward revolutionary, socialist and communist politics clearly and creatively — and (when appropriate) in an all round way. Second, identifying the two or three key political points that the movement needs to have breakthroughs on — and find the ways of articulating them powerfully. (Identifying those make-or-break issues is a fluid and creative process — rooted in context and actual need — not in our own pre-existing checklist.)

2) Identify and unite the advanced (using a mass line method (http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=421816981223) )– a creative task that has not yet been accomplished.

3) Rely on the advanced (mobilize them, help them articulate a common approach) to influence and win over the intermediate.

4) Work to isolate the backward. In this case, the backward are those determined to turn this movement into a liberal version of the Tea Party, and perp -walk everyone into the 2012 elections as loyal subjects.

This is happening now.

[eyeheartlenin]

On its surface, this essay sure sounds like a leftist objection to co-optation by the Democrats, with some excellent suggestions. I think it would be better to begin with an unequivocal slogan like "Break with the Democratic Party of endless war and grinding poverty," which, in my opinion, is a fair description of what this administration is presiding over. I also think Maoists have been shaky on the question of opposing the Democrats in the past; both editions of the FRSO backed Obama in 2008, and the administration, once voted into power, then repressed FRSO comrades.

The other thing I wanted to point out is that the Kasama Project has done some excellent writing, in opposition to the current administration, at http://kasamaproject.org/category/analysis-of-news/barack-obama-analysis-of-news/ which contains a number of good essays by Ely.

[RED DAVE]

My question is: Who is this addressed to? I can understand it. People at RevLeft can understand it. People in the tiny left-wing sects can understand it.

But if this were distributed right now as OWS, it would be ignored. It is wordy, pompous, presumptuous and clogged with left-wing jargon. Every point on it could be correct, and it still wouldn't be worth a napkin to wipe one's mouth with at an OWS meal.

In my pretentiousness, pompousness and wordyness, I'll critique this in detail later.

RED DAVE

[A Marxist Historian]

My question is: Who is this addressed to? I can understand it. People at RevLeft can understand it. People in the tiny left-wing sects can understand it.

But if this were distributed right now as OWS, it would be ignored. It is wordy, pompous, presumptuous and clogged with left-wing jargon. Every point on it could be correct, and it still wouldn't be worth a napkin to wipe one's mouth with at an OWS meal.

In my pretentiousness, pompousness and wordyness, I'll critique this in detail later.

RED DAVE

Red Dave, who wanted to flee the park when Bloomberg threatened to clear everyone out, is criticizing this statement from the right, not the left.

I'm not about to endorse the statement, there are aspects of it I find problematic. Certainly, as the point has been made, it should at least clearly call for a break with the Democrats, not just defensively resist a Demo takeover.

But it shows a spirit of struggle, whereas Red Dave's criticisms seem to reflect his spirit of non-struggle and desire to cozy up to the anti-Marxism and anti-communism of the self appointed "leaders" of the movement. Beneath all sorts of left wing phrases of his.

-M.H.-

[Lenina Rosenweg]

How large a presence do the Sparts have at OWS? Are they fighting for their demands at the GAs?

I agree with Red Dave, Mike Ely's essay/pamphlet is preaching to the converted. Can this be reworded in language accessible to the "anarcho-liberals" who seem dominant at the Occupy # movement?

[RED DAVE]

Red Dave, who wanted to flee the park when Bloomberg threatened to clear everyone out, is criticizing this statement from the right, not the left.I wasn't ready to "flee" anywhere, but I was opposed to a direct confrontation with the cops at this point.

Was your ass down there?

Turns out that support from the labor movement, which people from my tendency have been urging in the unions they belong to, turned the tide.

I would watch my mouth if I were you, AMH, about calling people "right." And yes, I'm touchy about it.


I'm not about to endorse the statement, there are aspects of it I find problematic. Certainly, as the point has been made, it should at least clearly call for a break with the Democrats, not just defensively resist a Demo takeover. Whatever.


