Occupy Demands: Let's Radicalize Our Analysis

[Ilyich]

A friend recently e-mailed me this opinion from Al Jazeera (http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/11/201111191022862285.html) and wanted to know what I thought of it. Because I am too tired to develop an opinion of my own, I am asking everyone what they think of it. I think we can all agree that the "crisis we face is caused by failed systems" and that "replacing leaders while keeping the old system intact will not help," the part about not giving the political leaders a list of our demands caught my eye. It reminded me of Khad's thread about occupywallst.org (http://www.revleft.com/vb/attempted-coup-occupywallst-t163299/index.html). Unless I missed the point of that thread (which I almost certainly did, in which case, can someone please explain it to me), it seems that Khad (and many others) oppose opposition to a list of demands as "pedantic anarchism that is holding the movement back."

Okay, I know I missed the point of Khad's thread. Please correct me. Anyway, what is your opinion on the article. For those of you who care to know, the writer, Robert Jensen is a journalist from Austin, Texas who describes himself as a Christian radical and an anti-pornography feminist (or so says Wikipedia).

[the Left™]

I think the article raises some interesting points(was reading through it briefly). The first of which is the idea that demands being conceptualized is a victory for the ruling establishment. For example, if occupy protesters made a demand for living wage, the wheels would already be in motion for a symbolic reformist facade where public officials would show strong opposition to it, and the ones would were sympathetic would become co-opted by capital to only facetiously support it. The instant the movement moves into "politics as usual" its been defeated.

The writer basically makes a claim that "The industrial system is incompatible with life". What he means by this is that our economy of capitalism has shown to be a failure or at the very least failing in recent times. Channeling our dissent and opposition into OWS is an alternative outlet which many in positions of authority actually recognized as more potent and realized grievances(and more often than not they don't think they are ill-founded). Jensen radicalizes the analysis because he is trying to argue that "settling down" as it were amongst the protestors is a victory for contemporary superstructure and a horrific defeat for whatever this movement has the potential to become--the infancy being now.

Granted i could be wrong and ignorant idk.. no one ever responds to my posts here really

[A Marxist Historian]

I think the article raises some interesting points(was reading through it briefly). The first of which is the idea that demands being conceptualized is a victory for the ruling establishment. For example, if occupy protesters made a demand for living wage, the wheels would already be in motion for a symbolic reformist facade where public officials would show strong opposition to it, and the ones would were sympathetic would become co-opted by capital to only facetiously support it. The instant the movement moves into "politics as usual" its been defeated.

The writer basically makes a claim that "The industrial system is incompatible with life". What he means by this is that our economy of capitalism has shown to be a failure or at the very least failing in recent times. Channeling our dissent and opposition into OWS is an alternative outlet which many in positions of authority actually recognized as more potent and realized grievances(and more often than not they don't think they are ill-founded). Jensen radicalizes the analysis because he is trying to argue that "settling down" as it were amongst the protestors is a victory for contemporary superstructure and a horrific defeat for whatever this movement has the potential to become--the infancy being now.

Granted i could be wrong and ignorant idk.. no one ever responds to my posts here really

The problem with coming up with demands is simply that, given where the movement is at at this point, if they reflected accurately the lowest common denominator of what most OWS people want, they wouldn't be any good. Probably something on the order of "tax the rich."

Khad's efforts to come up with demands pretty much prove that, it's a fairly pathetic and limited list, since he doesn't want to split the movement.

Basically, this is a populistic movement with no clear program, and that, unfortunately, is the way most people still like it.

*At some point" it needs to be split along class lines, into its socialist-working class component, still the minority, and its petty bourgeois populist tax the rich component, still the majority. But the moment for that hasn't come yet, so raising demands would be premature.

What demand should be raised? Simple. Socialism. That's the only answer to Wall Street domination, no reason not to say so.

America needs a revolutionary, working class, socialist party, of the masses, not a sect but a mass party. The true value of OWS is as a place to create it.

One advantage of OWS is that it is proving, or should be proving, to a lot of radicals attracted to leaderless anarchistic ideas of organization that that doesn't work. We need some good ol' fashioned Leninist democratic centralism if we want to get anywhere and not get trapped in the bog of your average Occupy cultist consensus mania setup.

-M.H.-