But it shows a spirit of struggle, whereas Red Dave's criticisms seem to reflect his spirit of non-struggleKeep on lying. At least you're funnier than Herman Cain.


and desire to cozy up to the anti-Marxism and anti-communism of the self appointed "leaders" of the movement. Beneath all sorts of left wing phrases of his.(1) In case you hadn't noticed, there are no "leaders" of the movement. (2) Go fuck yourself. (3) When you and your sell-out ilk have come and gone, I'll still be there.

RED DAVE

[Martin Blank]

I would agree that Mike's article/essay is pretty much a pep talk for self-described revolutionaries -- "preaching to the converted". But I suspect that's all he meant for it to be: encouraging words of advice for us, not necessarily for the masses of people showing up to #Occupy events.

But I also see it like M.H. does: I'm not going to endorse this piece, because I have a number of problems with it. M.H. is right to be critical of the partial character of Mike's view on the Democrats (taking a defensive position, as opposed to calling for a clear break), but there are other problems that flow from that. For example, there is something of a parochial approach being taken when it comes to how people involved in the #Occupy movement are responding to the Democrats.

I am participating in one of the smaller #Occupy events in a city of only about 50,000. And in every planning meeting I've been to (our first GA is on Friday), there has been ongoing discussions about not only how we should be on guard against the Democrats trying to co-opt the movement, but also about the need for a "clean break" with the Dems. Most of this discussion has been initiated and moved forward by rank-and-file workers (teachers, autoworkers, phone company workers, etc.), with almost no prompting by me or the local petty-bourgeois "radicals". Indeed, when it comes to political issues related to the occupation, the workers involved in the organizing (including me) are leading the movement, with the petty-bourgeois elements in tow.

My point here is only to say that there is nothing automatic about the Democrats' attempts to take over the #Occupy movement, especially as more radicalized workers become involved (if where I am at is any indication). It just requires the patient and unglamorous behind-the-scenes work of organizing, agitating and educating.

[Decolonize The Left]

A couple points:

1) Occupy isn't a movement. It's a phenomenon - a progressive phenomenon, yes, but a phenomenon none-the-less. There is no direction, no platform, no purpose, there is only objection. Objection is great, much better than complacency, but let's not kid ourselves here.

What's happened is that the 'middle-class' portion of the working class has found an outlet for their frustration, and they are using it. This obviously is enticing to many who are more political and aware of the situation, and so these people join in and attempt to create a movement. But it isn't a movement, and it certainly isn't an anti-capitalist movement. It's anti-corporate. No one is critiquing, nor do they want to, the mechanisms of capitalism and the day to day exploitation. They are pissed at the result of capitalism: rich getting rich while poor get poorer.

2) The youth from oppressed communities won't be in the Occupy scene because the scene isn't their scene. It's primarily waged by white middle-class people and political conscious white people. It's a white phenomenon because white people make up the majority of those in the middle-class and they feel screwed by the white establishment.
The youth from oppressed communities don't get upset over two women getting maced because they are getting maced day in and day out. This 'police reaction' to Occupy is reality for oppressed communities.

3) You cannot turn this into a revolutionary movement because it isn't an organic movement (see point one). What you can do is attempt to guide the critique from corporations to capitalism. This will help radicalize those who are already pissed off as it will give them a perspective on their anger and frustration beyond 'they are greedy, and we are poor.' But you cannot "wage that proud and unapologetic defense of the revolutionary" (whatever the fuck that means).

4) The occupy phenomenon will develop according to the composition and consciousness of those participating. Some events will be more radical, others much more tame and reformist. There is no reason to assume that this will become a unified front against capitalism because it does not represent class interest. This is not class war, despite all the signs. It could become class war, but right now it is 'class war' in the sense of middle-class vs. upper-class. Not real class war in the sense of working vs. capitalist.

Give it time and for fucks sake do not try and 'defend the revolutionary.' Just go out and tell people how you feel - one person to another.

- August

[Queercommie Girl]

2) The youth from oppressed communities won't be in the Occupy scene because the scene isn't their scene. It's primarily waged by white middle-class people and political conscious white people. It's a white phenomenon because white people make up the majority of those in the middle-class and they feel screwed by the white establishment.
The youth from oppressed communities don't get upset over two women getting maced because they are getting maced day in and day out. This 'police reaction' to Occupy is reality for oppressed communities.


I wouldn't call Occupy London a "white phenomenon". There are people from all kinds of backgrounds there. Of course, whites are the majority but then whites are the majority in the UK. Not every non-white minority live in shanty towns you know. And not every non-white ethnic minority is interested in the "scene" of the black youths. Blacks don't represent all of the non-white ethnic minority groups. Groups like Muslims and Chinese etc have their own subcultures that are different from white subcultures AND different from black subcultures. Most ethnic Chinese people in the West for example aren't that poor.

Please stop assuming that if you are "middle class" and you are in the West, then you must be "white"...

[bricolage]

I wish I could thank AugustWest's post again.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I don't even think that most white people get upset over the macing. My dad's reaction upon watching that on the news was just to shrug and remark that pigs will be pigs.

[RHIZOMES]

A couple points:

1) Occupy isn't a movement. It's a phenomenon - a progressive phenomenon, yes, but a phenomenon none-the-less. There is no direction, no platform, no purpose, there is only objection. Objection is great, much better than complacency, but let's not kid ourselves here.


How can you quantify a clear objective distinction between a phenomenon and a social movement? All I'm seeing (right now) in that statement is a subjective value-judgement - a dichotomy between your abstraction of a 'phenomenon' containing politically negative attributes, and an abstraction of a 'movement' which contains politically positive attributes.

Think about it, why is 'movement' not 'phenomenon'? Couldn't you say all movements of genuine class struggle are types of social phenomena?

And on what criteria do you judge OWS having "no direction, no platform, no purpose, there is only objection"? There is a vital political recognition in this movement/phenomenon - a recognition of finance capitalism's increasing imposition on the rights of the majority of the human population. This recognition is growing and gaining significance, across broad populations of various socio-economic groups. Its reach may not be perfect, it began as predominantly white and middle-class, but it has spread out to a degree and underrepresented social groups are continuing to attempt spreading the message out to their own communities (see #OccupytheHood as one example).

This is how revolution can begin, from heightened social tensions that organically grow into a political movement given a certain social context. This is what happened when a broad social movement formed against the Russian Tsar, the Bolsheviks didn't simply provoke the masses into accepting their political 'wisdom', they did so because previously existing social movements created the initial frame of debate in which such revolutionary ideas could even be conceptualised. The Bolsheviks were simply the united political force that emerged from this period of struggle due to a proletarian base largely carrying them into power. This is just a manifestation of how the working-class are the revolutionary agents of history.

What I think you are doing, and correct me if you think I'm wrong since I want to discuss this rather than simply lecture my own theoretical opinion to you, is saying that because the discursive space this movement/phenomena has created hasn't yet articulated demands that you agree with to a relatively specific level of detail (i.e. outright articulation for the violent overthrow of capitalism), this means it lacks worth and therefore it is a 'phenomenon' not a 'movement'. Yet how else can one describe OWS other than allegories of a process of social motion, i.e. of a social movement? It is a phenomenon just as any social organisation and mobilisation among a group of people is a 'phenomenon'. They are categories that are neutral when it comes moral/cultural values (fascism is also a movement and social phenomenon). A movement being a phenomenon seems a perfect fit to me personally.

While this article is highly rhetorical in many aspects, I believe this is its message. You criticise (in the terminology of this article, "nitpick") the movement because it doesn't have your specific preconceptions of a perfectly formed revolutionary theoretical unity. This is why intervention into this space from genuine revolutionaries is so important, rather than just criticising it from afar on the internet.

This is what helps a movement or struggle not get co-opted into existing reactionary institutions that are part of the problem. You criticise how it is being 'merely oppositional' without noticing how all movements that resulted in progressive social change were 'merely oppositional'. It is how far that opposition goes that the revolutionary has power within in individual agency to help collectively determine.

The funny thing is, while I sometimes worry about how sectoid leftists might negatively affect how ordinary people within the Occupy movement perceive revolutionary leftism, I realise that the revolutionaries who creatively engage with their particular revolutionary situations are the ones who actually get anywhere with helping to articulate in a unified and consistent way a practical, political direction forward. This is a reason why Lenin was so successful in his particular context. The sectoids, who have the completely wrong idea on engaging with the masses, will naturally fall by the wayside as noone will care.

[Decolonize The Left]

I wouldn't call Occupy London a "white phenomenon". There are people from all kinds of backgrounds there. Of course, whites are the majority but then whites are the majority in the UK. Not every non-white minority live in shanty towns you know. And not every non-white ethnic minority is interested in the "scene" of the black youths. Blacks don't represent all of the non-white ethnic minority groups. Groups like Muslims and Chinese etc have their own subcultures that are different from white subcultures AND different from black subcultures. Most ethnic Chinese people in the West for example aren't that poor.

Please stop assuming that if you are "middle class" and you are in the West, then you must be "white"...

I understand where you're coming from, but you need to understand that my generalizations about the protesters are quite fair for the US, and given that the US is the primary location of this activity, it's not uncalled for on my part.

I'm not assuming anything about race-class relations at all, what I am saying is that the majority of protesters are white, middle-class people. It's true too.

- August

[Decolonize The Left]

How can you quantify a clear objective distinction between a phenomenon and a social movement? All I'm seeing (right now) in that statement is a subjective value-judgement - a dichotomy between your abstraction of a 'phenomenon' containing politically negative attributes, and an abstraction of a 'movement' which contains politically positive attributes.

I can see how you might write value-judgments into my use of phenomenon/movement but I wasn't claiming such.

A phenomenon is a specific event (in this case, a series of events) which have unique characteristics and do not happen 'everyday.'

A movement requires set goals and aspirations by a group of people collectively engaged for the aim of achieving said goals/aspirations.


Think about it, why is 'movement' not 'phenomenon'? Couldn't you say all movements of genuine class struggle are types of social phenomena?

Yes you absolutely could. I think this is an excellent notion. Yet just because you must have a phenomenon to have a movement doesn't meant he reverse is true as well.


And on what criteria do you judge OWS having "no direction, no platform, no purpose, there is only objection"? There is a vital political recognition in this movement/phenomenon - a recognition of finance capitalism's increasing imposition on the rights of the majority of the human population. This recognition is growing and gaining significance, across broad populations of various socio-economic groups. Its reach may not be perfect, it began as predominantly white and middle-class, but it has spread out to a degree and underrepresented social groups are continuing to attempt spreading the message out to their own communities (see #OccupytheHood as one example).

Yes, I understand that the potential for a movement is enormous.

There is no platform. There are no demands which are held by the majority of protesters as a platform for change.

There is no real purpose other than 'justice,' 'equality,' 'taking back America,' etc... these are slogans, memes, ideas (and I'm not saying there's anything wrong with them, just that they are what they are). These are not purpose in a sense whereby anyone can ask "what's the point?" and you say "X,Y,Z," and they understand exactly what's up.

Occupy has no platform, no purpose - yet.


This is how revolution can begin, from heightened social tensions that organically grow into a political movement given a certain social context. This is what happened when a broad social movement formed against the Russian Tsar, the Bolsheviks didn't simply provoke the masses into accepting their political 'wisdom', they did so because previously existing social movements created the initial frame of debate in which such revolutionary ideas could even be conceptualised. The Bolsheviks were simply the united political force that emerged from this period of struggle due to a proletarian base largely carrying them into power. This is just a manifestation of how the working-class are the revolutionary agents of history.

I get this. I never said this can't turn into something vitally important. Ever. What I did say is that this isn't what it's cracked up to be at the moment.

This is not a worker's movement.
There is no critique of capitalism.

There could be, but for the moment, there just isn't.


What I think you are doing, and correct me if you think I'm wrong since I want to discuss this rather than simply lecture my own theoretical opinion to you, is saying that because the discursive space this movement/phenomena has created hasn't yet articulated demands that you agree with to a relatively specific level of detail (i.e. outright articulation for the violent overthrow of capitalism), this means it lacks worth and therefore it is a 'phenomenon' not a 'movement'. Yet how else can one describe OWS other than allegories of a process of social motion, i.e. of a social movement? It is a phenomenon just as any social organisation and mobilisation among a group of people is a 'phenomenon'. They are categories that are neutral when it comes moral/cultural values (fascism is also a movement and social phenomenon). A movement being a phenomenon seems a perfect fit to me personally.

A phenomenon becomes a movement when it adopts a set of goals and works towards them collectively. We are witnessing this phenomenon attempt to establish goals as we write.


While this article is highly rhetorical in many aspects, I believe this is its message. You criticise (in the terminology of this article, "nitpick") the movement because it doesn't have your specific preconceptions of a perfectly formed revolutionary theoretical unity. This is why intervention into this space from genuine revolutionaries is so important, rather than just criticising it from afar on the internet.

This is what helps a movement or struggle not get co-opted into existing reactionary institutions that are part of the problem. You criticise how it is being 'merely oppositional' without noticing how all movements that resulted in progressive social change were 'merely oppositional'. It is how far that opposition goes that the revolutionary has power within in individual agency to help collectively determine.

I'm not sure I see your point here. Yes I am critiquing the Occupy protests. I'm not hating on them. I went to my local protest and I didn't critique what was happening there precisely for the reasons you mention. I didn't want to turn anybody away with my personal thoughts and analysis - I wanted people to feel involved even if it was simply in marching down the street.

But this isn't the protest. This is revleft. And I am not talking to a bunch of folks with no understanding of revolutionary theory - I'm talking to you (someone who is highly literate and intelligent).

So I guess my question is, aside from disagreeing with my thoughts, what's your point?


The funny thing is, while I sometimes worry about how sectoid leftists might negatively affect how ordinary people within the Occupy movement perceive revolutionary leftism, I realise that the revolutionaries who creatively engage with their particular revolutionary situations are the ones who actually get anywhere with helping to articulate in a unified and consistent way a practical, political direction forward. This is a reason why Lenin was so successful in his particular context. The sectoids, who have the completely wrong idea on engaging with the masses, will naturally fall by the wayside as noone will care.

I'm not sure if this is addressed at me, but if you think I'm a "sectoid" then I have no clue where you're coming from. Almost anyone on this site can tell you that I'm one of the least sectarian people here and I have no problem relating to people on a personal level. At all.

So I think you're taking what is an online critique of the Occupy protests on an internet form for revolutionary leftists and blowing it up into some sort of 'I'm gonna poo poo on these protesters because I'm to haughty and uptight to support them,' which is, of course, a bunch of nonsense.

I'm all about supporting the Occupy protesters, shit, I protested myself, but I'm not gonna sit back and smoke my revolutionary pipe jacking off to the idea that this is a worker's movement capable of overthrowing a global capitalist economic system because that is.... idealism.

- August

[Jimmie Higgins]

The most important thing I agree with here is the need to preserve the political openness of this movement, encourage an atmosphere of debate (which seems to exist organically in many of these occupations), and stand up to red-baiting and radical-baiting of Marxists and anarchists.

However, the suggestions of how to do this seem to be to make speeches and convince people with dazzling rhetoric. I think that is not enough and will ensure the marginalization of radicals.


We will reach the people ourselves (especially the youth of ghettos and barrios and Middle America) with a subversive message that won’t compute in the calculators of this system.

So radicals should just propagandize? I think we need to actually be in the mix and debating on the tactics and strategies and in practice show and prove that our ideas and the lessons we have learned from history will actually build a stronger, more effective movement. Will the establishment liberals and Democrats try and co-opt the movement? Yes, and they will also try and drive a wedge into the movement, peel off the co-potable and then vilify and repress the rest. This is what they do and have done, so it should not be such a revelation to radicals. But I think the increasing pressure on the working class and the Democrats exposing themselves to most of the population as being no ally or defender is the context for this movement and why I think it will probably not fully go the way of some of the past recent upsurges like the immigrant rights movement. Maybe in the past it could make some sense for radicals to make some radical arguments, chant some class-war slogans in bad-ass looking anarchist gear, attract the most radical in the movement to our politics and then pack up and leave as the Democrats dismantle the movement, but I think now we are in a different situation. 53% of people support these protests and while this will go down as the Democrats try and pull people back into the fold, I think it shows some of the depth of the anger and dissatisfaction right now. So fighting for a stronger, independent, and grass-roots movement will do more to show that radicals walk the walk than propaganda will now IMO.

[A Marxist Historian]

The most important thing I agree with here is the need to preserve the political openness of this movement, encourage an atmosphere of debate (which seems to exist organically in many of these occupations), and stand up to red-baiting and radical-baiting of Marxists and anarchists.

However, the suggestions of how to do this seem to be to make speeches and convince people with dazzling rhetoric. I think that is not enough and will ensure the marginalization of radicals.



So radicals should just propagandize? I think we need to actually be in the mix and debating on the tactics and strategies and in practice show and prove that our ideas and the lessons we have learned from history will actually build a stronger, more effective movement. Will the establishment liberals and Democrats try and co-opt the movement? Yes, and they will also try and drive a wedge into the movement, peel off the co-potable and then vilify and repress the rest. This is what they do and have done, so it should not be such a revelation to radicals. But I think the increasing pressure on the working class and the Democrats exposing themselves to most of the population as being no ally or defender is the context for this movement and why I think it will probably not fully go the way of some of the past recent upsurges like the immigrant rights movement. Maybe in the past it could make some sense for radicals to make some radical arguments, chant some class-war slogans in bad-ass looking anarchist gear, attract the most radical in the movement to our politics and then pack up and leave as the Democrats dismantle the movement, but I think now we are in a different situation. 53% of people support these protests and while this will go down as the Democrats try and pull people back into the fold, I think it shows some of the depth of the anger and dissatisfaction right now. So fighting for a stronger, independent, and grass-roots movement will do more to show that radicals walk the walk than propaganda will now IMO.

I think getting too bogged down with tactics and strategies and what to do next is a mistake, as this movement is simply a cry of outrage, that doesn't have the power to accomplish any of its very vague goals. W9ill it dissipate sooner or later? Yes of course. But meanwhile it is a great opportunity for the Left.

People are outraged at what Wall Street is doing to 99% of America. But they don't have any clear idea of what the answer is. Most of them think that it's because of some sort of conspiracy of the rich and the Republicans, and we just need to get back to the good old days of FDR or something. But many are aware that this is inadequate, and something more is needed. And they don't know what.

In this circumstance, propaganda for socialism is *exactly* what is needed. The answer, indeed the only possible answer, to Wall Street domination is socialism. Socialists need to say that loud and clear, and not get bogged down into trying to make the basically unimportant demands more left wing, or to get control of the non-mike.

For most people, that will be a bridge too far, but there's plenty of people at these rallies who are waiting to hear exactly that. The thing to do is to find those people, talk to them, and win them to revolutionary socialism.

All else should be secondary.

-M.H.-

[Jose Gracchus]

Obviously all OWS should present to the sectarian left is a chance to preach the word and meet recruitment quotas for this quarter.

[brigadista]

RlbT1URioks